Authored By: Ramanjeet Kaur
Lloyd School of Law
Case Name: – STATE OF PUNJAB V. DEVINDER SINGH
Citation: – 2024 INSC 562, (2025) 1 SCC 1, [2024] 8 SCR 1321
Court Name: – SUPREME COURT
Name of the judges: – D.J.Y. CHANDRACHUD (CJI)MANOJ MISHRA, J.B.R. GAVAI, J. VIKRAM NATH, J. BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. PANKAJ MITHAL, J.S.C. SHARMA, J.
Bench: – CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH
Date of judgement: – 1 AUGUST 2023
Parties involved: – PETITIONER (Devinder Singh), RESPONDENT (state of Punjab)
Fact of the case
Articles 342and 342-A relate to notification of Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes respectively and contain provisions Pari Materia to Article 341. Section 2(f) defines “Scheduled Castes” as Scheduled Castes notified by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time. Section 4(2) provides that reservation of twenty-five percent shall be made for the members of the Scheduled Castes and twelve percent for Backward Classes while filing up vacancies by direct recruitment in services. Section 4(5) stipulates that fifty percent of the vacancies of the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment shall be offered to Valmiki’s and Mazhabi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes. Proceedings were instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the validity of Section 4(5) of the Section 4(5) unconstitutional, relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh6. The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in educational institutions including private educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in services under State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009. The long title to the legislation states that it is an Act to provide for reservation of seats to Arunthathiyars in educational institutions, including private educational institutions in the State and for appointment in services under the State. The Tamil Nadu Act defines Arunthathiyars to mean the castes of Arunthathiyar, Chakkiliyan, Madari, Madiga, Pagadi, Thoti and Adi Andhra from the list of seventy-six Scheduled Castes notified by the President under Article 341, as amended from time to time.10 Section 3 stipulates that sixteen per cent of the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes in educational institutions shall be offered to the Arunthathiyars, if available, having regard to the social and educational backwardness of the community. Section 4 makes a similar provision for the Arunthathiyars in recruitment to Government posts. Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution were instituted before this Court for challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Act on the ground that it contravenes the judgment of this Court in Chinnaiah (supra). The batch of matters challenging the Tamil Nadu Act was tagged with the batch of matters challenging the Punjab Act.
Issue Raised
Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16.
Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping.
Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the operation of the deeming fiction.
Whether there any limits on the scope of sub-classification.
Arguments of the parties
Argument by the petitioner
The judgment in Chinnaiah (supra) erroneously treats the Scheduled Castes as an indivisible monolith/block Preferential treatment promotes substantive equality. Chinnaiah (supra) is against the very idea of reservations which mandates protective discrimination based on relative backwardness. The State has the power to sub-classify because the enabling power to reserve seats includes ancillary and supplemental provisions such as preferences, concessions and exemptions;
In Indra Sawhney (supra) this court has recognized internal differences between castes.40 Subclassification within a class aligns with the opinion of Justice Mathew in NM Thomas (supra) holding that further classification within the class was possible. The Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous group but face varying degrees of discrimination Scheduled Castes do not lose their identity once enumerated because caste is a sociological reality while the enumeration in the list is through the operation of a legal fiction. The limited preference to some groups by subclassification because of their relative disadvantage will not exclude the other Scheduled Castes in the List notified under Article 341Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel submitted that adequate representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the state, subject to backwardness and inadequacy of representation. Courts cannot scrutinize underlying data to reach that satisfaction of the state. Since Article 16(4) refers to “backward classes of citizens” collectively, Scheduled Castes are at par with the Backward Classes. Article 16(4) is a broader provision that Articles 15 (4) and 15(5). While Articles 15(4), 15(5) refer to any special provisions for the Scheduled Castes. Article 16(4) uses any backward class of citizens. The use of “any” in Article 16(4), as opposed to the use of the word “the” to qualify the beneficiary classes in Articles 15(4) and 15 (5), indicates that there is a greater discretionary power under Article 16(4).
Argument by the respondent
The necessary effect of the preferential treatment to Balmiki Sikhs and Mazhabis in the fifty percent seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in Punjab is that the persons belonging to other Scheduled Castes are excluded from those seats. None of the entries in the Seventh Schedule deal with Scheduled Castes. The only entry under which a law on reservation for the Scheduled Castes can be enacted is Entry 97 of List I. Thus, even if sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is permissible, only Parliament and not the Legislature of the State has the power to enact such a law. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes constituted under Article 338 can consider any new data sets or experiences of the Scheduled Castes and make recommendations. However, the power to alter the list solely vests with Parliament. Courts through a judicial exercise cannot include or exclude any caste from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes notified by the President. In State of Kerala v. NM Thomas48, this Court held that the Scheduled Castes constitute a class in themselves. Similar observations were made in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karam Chari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India Anu Suchit Jaati-Janjati Adhikari Evam karamchari Sangh, a social welfare association submitted that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes defeats the purpose of providing special reservation to Scheduled Castes.
Legal Reasoning
The State to make a special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, as distinguished from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court held that the State was not justified in including in the list of Backward Classes, castes, or communities whose average of student population per thousand was slightly above, or very near, or just below the State average. . The decision in Indra Sawhney (supra) exempts the State from having to prove that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are backward for the purposes of securing benefits under Articles 15 and 16. The observations do not exempt the State from having to justify the decision of sub-classifying within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of reservation. The basis of sub-classification is that few of the castes or groups within the class are more backward. Thus, though the State is not required to collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness of the entire class of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes, it is required to collect data to prove inter-se backwardness within the class, where it seeks to make a subclassification within the class. The Court observed that even if we assume that Articles 341 and 342 empower Parliament to exclude the creamy layer from the groups or sub-groups contained within the lists notified under Articles 341 and 342, constitutional courts, applying Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be entitled to exclude the creamy layer. The Court in unequivocal terms held that when a court applies the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes It has been held that the Constitutional Courts, when applying the principle of reservation, will be well within their jurisdiction to exclude the creamy layer from such groups or sub-groups when applying the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further observed that it is only those persons within that group or subgroup, who, on account of belonging to the creamy layer, have come out of untouchability or backwardness would be excluded from the benefit of reservation. in the case of Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta. The Constitution Bench in the said case considered two issues firstly, with regard to the correctness of the view taken in M. Nagaraj about the requirement of collecting quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment and secondly, with regard to applicability of the creamy layer principle even to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court also held that classification of the members of different classes of people based on their respective castes would also be violative of the doctrine of reasonableness. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka. In the said case, the Court was invited not so much to deliver judgment but to express its opinion on the issue of reservations in the context of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), which would serve as a guideline to the Commission which the Government of Karnataka had proposed to appoint, for examining the question of affording better employment and educational opportunities to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.50% reservation provide to the schedule caste and schedule tribe in the public sector.
Judgement of the case
Chief justice DY chandrachud delivering the majority opinion, held that the schedule caste is not a homogenous group.
The court emphasized that sub – classification within SC could be justified based on empirical data demonstrating the need for such a division. The court held that the power to sub classify SC for the purpose of reservation is derived from Article 15(4) and 16(4 ). Which empowers the union and state governments to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. These provisions are seen as enabling, giving the states the discretion to create special measures for the backward groups within the SC. While the court allowed sub – classification, it cautioned that the states could not reserve 100% of the available seats exclusively for any sub- class within the SC category. The reservation must be proportionate and must not result in the exclusion of another sub- group within the SC.
Conclusion
Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-classification of a class which is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law. The Court while testing the validity of sub-classification must determine if the class is a homogenous integrated class for fulfilling the objective of the sub-classification. If the class is not integrated for the purpose, the class can be further classified upon the fulfillment of the two-prong intelligible differentia standard. In Indra Sawhney (supra), this Court did not limit the application of sub-classification only to the Other Backward Class. This Court upheld the application of the principle to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List. Sub- classification would violate the provision only when either preference or exclusive benefit is provided to certain castes or groups of the Scheduled Castes over all the seats reserved for the class.
