9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Law declared and directions in Indira Sawhney regarding "creamy layer". 2. Validity of Kerala Legislature's retrospective validating law on "creamy layer". 3. Constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Kerala State Backward Classes Act, 1995. 4. Violation of Article 14 and 16 as a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. 5. Acceptance and objections to the High-Level Committee Report by Justice K.J. Joseph. 6. Further directions to the State of Kerala if Sections 3, 4, and 6 are struck down. Summary: Point 1: The Court reiterated that the Constitution mandates equality, and reservation can only be for socially and educationally backward classes, not based on caste alone. The "creamy layer" among backward classes must be excluded from reservation benefits, as established in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. The identification of backward classes must be based on relevant data, and forward classes or the creamy layer within backward classes must be excluded to ensure the benefits reach the truly backward. Points 2 and 3: The Kerala Legislature's declaration that there is no "creamy layer" in the State and the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Kerala Act 16/95 were scrutinized. The Court held that the legislative declaration in Section 3(a) lacked factual basis and was contrary to the principles laid down in Indira Sawhney and Ashok Kumar Thakur. The non-exclusion of the creamy layer violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Act were declared unconstitutional. Point 4: The Court emphasized that Article 14, which embodies the principle of equality, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Non-exclusion of the creamy layer or inclusion of forward castes in the backward classes list breaches Article 14 and the basic structure of the Constitution. The Kerala Legislature cannot perpetuate such discrimination. Points 5 and 6: The High-Level Committee, headed by Justice K.J. Joseph, identified the creamy layer among backward classes in Kerala. The Report was accepted, subject to the inclusion of certain communities and sub-castes. The Court directed the implementation of the Report's recommendations from the date of the judgment, making it obligatory for candidates to file certificates proving they do not belong to the creamy layer. The State of Kerala was given a chance to make provisions for the exclusion of the creamy layer in accordance with the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Court. Directions: 1. The exclusion of the creamy layer as per the High-Level Committee's Report shall apply from the date of the judgment for all future selections and appointments in public service in Kerala. 2. The State of Kerala is permitted to make provisions for the exclusion of the creamy layer in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the Court's judgments. 3. Any alternative provisions made by the State will be subject to the Court's further decisions. 4. Challenges to any new provisions made by the State shall only be entertained by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The Court condemned the Kerala Government's deliberate violation of the Court's directives and emphasized the need for the benefits of reservation to reach the truly backward classes. The suo motu contempt case was kept pending, and the Court expressed hope that constitutional provisions would not be misused for unjustified patronage.
|
