Author: KARTIK MADHU, Presidency University, Bangalore
Overview
The ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh represents a notable shift from the stance previously adopted by the Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) by state legislation was held to be unconstitutional. The litigation arose from the enactment of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which provided for preferential reservation to certain depressed classes within the SCs in public employment.
Drawing upon the precedent set in E.V. Chinnaiah, the Punjab and Haryana High Court based its reasoning on that judgment. It struck down the legislation, holding it to be violative of Articles 14 and 341 of the Constitution. Upon appeal, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court expressed doubts regarding the correctness of Chinnaiah and referred the matter to a larger bench. The seven-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, re-examined the constitutional permissibility of sub-classification within SCs and delivered a ruling that realigns the constitutional interpretation of equality and reservation in favor of substantive justice.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The cause of action arose from the passing of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The act introduced a further sub-classification of the scheduled castes within Punjab, offering reservation to the depressed classes within the scheduled castes in state government services. The same was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court referred to the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the court struck down the act on the grounds that it was violative of articles 14 and 341 of the constitution.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court expressed its doubts about the correctness of the judgment given in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra). However, the E.V. Chinnaiah judgement was also given by a five-judge bench; thus, the court found itself lacking in jurisdiction and referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
The following questions were brought before the court:
Whether there could be sub-classification of castes under the scheduled castes.
Whether creating such sub-classifications infringed upon the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the state could make such a subclassification.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The main issues concerned the violation of certain constitutional provisions through the enactment of the said act, namely:
Article 14: right to equality
Article 15: Bars discrimination based solely on caste and other specified grounds.
Article 16: guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment sectors
Along with the above rights being violated, it was also disputed that subclassification by state was violative of Article 341 of the constitution, which stated that only the president may deem a class as SC/ST.
ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER
The petitioners argued that even among the scheduled castes, there were classes that were even more depressed. Therefore, to support their need for state protection, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. where the Supreme Court itself acknowledged the existence of a “Creamy Layer” among the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC). Thus, it was unreasonable on the part of the court to treat the Scheduled Castes as a “homogenous monolith.”
The petitioners also submitted that the provisions under Article 341 of the Constitution only pertained to the identification of the backward classes and did not prohibit the states from making any subclassifications within an identified class. The petitioners also laid an emphasis on the powers of the states to provide reservations.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS
The respondents contended that once identified as a backward class under section 341 of the constitution, the scheduled castes are to be considered a homogenous group. This argument was based on the reasoning that any further subclassification would lead to a violation of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the respondents argued that to maintain equality within the scheduled tribes, they should be treated as a “homogenous monolith.”
The respondents asserted that further preferential treatment within the scheduled castes would effectively exclude the other members of the scheduled castes, thus violating equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
They also maintained that the power to amend the SC list lay solely with the parliament under article 341 of the constitution and that the power of judicial review should not be used to circumvent the provisions established by the constitution for the classification of SC.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, laid down the landmark judgment in this case, overruling its decision in E.V. Chinnaiah. The court held that
Subclassification within scheduled castes is constitutionally valid provided that it is based on objective criteria and that the court is satisfied of the backwardness of the subclass through empirical evidence.
Sub-classification does not amount to exclusion but rational prioritization for ensuring distributive justice.
The legal fiction created by Article 341 does not imply that all the communities included in the Scheduled Castes list share identical or unchanging socio-economic circumstances.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court, by referring to its judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, admitted the existence of a ‘creamy layer’ even among the backward classes. Therefore, it stands to reason that there will exist within the depressed castes those that are more disparate than the others. The steps taken by the state government through declassification were then merely an exercise in attempting to grant opportunities to severely depressed classes. It was not violative of Article 14, as per the respondent’s claims.
The judgment draws a comparison with OBC jurisprudence to come to the conclusion that considering the entirety of scheduled castes as a singular monolith would defeat the purpose of reservation. The court also observed that while Article 341 of the constitution does indeed grant the power to the president to identify the scheduled castes. It does not explicitly prohibit any subclassification by the states.
CASE LAWS
1. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Relevance: The court in this case struck down a similar notification which endeavored to subclassify the scheduled castes within Andhra Pradesh. The Punjab and Haryana high court relied on this judgment when it struck down the law by the Punjab government.
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Relevance: The court in this case had recognized the existence of a ‘creamy layer.’ among the OBC and came to the conclusion that similarly sub-classifying the scheduled castes need not be violative of constitutional provisions.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh marked a pivotal moment in the legal understanding of caste-based reservations. conclusively establishes that sub-classification among Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible, provided it is supported by objective and empirical data demonstrating inter-se backwardness and inadequate representation. In departing from E.V. Chinnaiah, the Court made it clear that Article 341’s legal framework does not assume that all Scheduled Caste communities share the same socio-economic conditions. Consequently, prioritizing the most disadvantaged sections within the SC list does not violate Article 14 but instead furthers its guarantee of substantive equality.
This judgment reinforces the principle that equality is not achieved merely through formal categorization but through calibrated measures aimed at equitable distribution of benefits. It reaffirms the constitutional legitimacy of State action in furthering social justice and ensures that the intended purpose of reservations is not undermined by a rigid or monolithic understanding of historically marginalized groups.
FAQs
1. What was the primary issue before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh?
The central issue was whether the State of Punjab could legally sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservations, and whether such sub-classification violated Articles 14 and 341 of the Constitution.
2. What was the Supreme Court’s view on the legal effect of Article 341 in this context?
The Court held that Article 341 pertains solely to the identification of Scheduled Castes and does not prohibit the State from making sub-classifications within the identified groups for the purposes of reservation.
3. On what grounds did the Supreme Court overrule E.V. Chinnaiah?
E.V. Chinnaiah was overruled on the basis that it erroneously treated SCs as a homogenous class, disregarding inter-se disparities and the constitutional principles of substantive equality and distributive justice.
4. How did the Court justify the sub-classification within SCs as not being violative of Article 14?
The Court held that treating unequal groups within SCs equally would defeat the purpose of Article 14. Sub-classification, based on empirical evidence, ensures fairer distribution of benefits and is a valid means of achieving equality.
5. What precedent did the Court rely on to support the concept of intra-group classification?
The Court relied on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, where it recognised the presence of a ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs, to support the legitimacy of differentiating among similarly classified groups based on relative backwardness.
