On Wednesday, the Supreme Court has refused to pass off any of the interim order against the verdict of 12-year-old that has dealt with the creamy layer application for the reservation policy of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes for the categories of government jobs and promotion as per the examination did by the bench of 7 judges.
A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice DY Chandrachud stated that it cannot hear the complete matter just for the single purpose of interim relief as clearly mentioned and reference has been made already to the bench of the constitution.
The bench said, "You see, a reference has already been made for hearing the matter by a larger bench. A seven-judge constitution bench needs to be constituted to consider M Nagaraj verdict which was heard by a five-judge bench,".
The verdict of 2006 of M Nagaraj was held in the creamy layer concept was applied on the SC and ST for the purpose of promotions in the government jobs. The similar two verdicts were made of Indra Sahney and others versus Union of India in 1992 (Mandal Commission Verdict). Another of them was against the State Andhra Pradesh done by EV Chinnaiah in 2005 that has also dealt the concept of creamy layer for the Backward classes category.
Even KK Venugopal, General Attorney, appeared at the centre and stated that the matter required some urgent and thoughtful consideration by the continuation of 7-judge as lakhs of jobs in the services and Railway were stuck due to the simple confusion of the judicial pronouncements.
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate also appeared for the petitioners and contended that the confusion of the judicial pronouncement has created conflict with the people. The different benches of the high and top court gave different judgement.
He added, theta the status quo as far as a reservation for the promotion purpose of the employees of SC and ST are concerned while the order of the bench that headed by Justice Kurian Joseph in a similar manner held out the petition before the court shall not come under the steps for the purpose if the promotion.
Even the attorney is supporting the senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on the point of confliction that has created a confusion state for everyone around.