Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtConstitution BenchCase to be placed before the Chief Justice of I...

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

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 4562-4564 of 2017
Neutral Citation:2017 (11) SCR 247

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Kurian Joseph
  • R. Banumathi
Judgment Date
2017-11-14
Court Decision / Holding
The Court held that the questions involved merit consideration by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). It directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Constitution Bench and stated that interim relief would not be entertained at this stage pending full hearing.
Final Disposition
Case to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to a Constitution Bench; no interim relief at this stage; full constitutional hearing to follow.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • The State of Tripura and Others

Respondents

  • Jayanta Chakraborty
  • Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Indira Jaising
  • • P. S. Patwalia
  • • A. Mariarputham
  • • Nidheesh Gupta
  • • V. Shekhar
  • • R. S. Suri
  • • Sanjay R. Hegde
  • • Subramanium Prasad
  • • Dr. Rajiv Dhavan
  • • Dinesh Dwivedi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Ajita Sharma
  • • Shashi Kiran
  • • Prakash Sharma
  • • D. S. Parmar
  • • Abha R. Sharma
  • • Gopal Singh
  • • Rituraj Biswas
  • • Manish Kumar
  • • Pranab Prakash
  • • Shivam Singh
  • • Aditya Raina
  • • Shreyas Jain
  • • Kumar Milind
  • • Ambika Gutam
  • • Aruna

Case Synopsis & Summary

This matter concerns interpretation of Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution in the context of the backwardness criterion for SC/ST communities and the application of the creamy layer principle. The petitioners (State of Tripura and others) challenged the jurisprudence developed in Nagaraj and earlier decisions, arguing that the test of backwardness should not be applied to SC/ST in light of Indra Sawhney and Chinnaiah, and raised questions about how the creamy layer doctrine should operate where multiple claims arise within the same races or communities notified under Articles 341 and 342. The respondents pressed that revisiting Nagaraj is unwarranted and urged adherence to the established framework. The matter originated from High Court of Tripura writ petitions, and involved civil appeals and related contempt petitions. The Supreme Court, after noting the complex constitutional questions and the need to harmonize competing principles, held that the issues require consideration by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). The Court directed that the files be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate assignment, and indicated that interim relief would not be entertained at this stage, pending a full constitutional hearing.

Provisions of Law Cited

Articles 16(4)Article 16(4A)Article 16(4B)Article 14(4B)Articles 341Article 342Article 145(3)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • creamy layer doctrine
  • test of backwardness
  • Constitution Bench under Article 145(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners pressed for a revisit of Nagaraj (supra), contending that the test of backwardness should not govern SC/ST reservations in light of Indra Sawhney and Chinnaiah, and they questioned the application of the creamy layer within overlapping sub-groups notified under Articles 341 and 342. They urged that Article 16(4A) be interpreted anew and sought reference to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued against revisiting Nagaraj, urging adherence to established jurisprudence and caution against destabilizing the existing framework. They maintained that the creamy layer principle and backwardness tests have to be interpreted within the constitutional scheme and requested that the matter be referred to a Constitution Bench for definitive resolution.

Cited Precedents (8)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others(1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454Mentioned OnlyCited for contextual backdrop on backwardness and reservation principles but not applied or distinguished in the instant decision.
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others(2004) 5 Suppl. SCR 972Mentioned OnlyCited for comparative framework on backwardness; not treated as determinative in this decision.
M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others(2006) 8 SCC 212Mentioned OnlyCited as a prior controlling judgment whose revisiting is being debated, but not overruled or distinguished in this order.
Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan and others(2011) 1 SCC 467Mentioned OnlyCited in context of backwardness and reservation jurisprudence; treated as background reference.
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar and others(2012) 7 SCC 1Mentioned OnlyCited for its relevance to the broader jurisprudence on caste and reservation; not expressly adopted or rejected here.
S. Panneer Selvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others(2015) 10 SCC 292Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the material corpus on the topic; not applied in this order.
Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others(2015) 12 SCC 308Mentioned OnlyCited for context on the SC/ST employees’ welfare jurisprudence; not adjudicated upon in this order.
Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others(2016) 11 SCC 113Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the evolving jurisprudence on reservations; not a direct ruling in this decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A (2017] I l S.C.R. 247 ## THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. v. JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4562-4564 of2017) · NOVEMBER 14,2017 B ## [KUIUAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] _Constitution of India_ - _Arts. 16(4), 16(4A) and 14(4B)_ - - _Interpretation of Petitioners pleaded for a re-look of_ Nag11raj _case specifical(i' on the ground that test of backwardness ought not_ C _to be applied to SC/ST in view of_ Indra Sawhncy _case and_ Chinnaiah _case_ - _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 .u/Arts. 341 and 342_ - _Held: Having regard to the questions involved, case required to be heard by a Bench as per the_ D _Constitutional mandate u/Art.145(3)_ - _Matter lo be placed before Hon 'b/e the Chief Justice of India._ _Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others_ (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 217 : (1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454; _E.V Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others_ (2005) 1 SCC 394 : (2004) 5 Suppl. SCR 972; _M. Nagarcif and others v. Union a/India and others_ (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336; _Sura} Bhan Meena and Another v. State o/Rajasthan and others_ (2011) 1 SCC 467: (2010) 14 SCR 532; _Uttar Pradesh Power Co1poration Limited v. Rajesh Kumar and others_ (2012) 7 SCC 1 : [2012) 4 SCR 118; S. _Panneer Selvam and others v. State a/Tamil Nadu and others_ (2015) IO SCC 292; _Chairman and Managing Direc/01; Ce111ral Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and at.hers_ (2015) 12 SCC 308 : [2015[ 1 SCR 55; _Suresh Chand Gautam v. Stale o/Ullar Pradesh and others_ (2016) 11 SCC 113 : [2016) 1 SCR 727 - referred to. E F G H 247 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I l S.C.R. |A||Case Law Reference|Case Law Reference|| |---|---|---|---|---| ||( 1992] 2 Suppl.SCR|SCR454|referredto|ParaI| ||(2004] 5 Suppl.SCR|SCR_972_|referred to|Para1| ||I2006] 7 Suppl.SCR336||referred to|ParaI| |B|(2010]14SCR532||referredto|ParaI| ||(2012) 4SCR118||referredto|Para1| ||(2015) 1osec292||referred to|ParaI| ||(2015) ISCR55||referred to|ParaI| |c|[2016) 1SCR727||referred to|Para1| ||CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4562-|||CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4562-| ||4564of2017.|||| From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2015 of the High Court - D 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 E 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 - F C.A. Nos. 4880, 4878-4879, 4876-4877, 4881, 4833, 4882, 701-704 of2017 · ## and Diary No. 31145of2017 G 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 - H 249 ## 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. A B c 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 D E' F G > '1992 Supp (3) sec 211 > _1_ 12005) 1 sec 394 ' (2006) 8sec~12 4(2011) 1 SCC467 H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R. > A 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 others[7] and Sur~sh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ' to cont~nd that the request for a revisit cannot be entertained B _(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. c D 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 Matter to be plac~·d before Hon 'blc CJI for appropriate Bench. '(2012i 1sec1 '(20I5J 10 sec 292 '(2015) 12SCC308 '(2016) 11 sec 113