CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4562-4564 OF 2017
VERSUS
WITH
SLP(C) Nos.19765-19767/2015,
SLP(C) Nos.19765-19767/2015,
C.A. No. 11822-11825/2016 ,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by C.A. No. 11837-11840/2016, NARENDRA PRASAD
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
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 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,
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.
(R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi; November 14, 2017.