ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-r 
;\SHOKA KUMAR THAKUR 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC. 
' 
MAY 17, 2007 
.. 
... 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
) 
-f 
-( 
Reference to Larger Bench-Constitutionality of 93rd Constitution 
Amendment and Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) 
Act, 2006, challenged in Supreme Court-In view of importance of the issuf!S c 
involved, questions framed and referred to Larger Bench-93rd Constitution 
Amendment Act, 2005-Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in 
Admission) Act, 2006-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 15 (5) and 
145(3)-Supreme Court Rules, 1966-0rder 35. 
By 93rd Constitution Amendment Act, 2005, Article 15 (5) was inserted D 
in Part III of the Constitution empowering the Government to make special 
provisions providing for reservations in educational institutions. Central 
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 was enacted 
thereafter. Present Writ Petitions were filed challenging the same. On behalf 
Union of India it was submitted that in view of Article 145(3) of Constitution E 
of India and Order 35 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966, the petitions should be 
heard by Constitution Bench as the same not only raise substantial question 
of law, but also interpretation of the Constitution. 
Petitioners objected to the submission on the ground that the issues 
j 
raised were covered by various decisions of this court especially Indra F 
Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., [1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 217 and no 
substantial questions of law were involved as is evident from the counter 
affidavit filed by Union oflndia. 
Formulating the questions and referring the matter to Larger Bench, G 
the Court 
HELD: 1. Untrammeled by the effect of Article 145(3) of the Constitution 
.) 
of India and Order 35 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966, considering 
considerable importance of the issues involved and its likely impact in the 
·r 
social life of the country as a whole and the complexities of the questions, it H 
63 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
,,'-
A is approprfate that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. 
..,.. 
(Para 7) (67-Fl 
l-
2. Matter referred to larger Bench for considering the validity of93rd 
Constitution Amendment Act, 2005, scope of Articles 15(4) and 15(5) of the 
Constitution, scope of Judicial Review, listing of socially and educationally 
~ 
B backward classes in terms of units of caste/communities, justification of27% 
""'-
reservation in socially and educationally backward classes/other backward 
~ 
classes, concept of 'creamy layer' of SEBC/OBC and its applicability and 
f 
constitutionality I validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in 
\,.._ 
Admission) Act, 2006. (Para 8) (68-B, G; 69-E; 70-A, G; 71-A, D, G) 
) 
c 
CIVIL ORIGINA~ JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of2006. 
WITH 
WP (Civil) Nos. 269/2006, 598/2006, 35/2007, 231/2007, 53/2007 and 29/ 
D 
2007. 
G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., K.N. 
Balagopal, AG. of Nagaland, P.P. Rao, K. Parasaran, R. Shunmugasundaram, 
V. Kanakraj, Rakesh Dwivedi, Indra Jaisingh, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Ram 
Jethmalani, F.S. Nariman, Mukul Rohtagi, Harish N. Salve, K.K. Veenugopal, 
E Ravindra Shrivastava and Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., Vivek K. Tankha, Pooja 
Dhar, Rohan Thawani, Joseph Pookkatt, Prashant Kumar, M.L. Lahoty, D.S. 
Chadha, Abishek Gupta, Anshuman Ashok, Purushottam Tripathi, Abhishek 
Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, Anil Srivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Dr. Kailash Chand, 
S. Vallinayagam, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanium, V.G. Pragasam, S. Wasim A. 
F 
Qadri, D.S. Mabra, K.N. Madhusodanan, R. Sathish, Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu 
Mishra, Vimla Sinha, Anukul Raj, Gopal Singh, G. Prakash, Dharmendra Kumar 
Sinha, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V. George, Ansuman 
+ 
Kaushik (for Corporate Law Group), S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, Manjit 
Singh, Harikesh Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghose, Suparna Srivastava, 
Pooja Mathani, Rajesh Srivastava, Atul Jha, D.K. Sinha, Aruneshwar Gupta, 
G Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shaswat Gupta, A. Subba Rao, Ajay.Pal, 
Preeti Singh, Sukhda, S.K. Swamy, Vikas Rojipura, Batu, E.C. Vidyasagar, 
Kumar Rajesh Singh, B.B. Singh, Ranbir Yadav, S. Balaji, Avijit Roy (for 
Corporate Law Group) Kh. Nobin Singh, A. Mariaputham (for Arputham, 
Aruna & Co. Prashant Bhushan, Vishwajit Singh, -M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. 
')--
H Sharma, Poonam Lahoty, Himanshu Shekhar, Mahalakshm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.