State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. (2024) 2024 INSC 562 (SCC Online SC 1860)

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. (2024)

2024 INSC 562 (SCC Online SC 1860)

JUDGES

Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud (author of majority opinion)

Justices B. R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, Satish Chandra Sharma (concurring)

Justice Bela M. Trivedi (dissenting)

DATE OF JUDGEMENT

1 August 2024

PARTIES INVOLVED

State of Punjab and ors (Appellant)

• The State of Punjab is the primary appellant.
• It had enacted legislation allowing sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, reserving a portion of SC quota in public employment for more backward castes like Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs.
• The state defended this policy as a means to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits among the most marginalized within SC communities.

Davinder Singh and ors (Respondent)

• Davinder Singh, along with other individuals from non-subclassified SC communities, challenged the Punjab government’s sub-quota scheme.
• They argued that it discriminated against other Scheduled Castes by prioritizing some castes over others within the 15% SC reservation.
• Their position was based on the precedent set by E.V. Chinnaiah (2005), which held that Scheduled Castes are a homogenous class and cannot be internally divided by the state.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Punjab and Haryana enacted laws providing sub‑classification within Scheduled Castes, reserving 50% of SC quota in direct recruitment for specific backward sub-groups—namely Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs under Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, 2006.

These provisions were challenged and struck down by the High Court, citing the earlier SC precedent in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005), which had held that the SC category is a homogenous class that cannot be further subclassified.

• The State of Punjab issued a government order providing 50% of the Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation quota in public employment exclusively for Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh castes, considered the most backward among SCs in the state.
• The Punjab government passed the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, formally codifying this sub-classification under Section 4(5) of the Act.
• Haryana also adopted a similar sub-classification model, categorizing SCs into Block A and Block B, with certain benefits targeted toward more disadvantaged SC subgroups.
• In E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that Scheduled Castes form a homogenous group under Article 341, and states cannot sub-divide SCs for differential treatment in reservations.
• Various individuals, including Davinder Singh, challenged the Punjab and Haryana sub-classification schemes in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, citing the Chinnaiah judgment as binding precedent.
• The High Court struck down the Punjab and Haryana sub-classification laws, ruling them unconstitutional based on Chinnaiah.
• The State of Punjab (and others) appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a reconsideration of Chinnaiah and validation of their sub-classification policies.
• A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger 7-judge Constitution Bench, given the significance of the constitutional issues involved.
• The 7-judge Constitution Bench delivered its verdict, overruling E.V. Chinnaiah and upholding the validity of sub-classification within SCs, provided such classification is based on empirical data and rational criteria.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Can states create sub‑categories within SC/ST groups for equitable distribution of reservation benefits under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)?
2. Is such sub‑classification compatible with Article 14 (equality before law)?
3. Does it violate Article 341, which empowers only the President (and Parliament) to define SC/ST lists?
4. Is the creamy‑layer principle applicable to SCs/STs to exclude relatively affluent individuals from reservation benefits?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

• Petitioner

The State of Punjab argued that the Scheduled Castes (SCs) are not a homogenous group and that there exist deep social and economic disparities within them. Certain castes like Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs have remained significantly more backward and underrepresented, even after decades of reservation. To address this intra-group inequality, the state introduced sub-classification within the SC quota, reserving 50% of the benefits for these most marginalized communities. The petitioners contended that such targeted affirmative action is in line with the principle of substantive equality under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, which allow the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class. They further argued that the precedent set in E.V. Chinnaiah (2005), which treated SCs as a single, indivisible class, was flawed and inconsistent with the spirit of Indra Sawhney (1992), which permitted sub-classification among OBCs. Punjab emphasized that it was not altering the SC list under Article 341 but merely distributing the benefits more equitably among recognized SCs based on empirical data and rational classification. The petitioners maintained that such an approach is constitutionally valid and necessary to uplift those who remain left behind within the broader SC category.

• Respondent

The respondents, including Davinder Singh, opposed the sub-classification, asserting that all Scheduled Castes constitute a single constitutional class as per Article 341, which is finalized by the President and cannot be divided further by the states. They argued that any division or prioritization within this category amounts to discrimination and violates the equality guaranteed under Article 14. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah, they emphasized that the Constitution does not allow states to make further classifications among Scheduled Castes once they are listed. The respondents stressed that reservations for SCs are not based on current socio-economic status but on the historical stigma of untouchability and systemic exclusion faced equally by all SC communities. They feared that allowing such sub-classification would fragment the SC category, create hierarchies, and lead to vote-bank politics. The respondents warned that empowering states to divide SCs could weaken the collective political and constitutional strength of the community and undermine the objective of social justice for all Scheduled Castes.

RELEVANT STATUES OR CASE LAW

1. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394

Held that Scheduled Castes constitute a homogeneous class and any subclassification within SCs by the state is unconstitutional.

Formed the basis for the High Court’s decision that was overturned in the Davinder Singh case.

2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

Allowed subclassification among OBCs and introduced the creamy layer doctrine.

Used by the petitioners (State of Punjab) to argue for a similar approach among SCs.

3. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396

Applied the creamy layer concept to SCs/STs in promotions under Article 16(4A).

Relevant to the majority’s view in Davinder Singh that creamy layer exclusion is consistent with constitutional principles.

JUDGEMENT

• Overruling of E.V. Chinnaiah

The Court held that SCs and STs are socially and economically heterogeneous groups. The earlier ruling in Chinnaiah was overruled as inconsistent with the principles of substantive equality laid down in **Indra Sawhney v. Union of India** .

• Authority to Sub‑Classify

Under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), state governments may sub‑classify SC/ST categories for reservations, so long as:

There is an intelligible differentia based on the degree of backwardness,The classification is supported by quantifiable empirical data,The state does not allocate 100% of reserved seats exclusively to a sub‑group, thereby excluding others within the main group  .

• Article 341 Not Violated

Article 341 pertains only to identifying which castes form SC/STs—it does not bar states from distributing reservation benefits among sub-groups within the list, as long as the sub‑classification does not alter the SC/ST list itself  .

• Creamy Layer Principle

Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath, Mithal, and Sharma endorsed that the creamy‑layer exclusion principle applies to SCs and STs. They urged states to develop policies excluding financially or socially advanced individuals from reservation benefits among SC/ST communities  .

FINAL OUTCOME

• The Court allowed states to create sub-quotas within SCs, thereby enabling targeted reservations for the most disadvantaged castes within the SC list.
• This marked a major shift in affirmative action jurisprudence in India, emphasizing substantive equality over formal equality.

CONCLUSION

• The Supreme Court of India, through a 6:1 majority, delivered a landmark verdict that upheld the constitutional validity of sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SCs) for the purposes of reservations in public employment and education.
• The Court overruled the earlier precedent set in E.V. Chinnaiah (2005), holding that Scheduled Castes do not form a homogenous or indivisible class under the Constitution. It reasoned that not all SC communities have benefitted equally from reservation policies and that the State has the constitutional power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to ensure equitable distribution of benefits among the most backward sections within the SCs.
• The Court clarified that sub-classification does not alter or fragment the Presidential list under Article 341, but merely allows fair internal distribution of reservation benefits, backed by data and rational classification.
• This judgment marks a paradigm shift in India’s reservation jurisprudence, prioritizing substantive equality over formal equality, and enabling states to take targeted, evidence-based affirmative action for the most disadvantaged within the Scheduled Caste community.