2007 (2) TMI 684 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of 'creamy layer' amongst backward classes.
2. Validity of the Narendran Commission Report and the subsequent notification.
3. Compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Indra Sawhney-I and II, and Ashoka Kumar Thakur.
4. Validity of the Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services Under the State) Act, 1995.
5. Criteria for identifying 'creamy layer' and the exclusion of certain categories.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of 'creamy layer' amongst backward classes:
The primary issue was the interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment regarding the identification and exclusion of the 'creamy layer' among backward classes. The Court reiterated that the 'creamy layer' should be excluded from the benefits of reservation as per the guidelines laid down in Indra Sawhney-I.

2. Validity of the Narendran Commission Report and the subsequent notification:
The Narendran Commission was appointed by the State of Kerala to determine the criteria for identifying the 'creamy layer'. The Commission recommended raising the income limit for exclusion to Rs. 3 lakhs and excluding income from salary and agriculture. The Supreme Court found the Narendran Commission's recommendations arbitrary and not based on scientific data. The Court held that the report failed to justify the significant increase in the income limit and criticized the exclusion of salary and agricultural income without adequate reasoning.

3. Compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Indra Sawhney-I and II, and Ashoka Kumar Thakur:
The Court noted that the State of Kerala had previously been found guilty of contempt for not complying with the directions in Indra Sawhney-I. The Court emphasized that the identification of the 'creamy layer' must be done realistically and in line with the constitutional scheme. The Court also criticized the State for attempting to provide maximum protection to backward classes rather than excluding those who had ceased to be backward.

4. Validity of the Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services Under the State) Act, 1995:
The Court had previously struck down the provisions of the State Act that declared no socially advanced section existed in Kerala. The Court reaffirmed that the Act's provisions were unconstitutional as they violated the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney-I and II.

5. Criteria for identifying 'creamy layer' and the exclusion of certain categories:
The Court examined the criteria for identifying the 'creamy layer' and found that the Narendran Commission's approach was flawed. The Court held that the criteria should be based on social and economic advancement, and those who had reached a higher social status should be excluded from the backward classes. The Court directed the State to appoint a new Commission to re-evaluate the criteria for identifying the 'creamy layer' and to ensure compliance with the constitutional principles and previous judgments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Narendran Commission's report and directed the State of Kerala to appoint a new Commission to re-evaluate the criteria for identifying the 'creamy layer'. The Court emphasized the need for a realistic and scientifically based approach in line with the constitutional scheme and previous judgments. The writ petition was allowed with specific directions, and the contempt petitions were kept pending.