Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. versus JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
- Decided
- 14 November 2017
- Judges listed
- KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI
- Disposal
- Matter referred to larger bench
Citations
- Official
- [2017] 11 S.C.R. 247 · 2017 INSC 1113
- Also cited as
- (2018) 1 SCC 146
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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 (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
p. 249, margin D
1 sec ' (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 others and 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.
pp. 249–250, margin G
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.
p. 250, margin C
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. plac~·d '(2012i 1sec1 '(20I5J sec '(2015) 12SCC308 '(2016) sec
p. 250, margin D