REPORTABLE  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,

1

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  others  1,  (2)  E.V

Chinnaiah v.  State of A.P.  and others  2  and (3)  M.

Nagaraj  and others v.  Union of India and others  3.

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

2

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

others  4; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v.

Rajesh Kumar and others  5;   S. Panneer Selvam and

others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others  6;  Chairman

and Managing Director,  Central  Bank of India and

others  v. Central  Bank of  India SC/ST Employees

Welfare  Association  and  others  7and  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

3

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 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.  

4