2017 INSC 0877
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                            The State of Tripura

                                                      Vs.

                                            Jayanta Chakraborty

                                        C.A.No.4562-4564 of 2017

                                 (Kurian Joseph and R.Banumathi,JJ.,)

                                                 14.11.2017

                                                   ORDER

1. 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 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 others8 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.

1  SpotLaw
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.

Judgment Referred.

1(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 0217
2(2005) 1 SCC 0394
3(2006) 8 SCC 0212
4(2011) 1 SCC 0467
5(2012) 7 SCC 0001
6(2015) 10 SCC 0292
7(2015) 12 SCC 0308
8(2016) 11 SCC 0113

2  SpotLaw