THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

Case Analysis

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS  DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

Case Number:

Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011

Judgment Date:
1st August, 2024

 Court:
Supreme Court of India

Bench:
CJI. D.Y. Chandrachud; J. B.R. Gavai, J. Vikram Nath, J. Bela M. Trivedi, J. Pankaj Mithal, J. Manoj Misra, J. Satish Chandra Sharma.

 Citation:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1321

Abstract

The case revolves around constitutional validity of sub-classification of Scheduled castes for positive action, including those reservations allowed in Articles 15 and 16. The Supreme Court held such sub-classification as valid with a majority opinion of 6:1, thus overruling its earlier judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005).

Background of the case

The Punjab government passed an act reserving government vacancies for SC for state services- the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006. The section 4(5) of the  Act further mandatorily subdivided 50% of that quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikh communities.

The validity of section 4(5) of the Act was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226. In 2010, the High Court declared the questionable section of the act as unconstitutional and strongly relied on judgment given in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

On August 20, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court requested a larger bench to re-evaluate the Chinnaiah case. The judges believed that the previous ruling should be reviewed in light of Article 338, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Indra Sawhney case, and the interconnections between Articles 16, 338, and 341 of the Constitution.

Judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

The Justice P. Ramachandra Raju Commission 1997 gave its recommendation to Andhra Pradesh government regarding those groups of scheduled castes who were  not getting adequately represented in educational institutions and state services. On basis on this recommendation, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000, was enacted. 

Section 3, which provided for ‘Rationalisation of Reservations,’ divided the benefits of reservation among Scheduled Castes into four groups on the basis of backwardness – Groups A- 1 %, B- 7%, C- 6% and D-1%.

The appellants argued that the act interfered with presidential list of scheduled castes and is in violation of Article 341 (1) and Article 14 of Indian Constitution. As per them, the state legislature was not competent to pass this legislation as once mentioned under presidential list, the scheduled castes cannot be further sub- classified and thus they constitute as a homogeneous group.

The arguments of respondents-state, was based on the fact that Article 341 allows President to identify certain castes as SC and only parliament can include or exclude them. The state legislature argued that in view of Article 15(4) and 16(4), they have the power to decide the scope and extent of reservations. The Article 341 operates in a different field. The concerned act does not exclude or include any SC in the presidential list, it is a form of affirmative action. Most importantly, they relied on Indra Sawney judgment as well in which sub classification of backward classes-into more backward was allowed.

The bench, consisting of Justices N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, and S.B. Sinha, determined that sub-classification infringed upon the right to equality by differentiating between communities within the Scheduled Castes (SC) category. It underscored that the SC list should be regarded as a unified, homogeneous group because the Constitution categorised specific castes in a Schedule due to past discrimination and practices related to untouchability. As a result, these communities should not be treated unequally. The court also pointed out Article 341 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to compile a list of SC communities for the purposes of reservation. The five-judge bench concluded that this provision indicates that states are prohibited from “interfering” with or “disturbing” this list, even through means of sub-classification.

Constitutional and legal issues:

The case primarily revolved around these three issues-

1. Whether states can create sub-classifications within SCs/STs.
2. Whether such sub-classification violates Article 341.
3. Whether it conflicts with the doctrine of equality under Article 14. 

Arguments of Parties:

By Petitioners

1. There was a misrepresentation in the E.V. Chinnaiah case as the court’s interpretation regarding sub-classification was found to be flawed. Also, the judgment of that case is erroneous as it presumed that the sub-classification of SCs interferes with presidential list of scheduled castes under Article 341.
2. The Punjab Act has been enacted under Article 16(1) and 16(4) read with Articles 245 and 246. The provisions of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act are within the legislative competence of the State.
3. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney allowed sub-categorisation of backward classes into more backward classes and at least five out of nine judges supported it. Thus, the court in E.V. Chinnaiah erred in interpreting the majority view on the question of sub-classification.
4. The concept of preferential treatment is a component of equality as outlined in Article 14. Any law enacted by the State that favours the more disadvantaged among the backward classes aligns with the purpose of Article 16(4). The preferential treatment extended to specific SC/ST does not infringe upon Article 14. Its goal is to achieve proportional equality. The classification is founded on intelligible differentia.
5. The Scheduled Castes do not represent a uniform group but encounter different levels of discrimination. The initial requirement of Article 16(4) to evaluate backwardness has been fulfilled by the President and later, by Parliament through Article 341. The second aspect of the inquiry regarding ‘inadequate representation’ is an obligation for the States. If the list of Scheduled Castes was regarded as a single entity, it would render the second part of Article 16(4) meaningless and diminish the importance of the States’ role.

By Respondents

1. The Scheduled Castes as constituted through notification issued by the President are class in themselves. As per Article 341(2), only Parliament can make changes to this list.
2. The effect of the preferential treatment to Balmiki Sikhs and Mazhabis in the fifty percent seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in Punjab is that the other Scheduled Castes are excluded from those seats.
3. Even if sub-classification of SCs is permissible, only parliament has the authority to do so not the state legislature. This is because none of the lists contains subject related to scheduled castes. The only related entry is Entry 97 of List I.
4. Sub-classification is not permissible in the caste grouped in one entry of the list. It is not permissible to leave one caste grouped within the list. The power has been exercised maliciously.
5. In Indra Sawhney, Justice Jeevan Reddy observed that Article 16(4) of the Constitution mainly states that reservation must be on the grounds of social backwardness. There cannot be any further classification of the Scheduled Castes since all the castes which are notified as Scheduled Castes by the President share the commonality of social backwardness in the form of untouchability. 
6. The main purpose of conferring power on Parliament regarding alteration of presidential list under Article 341 is to prevent unnecessary interference with the list for political purposes.

Judgment and Reasoning:

CJI DY Chandrachud delivering the majority opinion declared that scheduled castes are not a homogeneous group. In a 6:1 majority, this 7-judge Constitutional bench said –

• A group that is not in a similar legal position can be sub-classified under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court must determine whether the group is a cohesive, unified class that meets the sub-classification’s objective when determining its validity. The two-prong intelligible differentia criterion can be used to further divide the group if there is no integration for this purpose. 
•  Scheduled Castes can be further divided without violating Article 341(2) or the equality principle of the Constitution (Article 14). There is no conflict with Articles 15 and 16 in creating sub-categories within a caste.  Also, states must provide concrete evidence of underrepresentation when forming these sub-groups, not based on arbitrary or political reasons.  Additionally, judicial review is available for such decisions. 
• The state has to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities.  Reservations are only available to a small number of SC/ST individuals. The mistake in EV Chinnaiah’s judgment was thinking that Article 341 is the basis of reservation, but it only identifies castes for reservation.  The grounds for sub-classification is that a group from the larger group faces more discrimination.  Some judges from the Bench opinionated that, the State needs to implement a policy for identifying and excluding the creamy layers within the SC/ST categories.  Reservations should be limited to one generation.  The second generation should not be entitled to the reservation if the first generation achieved higher status through it.
• The Court permitted sub-classification but warned that States cannot allocate all available seats solely for any specific sub-group within the SC category.  Reservations need to be proportionate and shouldn’t make it so that other SCs’ subgroups are left out.
• Justice Jeevan Reddy observed that there is no constitutional or legal bar in classifying the backward class into backward and most backward class.  The learned judge ruled that sub-classification is legal because there may be different levels of backwardness within the same class. In such a case, sub-classification ensures that the class with the highest levels of backwardness will be able to benefit. 
• However, sub-classification is not explicitly forbidden by Article 341 It solely restricts states from altering the castes listed by the President as Scheduled Castes (SCs).  Therefore, the rights of other castes to general reservation benefits will not be affected by states making special provisions for particular castes in this category. The law in Punjab does not change the President’s list; rather, it gives Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs preference because of their relative backwardness on that list. This kind of sub-classification is in line with the idea that fair classifications can be used to ensure equality.

Dissenting Opinion

 Justice Trivedi said that the States cannot alter the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341. Castes can be included or excluded from the Presidential list only by a law passed by the Parliament. Sub-classification will amount to change in the Presidential list unnecessarily. Article 341 was meant to keep political factors out of the SC-ST list. Any preferential treatment for a subclass within the Presidential list will deprive the other classes within the same category of the benefits.

A personal analysis of Judgment:

I completely agree with Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes should be permitted. The reasoning behind my opinion is stated below:

• Scheduled castes are given reservation benefits due to historical disadvantages they faced, social isolation and struggle for survival. However, at present, neither all of them are equally disadvantaged nor all are equally well-off. Some struggle for even bare minimum while some maintain a lavish lifestyle. Therefore, creating sub-classification within them is only realistic and reasonable.
• All SC’s should not be treated as a same block or a homogeneous group because legacy of oppression and access to resources vary significantly among different SC communities.
• This 2024 judgment affirms that equality among unequals is not real equality-States must have the flexibility to correct internal imbalances within SCs for intra-group justice.
• Moreover, the judgment has the tendency to encourage new forms of identity-based  claims as different sub-groups within Scheduled Castes may now seek recognition, protection, and a better share of reservation benefits. 

Conclusion:

The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) decision represents a pro-active departure in the affirmative action jurisprudence allowing for the classification within classification of the Scheduled Castes. It makes the goal of substantive equality more robust by ensuring that the most underprivileged of the SCs do not get left out. But it must be carefully, thoughtfully, data-based and transparent — with strong judicial and constitutional safeguards to guard against abuse of power and to make sure that there is justice within justice.