IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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, C.A. No. 11847-11850/2016

C.A. No. 11828/2016 And Diary No. 31145 of 2017

O R D E R

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 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 1 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 2 (2005) 1 SCC 394 3 (2006) 8 SCC 212

<span id="page-1-2"></span><span id="page-1-1"></span><span id="page-1-0"></span>2

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, communities, groups or parts thereof of SC/ST notified by the President under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.

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

<span id="page-2-4"></span><span id="page-2-3"></span><span id="page-2-2"></span><span id="page-2-1"></span><span id="page-2-0"></span>

(2011) 1 SCC 467
(2012) 7 SCC 1
(2015) 10 SCC 292
(2015) 12 SCC 308
(2016) 11 SCC 113

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.

ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

(For Order)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4562-4564/2017

THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. Respondent(s)

(WITH IA 1/2015 FOR ON IA 13/2017 AND IA NO.64344/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AND IA NO.64350/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS

WITH

C.A. NO. 4880/2017 (XVI) C.A. NO. 4878-4879/2017 (XVI) C.A. NO. 4876-4877/2017 (XVI) C.A. NO. 4881/2017 (XVI) C.A. NO. 4882/2017 (XVI) C.A. NO. 5247/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11817/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11816/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11820/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 4833/2017 (IV) (IA NO.60803/2017-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) C.A. NO. 701-704/2017 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11822-11825/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11837-11840/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11842-11845/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11829-11832/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11847-11850/2016 (IV-A) C.A. NO. 11828/2016 (IV-A) CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 11/2017 IN SLP(C) NO.19765/2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 19765-19767/2015 () CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 13/2017 IN SLP(C) NO.19767/2015 @ SLP(C) NO. 19765-19767/2015 () (WITH IA NO.110979/2017-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) DIARY NO(S). 31145/2017 (IV-B) (IA NO.102076/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 14-11-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of order today.

For the parties Ms. Indira Jaising,Sr.Adv. Ms. Ajita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Mr. Prakash Sharma,Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.S. Parmar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash,Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh,Adv. Mr. Aditya Raina,Adv. Mr. Shreyas Jain,Adv. Mr. Kumar Milind,Adv. Ms. Ambika Gutam,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. Mr. Yusuf Khan,Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham,Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham,Adv. Ms. Simran Jeet,Adv. For M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Shekhar,Sr.Adv. Mr. R.S. Suri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Gorkela,Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anuj Saxena,Adv. Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Shekhar,Sr.Adv. Mr. R.S. Suri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta,Adv. Mr. Puneet V.N.,Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Gorkela,Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma,Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR

Mr. Subramanium Prasad,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Gorkela,Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anuj Saxena,Adv. Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Dr. Rajiv Dhavan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Kumar Parimal,Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Ms. Sujaya Bardhan,Adv. Mr. Nishant Singh,Adv. Mr. Krishnam Mishra,Adv. Mr. Yasharth Kant,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Syed Meesar L.,Adv. Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR Mr. S.J. Amith,Adv. Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka,Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash,Adv. Mr. Murari Lal,Adv. Mr. Chand Kiran,Adv. Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. R.S.M. Kalky,Adv. Ms. Charu Lata Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. B. Sridhar, AOR Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil,Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh,Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan,Adv. Mr. M.K. Dua, AOR

7

Respondent-in-person Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph pronounced the order of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.

"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."

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN)

COURT MASTER ASST. REGISTRAR

(Signed "Reportable" Order is placed on the file)

8