While stating, ‘genesis’ of creamy layer principle is to be found in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman quoted a few words of Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30621 of 2011]. Of course, Ray CJ had Lead Judgment in N.M. Thomas, described as ‘lucid’ by Hon’ble Justice S.M. Fazal Ali.

Hon’ble Justice S.M. Fazal Ali was first to come to SC from Jammu and Kashmir High Court. He was only 54. Although he was a Muslim, he was not chosen by Ray for that reason. Hon’ble Justice M.H. Beg was already on board. Justice Fazal Ali died, before retirement, when 64.

Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer, N.M. Thomas: “I write a separate opinion substantially concurring with that of Learned Chief Justice.”

_____

Also see, Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana v. State of Haryana, [Writ Petition (Civil) 60 of 2019] decided on 24.08.2021 and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, [Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022] decided on 28.01.2022.

_____

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, [Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011] decided on 01.08.2024

Chief Justice opined, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 never intended to limit application of sub-classifications to OBCs only.  

– Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

In words of Benjamin Cardozo, “a Judge is not a Knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty and goodness. Judge is not to innovate at pleasure.”

It was observed in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 8 SCC 521 statements which are not part of ratio decidendi constitute obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The issue of sub-classification of Scheduled Castes in context of Article 341 was not raised or argued in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 or Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396. It would be a fallacy to hold, E.V. Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394 was not in consonance with Indra Sawhney or Jarnail Singh.   

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi

A reading of Majority Judgments in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 does not show, Scheduled Castes are homogeneous and sub-classification therein is not permissible. E.V. Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394 does not lay down a good law.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai

Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020) 8 SCC 1 held, EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394 requires to be revisited by a Larger Bench of Seven Judges. EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, not permitting sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, is overruled.

A legal fiction is essentially a presumption, certain facts which do not exist in fact will be treated as real and existing for purpose of law. Courts have evolved two principles on operation of legal fictions. The first principle is, a legal fiction must be confined to its ‘legitimate field’, for specific purpose for which it was created. The second principle is, scope of a legal fiction must be extended to consequences which ‘logically’ flow from its creation.

Article 341 creates a legal fiction for limited purpose of identification of Scheduled Castes by distinguishing them from other groups. It offers no guidance on how Scheduled Castes fare among themselves. The legal fiction which assigns an identity to Scheduled Castes, separate from other categories, cannot be stretched to draw inferences about existence or non-existence of internal differences among Scheduled Castes. Article 341 does not create an integrated class that cannot be further sub-classified.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud