the State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4562- 4564 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2015 of the High Court ofTripura atAgartala in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 189 of 2011 and l 09 of 2011 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 124 of20J2. WITH Contempt Petition (C) No. 11 of2017 in SLP (C) No. 19765 of 2015@ SLP(C)Nos.19765-19767of2015 Contempt Petition (C) No. 13 of 2017 in SLP (C) No. 19767 of 2015@ SLP(C) Nos. 19765-19767 of2015 C.A. Nos. 5247.11817, 11816, 11820, 11822-11825, 11837-11840, 11842-11845. 11829-11832, 11847-11850, II 828 of2016 C.A. Nos. 4880, 4878-4879, 4876-4877, 4881, 4833, 4882, 701-704 of2017 and Diary No. 31145of2017 Indira Jaising, P. S. Patwalia, A. Mariarputham, Nidhcsh Gupta, V. Shekhar, R. S. Suri. San jay R. Hcgde. Subramanium Prasad, Dr. Raj iv Dhavan, Dincsh Dwivcdi, Sr.Ad vs., Ms.Ajita Sharma, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Prakash Sharma, D. S. Parmar, Ms. Abba R. Sharma, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Manish Kumar, Pranab Prakash, Shivam Singh,Aditya Raina, Shreyas Jain, Kumar Milind, Ms.

Ambika Gutam, Ms. Aruna THE STATE OF TR!PURA & ORS. v. JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet (For Mis. Arputham Aruna and Co.), Manoj Gorkela, Ms. Priya Sharma, Anuj Saxena, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Tarun Gupta, Puneet V. N, Mishra Saurabh, Manoj Gorkcla. Ms. Priya Sharma, Kumar Parimal,Aniruddha P. Mayee, P. Soma Sundaratn, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Nishant Singh, Krishnam Mishra, Yasharth Kant, Naresh Kaushik Vardhman Kaushik Syed Mccsar L, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, S. J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan Ajit Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash, Murari Lal, Chand Kiran, R. S. M. Kalky, Ms. Charu Lata Chaudhary, B. Sridhar, Sandcep Devashish Das, Gaurav Agrawal, Samir Ali Khan, M. Shocb Alam. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, M. K. Dua, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Ms. A. Sumathi, Advs. for the appearing parties. Respondent-in-Person. The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER 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 - (!)Indra Sawhncv and others v, Union of India and others 1, (2) E.V Chinn:1iah v. State of A.P. and others' and (3) M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others'. 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 Nagaruj (supra). The question offu11hcr and finer interpretation on the application of Article I 6(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 oflndra Sawhnev (supra) and Chinnaiah (supra).

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents haw referred to the ca,cs of Suraj Bhan Mccna and Another v. State of Rajasthan and others': Uttar Pradesh Power '1992 Supp (3) sec 211 1 12005) 1 sec 394 ' (2006) 8sec~12 4(2011) 1 SCC467 Corooration Limited v. Rajcsh Kumar and others': S. Pannccr Sclvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others"; Chairman and Managin~ Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Enmlovees Welfare Association and others7and Sur~sh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ' to cont~nd that the request for a revisit cannot be entertained (1d nauseam. However, apart from the clamour for revisit, further questions were lllso raised about application of the principle of creamy layer in situations of competing claims within the same races, communities, groups or parts thcreofofSC/ST notified by the President under Articles 341and342 of the Constitution oflndia. 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) ofthe Constitution oflndia. Ordered accordingly. Place the files before the Hon 'blc 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 Jttstice oflndia. Ankit Cyan '(2012i 1sec1 '(20I5J 10 sec 292 '(2015) 12SCC308 '(2016) 11 sec 113 Matter to be plac~·d before Hon 'blc CJI for appropriate Bench.