The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine whether its 2006 judgment on the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions needs to be revisited.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine whether its 2006 judgment on the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions needs to be revisited. The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench on Wednesday by a three judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. The Constitution Bench has to decide on the limited issue whether the order in M Nagaraj vs Union of India needs to be looked at afresh. It was further said that the Constitution Bench will not go into the merit of the matter.
The M Nagaraj verdict had said that the creamy layer concept cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promotions in government jobs like two earlier verdicts of 1992 Indra Sawhney and others versus the Union of India (popularly called Mandal Commission verdict) and 2005 E V Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh, which dealt with creamy layer in Other Backward Classes category, PTI reported.
The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench by a two-judge bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi, acting on a 2015 petition filed by the Tripura government which challenged an order of the Tripura High Court. The two bench judge said, ” 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 Honourable Chief Justice of India immediately.”
The apex court was hearing a batch of petition which arose from a Bombay High Court order quashing two state government resolutions terming them as ultra vires to Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India. Some other states have also approached the apex court regarding this case. A petition before the High Court had challenged certain provisions of The Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of vacancies in services and posts) Act, 1991, stating that under these provisions the state had granted reservation in violation of rules laid down in M Nagaraj vs Union of India case.