Sub-Classification Within Reserved Categories: State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh

Case Name: State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh
Citation: 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1860

Bench Composition:

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice B.R. Gavai
Justice Vikram Nath
Justice B.M. Trivedi
Justice Pankaj Mithal
Justice Manoj Mishra
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Decision Date: August 1, 2024

Key Issues Before the Court

Whether sub-classification within reserved categories is permissible under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India
Whether Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or heterogeneous grouping
Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the operation of deeming fiction
Limitations on the scope of sub-classification within reserved categories

Background

Historical Context

In 1975, the Punjab government issued an order allocating 25% of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) into two categories. The Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities were given first preference as they were identified as the most economically and educationally backward communities within the SC category. This preferential treatment continued for nearly 30 years until its legality was challenged in 2003.

Previous Judgment: E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)
The case required reconsideration of the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah judgment, where the Supreme Court had struck down the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservation) Act, 2000. This Act had divided SCs into four groups (A, B, C, D) for reservation purposes in educational institutions and government employment. The five-judge bench in Chinnaiah had ruled (4:1) that:

1. Article 341 establishes SCs as a homogenous class
2. States cannot interfere with or disturb the Presidential List of SCs through sub-classification
3. Sub-classification within SCs would violate the Constitution

Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act
Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, provided that 50% of the quota reserved for SCs in direct recruitment would be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down this provision on March 29, 2010, relying on the Chinnaiah judgment.

Arguments Before the Court

Appellant’s Arguments (State of Punjab)

Affirmative actions through sub-classification are necessary to ensure equitable distribution of benefits
Certain castes remain grossly underrepresented compared to dominant Scheduled Castes
A separate sub-quota of 15% for such castes within the SC quota would ensure adequate distribution of benefits
The E.V. Chinnaiah judgment required reconsideration under Article 328 of the Constitution

Respondent’s Arguments

Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous group established by Article 341
Only the President has the power to include or exclude particular backward classes in the SC list
Sub-classification would prevent all members of the SC community from accessing reservation benefits equally
The Constitution classified certain castes in a Schedule due to their historical discrimination and untouchability, and these communities cannot be treated differently

The Court’s Decision

On August 1, 2024, the seven-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, overruled the Chinnaiah judgment in a 6:1 majority, upholding the validity of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes categories.

Majority Opinion
On Sub-Classification under Article 14
The CJI clarified that Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, does not mean that identical laws should apply to everyone. Rather, it requires:

• Equal laws for those in similar situations
• Equitable administration of laws among those in need

On Homogeneity vs. Heterogeneity

The majority found that:

• The Presidential List itself indicates heterogeneity within the SC group
• Justice Gavai noted that “hardship and backwardness suffered historically would differ from category to category”
• Article 341 was enacted for the limited purpose of identifying SCs and differentiating them from other groups
• It does not indicate homogeneity within the group or prevent recognition of varying degrees of backwardness

Models for Sub-Classification

The Court identified two approaches to sub-classification:

• Preferential Model: More socially backward classes are given preference to all seats reserved for SCs
• Exclusive Model: Seats are made exclusively available to certain castes

The Court noted that states have the power to follow either model, subject to judicial review. Justice Gavai specifically observed that states cannot allocate 100% of available SC seats to a single sub-group.

Criteria for Sub-Classification

The majority held that:

• Social and economic backwardness must be considered together
• Sub-classification must be based on “social backwardness”
• The term “backward class” under Article 16(4) is wider than under Article 15(4)
• The purpose of both Articles is “to ensure substantive equality by uplifting the socially backward class”

The Creamy Layer Question

Several justices addressed the concept of a “creamy layer” within SCs:

• Justice Gavai stated that the state must “evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action”
• Justice Vikram Nath agreed that the creamy layer principle is applicable to SCs and STs, though the criteria might differ from those applied to Other Backward Classes
• Justice Pankaj Mithal argued that reservation should be limited to the first generation; if a member of the first generation achieves higher status through reservation, the second generation should not be entitled to similar benefits
• Justice Sharma endorsed the view on applying the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs, stating it “ought to become a constitutional imperative for the state”

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Bela Trivedi was the sole dissenter, holding that:

• The Chinnaiah judgment was good law
• A bare reading of Article 341 suggests that Scheduled Castes are an amalgam of castes, races, groups, tribes, and communities that form a homogenous class

Significance of the Judgment

This landmark judgment:

1. Recognizes the heterogeneity within Scheduled Castes and the need for targeted affirmative action
2. Empowers states to ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits
3. Introduces the concept of a “creamy layer” within SCs and STs
4. Attempts to address the issue of certain SC sub-groups dominating the benefits of reservation at the expense of more backward sub-groups

References

Digital library platform. (n.d.). Refread for Digital Libraries. Retrieved December 27, 2024, from https://scc-amity.refread.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx

Rajagopal, K. (2024, August 1). State Governments can sub-classify SCs for quota, rules Supreme Court. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-upholds-state-governments-power-to-sub-classify-scheduled-castes-scheduled-tribes-for-quota/article68471726.ece

SC allows for sub-classification of SCs and STs. (n.d.). Drishti IAS. Retrieved December 27, 2024, from https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sc-allows-for-sub-classification-of-scs-and-sts

Sub-Classification within reserved categories. (2024, August 2). Supreme Court Observer. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sub-classification-within-reserved-categories-judgement-summary/