Full Text
Translation output
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4562-4564 OF 2017
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. …. APPELLANT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4562-4564 OF 2017
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. …. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. …. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 11/2017 IN SLP (C) No. 19765/2015 @
SLP(C) Nos.19765-19767/2015, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 13/2017 IN SLP (C) No. 19767/2015 @
SLP(C) Nos.19765-19767/2015, C.A. No. 5247/2016, C.A. No. 11817/2016, C.A. No. 4880/2017, C.A. No. 4878-4879/2017, C.A. No. 11816/2016, C.A. No. 11820/2016, C.A. No. 4876-4877/2017, C.A. No. 4881/2017, C.A. No. 4833/2017, C.A. No. 4882/2017, C.A. No. 701-704/2017, C.A. No. 11822-11825/2016 , C.A. No. 11837-11840/2016, C.A. No. 11842-11845/2016, C.A. No. 11829-11832/2016,
SLP(C) Nos.19765-19767/2015, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 13/2017 IN SLP (C) No. 19767/2015 @
SLP(C) Nos.19765-19767/2015, C.A. No. 5247/2016, C.A. No. 11817/2016, C.A. No. 4880/2017, C.A. No. 4878-4879/2017, C.A. No. 11816/2016, C.A. No. 11820/2016, C.A. No. 4876-4877/2017, C.A. No. 4881/2017, C.A. No. 4833/2017, C.A. No. 4882/2017, C.A. No. 701-704/2017, C.A. No. 11822-11825/2016 , C.A. No. 11837-11840/2016, C.A. No. 11842-11845/2016, C.A. No. 11829-11832/2016,
C.A. No. 11847-11850/2016
C.A. No. 11828/2016
And
Diary No. 31145 of 2017
The questions posed in these cases involve the interpretation of Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the
Constitution of India in the backdrop of mainly three
Constitution Bench decisions – (1) Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others1
, (2) E.V
Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others2 and (3) M.
Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others3
.
One crucially relevant aspect brought to our notice is that
Nagaraj (supra) and Chinnaiah (supra) deal with the disputed subject namely backwardness of the SC/ST but
Chinnaiah (supra) which came earlier in time has not been referred to in Nagaraj (supra). The question of further and finer interpretation on the application of Article
16(4A) has also arisen in this case. Extensive arguments
1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
2 (2005) 1 SCC 394
3 (2006) 8 SCC 212
C.A. No. 11828/2016
And
Diary No. 31145 of 2017
The questions posed in these cases involve the interpretation of Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the
Constitution of India in the backdrop of mainly three
Constitution Bench decisions – (1) Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others1
, (2) E.V
Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others2 and (3) M.
Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others3
.
One crucially relevant aspect brought to our notice is that
Nagaraj (supra) and Chinnaiah (supra) deal with the disputed subject namely backwardness of the SC/ST but
Chinnaiah (supra) which came earlier in time has not been referred to in Nagaraj (supra). The question of further and finer interpretation on the application of Article
16(4A) has also arisen in this case. Extensive arguments
1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
2 (2005) 1 SCC 394
3 (2006) 8 SCC 212
have been advanced from both sides. The petitioners have argued for a re-look of Nagaraj (supra) specifically on the ground that test of backwardness ought not to be applied to SC/ST in view of Indra Sawhney (supra) and
Chinnaiah (supra). On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents have referred to the cases of Suraj Bhan
Meena and Another v. State of Rajasthan and others4
; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v.
Rajesh Kumar and others5
; S. Panneer Selvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others6
; Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees
Welfare Association and others7 and Suresh Chand
Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 8 to contend that the request for a revisit cannot be entertained ad nauseam. However, apart from the clamour for revisit, further questions were also raised about application of the principle of creamy layer in situations of competing claims within the same races, 4 (2011) 1 SCC 467
5 (2012) 7 SCC 1
6 (2015) 10 SCC 292
7 (2015) 12 SCC 308
8 (2016) 11 SCC 113
Chinnaiah (supra). On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents have referred to the cases of Suraj Bhan
Meena and Another v. State of Rajasthan and others4
; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v.
Rajesh Kumar and others5
; S. Panneer Selvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others6
; Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees
Welfare Association and others7 and Suresh Chand
Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 8 to contend that the request for a revisit cannot be entertained ad nauseam. However, apart from the clamour for revisit, further questions were also raised about application of the principle of creamy layer in situations of competing claims within the same races, 4 (2011) 1 SCC 467
5 (2012) 7 SCC 1
6 (2015) 10 SCC 292
7 (2015) 12 SCC 308
8 (2016) 11 SCC 113
communities, groups or parts thereof of SC/ST notified by the President under Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution of India.
Constitution of India.
ORDER
2. Having regard to the questions involved in this case, we are of the opinion that this is a case to be heard by a Bench as per the constitutional mandate under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India. Ordered accordingly. Place the files before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India immediately.
3. Though the learned counsel have pressed for interim relief, we are of the view that even that stage needs to be considered by the Constitution Bench. The parties are free to mention the urgency before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India ......................... J. (KURIAN JOSEPH ) ...................... J. (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi; November 14, 2017.