Contempt of Court:
Matter relating to reservation in promotion and consequential seniority – Supreme Court in **Suraj Bhan Meena Case set aside notifications providing for consequential seniority in promotion to SC/ST employees holding that no exercise was undertaken in terms of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution, to acquire quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SC/ST communities in public services – Pursuant thereto Bhatnagar Committee constituted – Committee in its report concluded that backwardness of SC/ST is established on the basis of quantifiable data – Thereupon by Notification dated 11.9.2011 Administrative Service Rules were amended providing that reservation for SC/ST employees with consequential seniority would continue till roster points are exhausted and adequacy of promotion is achieved – In Contempt Petition before High Court, the Court held that Notification dated 11.9.2011 was void – In appeal Supreme Court, in #Salauddin case did not hold the contemnors guilty of contempt – Present contempt petition before Supreme Court – Held: The Notification dated 11.9.2011 was not found to be in contempt nor was invalidated for non-compliance of any binding directions in #Salauddin Case – The Notification dated 11.9.2011 was issued in exercise of powers vested in the authorities concerned – Such issuance cannot be said to be contumacious to invite any action in contempt jurisdiction – Contempt petitions are closed.
Closing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD : 1. The law declared by this Court in *M. Nagraj which was followed in **Suraj Bhan Meena is clear that in the absence of any quantifiable data relating to the issue of backwardness and inadequacy of representation of the concerned classes in public employment, no benefit of consequential seniority could be extended. Therefore, in **Suraj Bhan Meena, the Notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.8.2008 providing for consequential seniority in promotion to the Members of the SC/ST communities were set aside. [Para 14] [509-F-G]
2. Since the decision in **Suraj Bhan Meena Case was on the premise that no such exercise was undertaken to acquire quantifiable data, the State Government constituted the Bhatnagar Committee. The Committee went into the issues and made certain recommendations based on which a Notification was issued by the State Government on 11.9.2011. High Court by its judgment and order dated 23.2.2012 found said Notification to be not in compliance of binding directions and to be invalid. The decision in #Salauddin Case set aside the view taken by the High Court. Thus, the issuance of Notification dated 11.9.2011 was not found to be in contempt nor was it invalidated for being non-compliant of any binding directions. [Para 15] [510-A-D]
3. The directions issued by this Court in #Salauddin Case were clear that the State and its authorities were to act in terms of the report of the Bhatnagar Committee in accordance with the decisions in *M. Nagraj and **Suraj Bhan Meena. The basic foundation of the present contempt petitions projecting the issuance of Notification dated 11.9.2011 to be in contempt of the directions issued by this Court, thus, does not survive. In any case, challenge to said Notification and the report of the Bhatnagar Committee is still pending consideration before the High court where the correctness and validity thereof will be gone into in accordance with law. [Para 16] [510-D-F]
4. With the decision of this Court in ##Jarnail Singh case, the matter also stands on a slightly modified footing. As concluded by this Court in ##Jarnail Singh case, the conclusion in *M. Nagraj that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SC/ST, being contrary to the 9 Judges Bench decision in ***Indra Sawhney case, was held to be invalid. The challenge to the recommendations given by the Bhatnagar Committee and the quantifiable data adverted to by the Committee will therefore have to be seen by the High Court in the light of the directions issued by this Court in ##Jarnail Singh case. [Para 17] [510-F-G]
5. The issuance of Notification dated 11.9.2011 was in exercise of powers vested in the concerned authorities and if the approach and the exercise is otherwise incorrect or wrong, the same can be tested and considered while dealing with the substantive challenge but such issuance cannot be said to be contumacious to invite any action in contempt jurisdiction. Thus, there is no reason to entertain these contempt petitions any longer. These contempt petitons are directed to be closed. [Paras 18 and 19] [510-H; 511-A-B]
*M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336 ; **Suraj Bhan Meena and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (2011) 1 SCC
467 : [2010] 14 SCR 532 ; ***Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (2) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR
454 ; #Salauddin Ahmed and another v. Samta Andolan (2012) 10 SCC 235 : [2012] 7 SCR 402 ; ##Jarnail Singh and others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others (2018) 10 SCC 396 : [2018] 10 SCR 663 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.