LAW FOR ALL

Contempt Petition = When the directions were to act in terms of the report of Bhatnagar Committee - the basic foundation of contempt petition projecting issuance of Notification does not survive as the matter was pending before High Court for consideration - when all these issues need to be gone into in a substantive challenge and will be beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction - and as such contempt petition was closed. As a matter of fact, the directions issued by this Court in para 48 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 Meena1 . The basic foundation of the present contempt petitions projecting the issuance of Notification dated 11.09.2011 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. With the decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh the matter also stands on a slightly modified footing. As concluded by this Court in Jarnail Singh 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 , 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. It is, thus, clear that all these issues need to be gone into in a substantive challenge and will be beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction.