STATE OF PUNJAB v. DAVINDER SINGH

BACKGROUND:

The sub-classification of Scheduled Caste’s (SC’s) for the underlying intent of reservation was struck down on constitutional grounds in the judgement of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court determined that the castes listed, by the virtue of Article 341(1) of the Indian constitution which enumerates SC’s a homogeneous group and subclassification in reservation cannot be done. However, the apex court reconsidered its earlier judgement. The court was entrusted with a task to adjudicate concerning states could substantiate separate quotas for more backward communities within SC category. The case was adduced to 7 judge bench, pertinence to constitutional jurisprudence and the need to elucidate weather states could constitute such sub-quotas falling under the larger SC category without infringing the principles of Indian Constitution.

Facts

This reference to the Constitution Bench emanates from challenges to State enactments and notifications providing for the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the objective of reservation.

The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act of 2006, there is a provision which stipulates that when government recruits people instantly for jobs, 50% of the vacancies which is reserved for the schedule caste communities people should be provided to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs at the outset.

Arunthatiyars were provided with the 16% schedule castes quota in educational institutions and government posts in the Tamilnadu act of 2009.

The subclassification was declared unconstitutional by Punjab and Haryana High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court based on the judgement of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Appeals and allied petitions seeking to invalidate these decisions and statues led to the judicial scrunity of E.V. Chinnaiah judgement by a larger bench.

Issues Arising for adjudication

1. Constitutionality validity of subclassification of schedule castes under article 14, 15, and16 with the objective of reservation.
2. Weather the state legislatures are endowed with the jurisdiction to subclassify the schedule castes when Article 341 establishes a legally uniform class of schedule castes in accordance with the use of deeming language, thereby placing limitations on classification beyond this.
3. Whether there is a ceiling to what extent subclassification can be done.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

1. The decision of V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, On an erroneous premise considers schedules castes as an indivisible whole. It is in the defiance of the policy of reservations which decress protective discrimination on backwardness.
2. The state has authority to subclassify because the provision vesting power to reserve seats includes subsidiary and ancillary stipulations such as entitlement, special provisions and exemptions.
3. In the Indira Swahney case judgement the Supreme Court affirmed the internal differences between the castes. Sub classification in castes is in consonance with the perspective of Justice Mathew in NM Thomas, finding that further classification within the class was attainable.
4. Schedule Castes do not shed their individual identity once enumerated because caste is grounded in social realities whereas enumeration in the list is in pursuant to implementation of statutory fiction.
5. The constitution empowers sub-classification in pursuance to Article 366(4) which empowers schedule castes contemplates that even a part of a caste or a group may be included.
6. B. R. Ambedkar, while speaking in the Constituent Assembly, clarified that Article 341 was designed to prevent political considerations from influencing the inclusion or exclusion of communities from the Scheduled Castes list. He was referring specifically to the power of adding to or removing from the list, and not to matters of internal classification, which fall outside the scope of Article 341.
7. The list under article 341 is not a constitutional provision intrinsically, but a directive issued by the executive promulgated by the president which can be modified by the parliament.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT

1. The scheduled caste brought into existence by gazette notification promulgated by the president under Article 341(2) prescribes that no modification to the list is acceptable with the exception of legislation enacted by parliament. The class brought into existence by the presidential executive notification can be intervened with only by parliament under Article 341(2).
2. Article 338 mandates to constitute The National Commission for Schedule Castes to asses any new data sets or experiences of schedule castes and provides suggestion but the authority to make changes in the list is only endows with the parliament.
3. None of the entries in the Seventh Schedule pertain to Scheduled Castes. The sole entry by the virtue of which a law on reservation for SC’s can be implemented is entry 97of list 1. Even if the subclassification is authorized, solely parliament has the power to enact such law.
4. Article 16(2) (No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State) prohibits subclassification of schedule castes because it is based on caste.
5. Sub-classification has an disqualifying effect, disturbing the framework of reservation applied for to be executed, it unequally amplifies the share of reservation accessible to certain communities and reduces the share available to the rest of communities. The subclassification violates the legal framework of Article 341.
6. Schedule Caste subclassification cannot be held constitutionally valid by the virtue of Article 341,342and 342-A are dealing with cognate matters (pari materia). The classes which are depicted by Schedule Castes and other backward classes are different. Justice Jeevan Reddy in the Indira swahney case opined that Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution envisages, reservation must be on the basis of social backwardness which are promulgated as schedule caste has an aspect of share attribute.
7. The objective of bestowing parliament with the authority to modify the list issued by the president by the virtue of Article 321 to prevent the impermissible interference of the list for political purposes.
8. The reasoned recommendation which was made by Usha Mehra committee to include clause (3) to Article 341, that empowers parliament with the authority to subcategorize castes upon a motion received from the state and even it was not acknowledged by National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

JUDGEMENT

The judgement has 6 distinct standpoints. The CJI expressed the view on the as the representative of himself and Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice B.R. Gavai and Pankaj Mithal penned separate opinion. Justice Vikram Nath and SC Sharma agreed with CJI and Justice Gavai. The dissenting opinion was penned by Justice Bela Trivedi, noted that Chinnaiah was a good law, it only lacked well-reasoned order. The CJI penned standards for subclassification and its limitations, mentioning that it is based on predicted data and subject to Judicial review. Justice Gavai affirmed the execution of creamy layer excluding Schedule Castes.

Justice Gavai supported the extension of the “creamy layer” principle to Scheduled Castes. Justice Mithal noted, advantages of higher education and reservation policies are largely accessed by children from well-off economic families or urbanised castes, reflecting ongoing inequality. He further mentions that any reservation, if conferred, should be limited to the first generation of that family. Justice Mithal also noted that historically there was no rigid caste system; instead, society followed a varna system that classified individuals based on their profession, abilities, qualities, and nature. Agreeing with the Chief Justice and Justice Gavai, he accentuated the requirement for sub-classification, as data reveals that the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups have not adequately benefited from reservation at higher level.