State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors.[SC 2017 November]

Keywords: Test of Backwordness

Case Referred to Constitution Bench

Date: November 14, 2017

Act : Constitution of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No(S). 4562-4564 of 2017]

[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]

[Diary No. 31145 of 2017]

O R D E R

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 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

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 timeTime Where any expression of it occurs in any Rules, or any judgment, order or direction, and whenever the doing or not doing of anything at a certain time of the day or night or during a certain part of the day or night has an effect in law, that time is, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, held to be standard time as used in a particular country or state. (In Physics, time and Space never exist actually-“quantum entanglement”) 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 others 4;

Uttar Pradesh Power CorporationCorporation A legally established entity that can enter into contracts, own assets and incur debt, as well as sue and be sued—all separately from its owner(s). The term covers both for-profit and nonprofit corporations and includes nonstock corporations, incorporated membership organizations, incorporated cooperatives, incorporated trade associations, professional corporations and, under certain circumstances, limited liability companies. 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 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 opinionOpinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion. 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)