THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING SECRETARY vs YADAV KALYAN PARISHAD (REGISTERED) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SUBE SINGH YADAV — SLP(C) No. 8701/2011

Case under 4301_5Jj-service Laws : Five Judge Matter Section IV-B. Status: PENDING.

CNR: SCIN010052852011

PENDING

Filing Date

15-Feb-2011

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 8701/2011

Diary Number

5285/2011

Order Date

01-Aug-2024

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Data as of 03-Jul-2026

Advertisement

Acts & Sections

4301_5jj-Service Laws : Five Judge Matter Section IV-B

Petitioner(s)

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING SECRETARY

Adv. MONIKA GUSAIN (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1] AKSHAY AMRITANSHU [P-1] AKSHAY AMRITANSHU [P-2]

Respondent(s)

YADAV KALYAN PARISHAD (REGISTERED) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SUBE SINGH YADAV

Adv. BANKEY BIHARI SHARMA

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

07-Nov-2024

Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

06-Nov-2024

Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

01-Aug-2024

Fixed Date by Court

08-Feb-2024

Fixed Date by Court

07-Feb-2024

Fixed Date by Court

Orders in this case

[ 2024 INSC 562 ] Judgement - of Main Case
[ 2020 INSC 512 ] Judgement - of Main Case
03-May-2016 ROP
03-May-2016 Office Report
03-May-2016 ROP
18-Feb-2016 ROP
18-Feb-2016 Office Report
01-Feb-2016 ROP
01-Feb-2016 Office Report
01-Feb-2016 ROP
10-Dec-2015 ROP
10-Dec-2015 Office Report
10-Dec-2015 ROP
30-Nov-2015 ROP
30-Nov-2015 Office Report
30-Nov-2015 ROP
03-Nov-2015 ROP
03-Nov-2015 ROP
14-Oct-2015 ROP
14-Oct-2015 Office Report
14-Oct-2015 ROP
04-Sep-2015 ROP
04-Sep-2015 ROP
28-Aug-2015 ROP
28-Aug-2015 ROP
10-Aug-2015 ROP
10-Aug-2015 ROP
04-Aug-2015 ROP
04-Aug-2015 ROP
30-Mar-2015 ROP
27-Mar-2015 Office Report
02-Feb-2015 ROP
02-Feb-2015 ROP
15-Dec-2014 ROP
15-Dec-2014 ROP
26-Sep-2014 ROP
26-Sep-2014 ROP
20-Aug-2014 ROP
13-Aug-2014 ROP
06-Aug-2014 Office Report
31-Jul-2014 Office Report
02-Apr-2014 ROP
31-Mar-2014 ROP
16-Jan-2014 ROP
10-Jan-2014 Office Report
10-Jan-2014 ROP
21-Nov-2013 ROP
17-Oct-2013 ROP
16-Aug-2013 ROP
07-Aug-2013 ROP
02-Jul-2013 ROP
18-Apr-2013 ROP
03-Apr-2013 ROP
02-Apr-2013 ROP
21-Feb-2013 ROP
12-Feb-2013 ROP
10-Jan-2013 ROP
14-Dec-2012 ROP
06-Nov-2012 ROP
17-Oct-2012 ROP
21-Sep-2012 ROP
05-Sep-2012 ROP
08-Aug-2012 ROP
17-Jul-2012 ROP
17-Jul-2012 ROP
16-Jul-2012 ROP
03-Jul-2012 ROP
03-May-2012 ROP
12-Apr-2012 ROP
02-Apr-2012 ROP
02-Mar-2012 ROP
21-Feb-2012 ROP
23-Jan-2012 ROP
09-Dec-2011 ROP
28-Nov-2011 ROP
18-Nov-2011 ROP
20-Oct-2011 ROP
21-Sep-2011 ROP
19-Sep-2011 ROP
13-Sep-2011 ROP
18-Aug-2011 ROP
09-Aug-2011 ROP
29-Jul-2011 ROP
25-Jul-2011 ROP
18-Jul-2011 ROP
15-Jul-2011 ROP
06-Jul-2011 ROP
12-May-2011 ROP
11-May-2011 ROP
09-May-2011 ROP
02-May-2011 ROP
07-Apr-2011 ROP
11-Mar-2011 ROP
18-Feb-2011 ROP
10-Feb-2011 ROP
27-Jan-2011 ROP
05-Jan-2011 ROP
13-Dec-2010 ROP
03-Dec-2010 ROP
15-Nov-2010 ROP
08-Nov-2010 ROP
01-Oct-2010 ROP
10-Sep-2010 ROP
30-Jul-2010 ROP
26-Jul-2010 ROP
12-Jul-2010 ROP
06-Jul-2010 ROP
08-Jun-2010 ROP
04-May-2010 ROP
27-Apr-2010 ROP
09-Mar-2010 ROP
13-Jan-2010 ROP
03-Dec-2009 ROP
13-Nov-2009 ROP
21-Oct-2009 ROP
14-Sep-2009 ROP
11-Sep-2009 ROP
18-Aug-2009 ROP
28-Jul-2009 ROP
23-Jul-2009 ROP
13-Jul-2009 ROP
12-May-2009 ROP
24-Apr-2009 ROP
25-Mar-2009 ROP
24-Mar-2009 ROP
20-Mar-2009 ROP
12-Dec-2008 ROP
11-Nov-2008 ROP
19-Sep-2008 ROP
02-Sep-2008 ROP
12-Aug-2008 ROP
07-Jul-2008 ROP
21-Apr-2008 ROP
08-Apr-2008 ROP
25-Jan-2008 ROP
25-Jan-2008 ROP
25-Jan-2008 ROP
28-Sep-2007 ROP
13-Aug-2007 ROP
02-Mar-2007 ROP
12-Dec-2006 ROP
27-Nov-2006 ROP

Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters

Lead case: C.A. No. 2317/2011

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of SLP(C) No. 8701/2011: State of Haryana vs. Yadav Kalyan Parishad DECISION: The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench (7 judges) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible for reservation purposes. KEY REASONING: The Court overruled the earlier 5-judge decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (which had prohibited such sub-classification). The majority found that: (1) Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class but heterogeneous with varying degrees of backwardness; (2) Article 341's "deeming fiction" does not create constitutional prohibition against sub-classification; (3) Indra Sawhney's principles permitting sub-classification of OBCs equally apply to Scheduled Castes; and (4) sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) as no caste is included or excluded from the Presidential List—only differential treatment within the reserved quota is provided. IMPORTANT CAVEAT: Any sub-classification must be supported by empirical data demonstrating the "backward" status of the sub-group and inadequate representation in services. Additionally, several judges recommended excluding the "creamy layer" (socially/economically advanced members) from Scheduled Castes/Tribes to ensure benefits reach the truly disadvantaged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Supreme Court of India All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case