THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS. DAVINDER SINGH & ORS. 2024 INSC 562

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 1 August, 2024

FACTS & BACKGROUND:

• 1975: The Punjab government issued a notification dividing the 25% SC reservation into two tiers –

50% for Balmiki & Mazhabi Sikhs

50% for the other SC categories

• 2004: Supreme Court E. V. Chinnaiah decision doesn’t allow sub-classification in the SC category.
• 25 July 2006: In the E.V Chinnaiah judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC ordered the cancellation of 1975 notification in Krishan Pal vs State of Punjab and Anr 2014. However, in the same year, The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 was re-enacted by Punjab govt. Section 4(5) of the Act restores “first priority” reservation for Balmiki & Mazhabi Sikhs- half of the total seats reserved for SC category shall be given priority to these communities”.
• 2010: The case arose from the Punjab appeal against a 2010 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Section 4(5) of the Act provides for ‘preference’ for Balmiki and Majbhi Sikh castes for SC reservation in public services.
• Nearly 31 years later a remarkable decision V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh AndOrs 2004, also passed a similar law in Andhra Pradesh which also divided SCs and STs.
• Appeal: The government of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court.
• 2014: Proceedings of Supreme Court referred to 5 judge constitution benches.
• August 27, 2020: A five Judge bench of E. V. Chinnaiah to a bench. J. Mishra wrote the unanimous decision on behalf of the bench (Justice Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah & Aniruddha Bose).

Recognition of sub-divisions for social & educational backward classes

Comparable for SC, ST, SEBCs

7 was ruled for the bench

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether sub-classification in the SC category for reservation is permissible under the Constitution of India?
• Correctness of E.V. The Chinnaiah judgment

CONTENTIONS:

Petitioner –

• It is argued that the judgment in Chinnaiah has wrongly treated the Scheduled Caste communities as one indivisible group. In contrast, there are important differences among SCs.
• Effective use of SCs is required to achieve the necessary equity. The Chinnaiah judgment runs contrary to the objective of reservation, which is to deal with relative backwardness through protective discrimination.
• Justice S.B. In Chinnaiah, Sinha contradicts himself, as he acknowledges inequality among SCs but regards any measure like sub-classification as unconstitutional. When such differences are found, subdivisions must be allowed for equivalence.
• The right to reserve seats has other provisions such as preference. States should therefore have the right to allocate SCs in order to ensure equitable distribution of benefits.
• Indra Sawhney  judgment recognizes caste distinction.
• Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous group. Under Article 16(4), States have a constitutional mandate to take account of ‘absence of representation’, which would be meaningless if the SC were treated as a homogeneous body. Subclassification enables states to comply with this mandate.
• Subclassification is different from the creamy layer shape. It does not exclude economically advanced individuals but identifies those who face severe social discrimination. The subclassification aims at inclusion, while the creamy layer focuses on inclusion.
• Even on average, the Scheduled Castes maintain their caste identity. Regulatory policy ensures that subclassification does not exclude other SCs, but instead gives limited priority to related problems.
• Under Entry 41 of Schedule II of the Seventh Schedule and Entry 25 of Schedule III of the Constitution, State Legislatures are empowered to legislate on matters of Scheduled Order importance.

Respondent –

• The respondents state that Scheduled Castes, as defined by the Presidential Report under Article 341(1), are a distinct and homogeneous group. The Constitution ensures that only Parliament has the power to amend this list, in accordance with Article 341(2). This is to prevent political manipulation by the executive and to maintain the sanctity of the name that reflects the Framers’ views from the Constitutional debates.
• Once the castes are notified as Scheduled Castes under Article 341, the castes, though essentially heterogeneous, are treated as equal groups for the purpose of constitution. This legal clause of harmonization serves the purpose of creating uniformity in the treatment of these groups under the law.
• The preferential treatment given to certain sub-castes like Balmiki Sikhs and Mazhabis in Punjab has the effect of excluding other SCs from the reserved seats, and undermines the equity that the reservation scheme intends for all SCs approach.
• The respondents state that there are no provisions in the Seventh Schedule providing for classification or sub-classification of Castes. Entry 97 of Schedule I allows Parliament to make rules on such matters. Therefore, any attempt by the State Legislature to classify the tribe as a Scheduled tribe would be unconstitutional.
• The State Council for Scheduled Castes may review and make recommendations on additional statistics or experience relating to SCs. Any substantive changes to the list, however, remain solely within the purview of Congress, protecting it from arbitrary change.
• The respondents have emphasized that the Courts have no jurisdiction to add or remove any caste from the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes or Tribes, thereby confirming the finality of the list once notification is given . . . .
• Any classification within Scheduled Castes based on caste is impermissible under Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on caste, further supporting the argument against sub-classification.
• The Respondents clarify that the Chinnaiah case, which the Petitioners rely on, examines the relationship between Article 16(4) (reservations for backward classes) and Article 341 (Scheduled Castes). They argue that it supports the view that only Parliament can classify or alter the classification within Scheduled Castes.

RATIONALE:

• Equality through difference: The reasoning of the court was based on the principle that equality does not mean equal treatment, but rather equal and unequal treatment because different SC groups suffer from different disadvantages, and thus correct their subdivisions to ensure equal opportunity.
• Sub classification Consistent with Reservation Purpose: The primary purpose of reservation is to uplift historically disadvantaged groups. Without subdivision, reservation benefits may disproportionately benefit more advanced SC groups, leaving the most disadvantaged. The court found that sub-classification contributes to the real objective of conservation in ensuring equitable distribution.
• Compatibility with Article 16: The Court extended the interpretation of Article 16(4) which provides for reservations for backward classes. Acknowledging the inequality of SCs, STs and other backward classes, the Court ruled that sub-sections were in line with the spirit of Article 16, in order to ensure equal representation in public service and education.
• The importance of quantifiable data: The Court emphasized that states must provide quantifiable data to justify subdivisions, and ensure that if such decisions are evidence-based it is on the truth of non-participation and not automatically. This requirement adds safeguards to prevent abuse of the sub classification.

DEFECTS OF LAW:

• Conflict with Article 341: Previous interpretation of Article 341 in E.V. Chinnaiah did not account for differences within the SC group and treated all SCs as an equal group. This conservative approach allowed states to distinguish between SCs, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the data in dealing with relative lag.
• Legal ambiguity on sub-divisions: There is no express statutory provision under the Constitution which specifically authorizes or prohibits sub-divisions in the SC classification. This lack of clarity has led to court confusion and conflicting interpretations.
• Inconsistencies in reservation patterns: Lack of specific guidelines regarding sub-classification led to inconsistent reservation patterns in different states, further complicating matters States like Punjab tried to overcome inequalities in SCs by region there, raising legislative challenges.

INFERENCE:

The Supreme Court in this case confirmed the validity of classification into Scheduled Castes (Scheduled Castes) and Scheduled Tribes (Tribes) categories for reservation purposes. This decision turned E.V. Chinnaiah judgment which once ruled that SCs and STs designated by the President under Article 341 should be treated as equal group. The Court acknowledged that although SCs are constitutionally categorized as a group, there are significant disparities among them, with subgroups facing more severe socio-educational and economic backwardness. Subclassification is therefore necessary to achieve the objective of equity and fairness in the benefits of reservations distribution.

PRECEDENTS:

E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004):

• This article challenged the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservation) Act, 2000, which was formulated on the basis of the findings of the Ramachandra Raju Commission on intra-se backwardness among SCs in the Provision of the Act The Act divided the Scheduled Castes into four categories (A, B, C and D) with different reservation percentages. The Act was upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
• Supreme Court judgment The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Bill as unconstitutional, holding that the SCs, once listed by the President under Article 341, were a homogeneous body and could not be divided by states. This new classification was considered a violation of Article 14 by amending the presidential designation.

Indra Sawhney & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors 1991:

• Reservation for OBCs: The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs as recommended by the Mandal Commission.
• 50% Ceiling: The Court established a ceiling limit of 50% for reservations in public employment, meaning that total reservations, including those for SCS, STS, and OBCs, should not exceed 50% of the available seats.
• Exclusion of Creamy Layer: The judgment introduced the concept of the “creamy layer” within OBCs, referring to the relatively wealthier and better-educated members. The Court ruled that the creamy layer should be excluded from the benefits of reservation to ensure that the truly disadvantaged members of OBCs receive the benefits.
• No Reservation in Promotions: The Supreme Court ruled that reservations should be confined to initial appointments and should not extend to promotions in public employment.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

• The SCs in this 7- Judge Bench judgment(by 6-1) held that sub-classification of SCs and provision of special quotas for more backward classes in SCs is permissible without reference to Articles 14& 341.

The provisions of Article 16 (4) apply to all Scheduled Castes –

• The Court found that Article 16 (4) had a wide scope. It empowers the state to make room for backward classes in public service and the term ‘backward groups’ can be understood to include not only social and educational groups but also caste groups.

The denial of subclassification is the denial of equality –

• Indra Sawhane majority opinion allowed further classification in terms of backward classes, the same can be extended to SCs and STs The court observed inequality among SCs, STs and backward classes and found further sub-divisions in these groups will enhance equity to give power back majority among supporters. ‘Demonstrating the interconnectedness of race, occupation and poverty should not prevent the state from being ‘remedial’, .
• Relying on the decision of Indra Sawhney v. On Union of India, it ensured that backward classes like SCs, STs etc. stood on the same footing and could not be treated differently from others….
• The addition of Article 342A in 2018 further strengthens this argument. Article 342A allows the President to designate ‘social and educational followers’ for a State or Central Territory. These provisions are similar to Articles 341 and 342 which empower the President to designate Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The CJI clarified that SCs are not a homogenous group. Within large groups, there are groups that face discrimination.
• Furthermore, the court explained that subclassification cannot provide 100% for a subclass. Before offering a reservation, the state must justify subclassification based on quantifiable data about underrepresentation.
• The country may prefer a more backward side.

IMPLICATIONS:

• Affirmed: Sub-classification within SC and ST categories is valid.
• Ensured: Greater equality and representation for marginalized groups within SC and ST.
• Aligned: With the spirit of Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution