STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. DAVINDER SINGH & ORS. (2024)

Admin

3 weeks ago

(Author: Ananya Singh, a student at Babu Banarasi Das University)

Case Number: CA 2317/2011

Date of Judgement: 1/08/2024

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, B.R. Gavai J, Vikram Nath J, B.M. Trivedi J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J, S.C. Sharma J.

Appellants: State of Punjab, Director of Public Instructions, Gurbachan Singh.

Respondent: Davinder Sing, Chamar Mahansabha, Lachman Singh.

After achieving Independence in 1947, the farmers of India’s constitution instituted a democratic system that upheld the principle of equality for all. They also include measures for affirmative action to rectify historical injustices experienced by specific marginalized groups. This led to the introduction of reservation policies in education and employment, intending to reduce disparities and ensure representation for these groups in societal and governmental contexts.

Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the duration and implications of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These concerns have promoted discussions about the continuation of these measures and the potential impact on the individuals who have progressed beyond their designated groups.

A significant development occurred on 1st August 2024, when the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that fundamentally transformed the framework for managing reservation policies related to Scheduled Cate and Scheduled Tribes. This judgement has far-reaching implications and warrants an in-depth examination of its historical context and the pivotal 2004 decision that precipitated this change.

Article 341 Of the Indian Constitution:

Article 341 of the Indian Constitution allows the President to recognize certain castes, races, and tribes within SCs/STs for a particular State or Union territory if they have faced discrimination and untouchability.

Provisions Involved:

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures that everyone is equal before the law and has equal protection under the. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination by the State based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of these factors. In addition, Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, as well as for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, without violating the provisions of Article 15.
Article 16 of the Constitution addresses the issues of equal opportunity in public employment. According to Article 16 (1), all citizens have an equal opportunity for employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16 (2) prohibits discrimination against citizens in employment or office under the State based on various factors such as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of these grounds. Furthermore, If the state decides that any particular class of citizens is underrepresented in the state-run services, it may create provisions under Article 16(4) to reserve appointments or jobs for them.

Background And Timeline of the Case:

The narrative commences in 1975, when the Punjab government issued a notification to provide special benefits, such as job reservation or educational opportunities, to the two most marginalized communities in Punjab: the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh. Moving ahead to 2004, this notification faced scrutiny and legal challenge as the Supreme Court had nullified a comparable notification in Andra Pradesh in the EV Chinnaiah case.

1975: The Punjab government issued a notification that divided its 25% Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation into two categories, marking one of the early instances of sub-classification within existing reservations by a state. This policy remained in effect for nearly three decades until encountering legal challenges in 2004.

2004: The Supreme Court declared the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000 unconstitutional, stating that it violated the Right to Equality in the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case. The court emphasized that the SC list should be treated as a single, homogeneous group. Subsequently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab, invalidated the 1975 notification, aligning with the E.V. Chinnaiah decision.

2006: The Punjab government attempted to reintroduce sub-categorization through the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act. However, this attempt was unsuccessful as the act was struck down in 2010.

2014: The Supreme Court referred a legal issue to a five-judge constitution bench to review the correctness of the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah decisions, which was under scrutiny. The Supreme Court requested a comprehensive re-evaluation of the matter.

2020: A panel of judges concluded that a reconsideration of a 2004 ruling was necessary. They contested the notion that all Scheduled Castes (SCs) are homogenous and acknowledged internal variations within the group. Additionally, the judges proposed the introduction of the “creamy layer” concept for both SCs and STs.

2024: A 7-judge Bench (6:1) overturned Chinnaiah, allowing states to sub-classify SC/ST & sub-quotas for backward communities.

E.V. Chinnaiah V. State Of Andhra Pradesh:

The constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000 was under deliberation by a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court.
The legislation was put into effect after the findings of the Ramachandran Raju Commission, which was established by the state government. The commission was given the responsibility of identifying the specific segments within the Scheduled Castes in the state that had not taken advantage of the privileges of reservations in college admissions and state public services.
The state government promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Ordinance, 1999, after finding inequalities among the Scheduled Castes in matters of reservation in education in education and appointment.
During the pendency of the legal proceedings contesting the Ordinance, the state implemented a statute to supplant the Ordinance.
The text discusses the allocation of reservation benefits among Scheduled Castes into four groups- Groups A, B, C and D, with varying percentages: 1% for group A, 7% for group B, 6% for group C, and 1% for group D, subject to the availability of eligible candidates.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected challenges to the Act, leading to an appeal which came to be decided by the Supreme Court in the Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case. The appellants argued that the state legislature lacked legislative competence to enact the law, as it violated Article 341(2) and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The state argued that it could decide the scope and extent of reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and that the Act of 2000 was a form of affirmative action which did not exclude or include anyone from the Presidential List under Article 341.
The Supreme Court held in 2004 that the Andhra Pradesh Act was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court bench stated that reservations are meant to provide special protection to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as a homogeneous class. Further classification within this group would interfere with the Presidential List, leading to reverse discrimination and violation of Article 14.
The 2004 verdict ruled that only Parliament, not the state legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to be Scheduled Caste from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.

Punjab’s And Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act:

In 2006, the Punjab government passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, giving 50% of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment to two specific communities as the first preference. This Act was challenged and struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010, leading to an appeal at the Supreme Court.

State Of Punjab V. Davinder Singh (Current Case):

In 2014, a 3-judge bench presiding over the appeal referred the matter to a 5-judge Constitution Bench for a reevaluation of the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah case. The Davinder Singh case bench emphasized the necessity for both the judiciary and the state to address the genuine challenges encountered by people, highlighting the internal variations within the Scheduled Castes. However, as with the previous 5-judge bench in the E.V. Chinnaiah case, a larger 7-judge panel was required to conduct a more comprehensive review of the issue. This expanded bench undertook the task in February 2024.

Key Issues:

Can sub-classification within a reserved class be allowed under Articles 14, 15 and 16?
The question of whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping is of considerable significance.
Does Article 341 establish a uniform category through the use of the deeming fiction provision?
Whether there are any limits on the scope of sub-classification.

Arguments Made by The Petitioners:

The main arguments presented by the petitioners were:

Misrepresentation in the E.V. Chinnaiah case: In this case, the court’s interpretation regarding subclassification was found to be flawed. The court erroneously stated that subclassification was permissible only for OBCs, citing the Indra Sahwney case. However, this interpretation was inaccurate, as the Indra Sahwney case did not explicitly prohibit subclassification for SCs.
Article 341: In the Chinnaiah case, Article 341 allows the President to list communities as Scheduled Castes (SCs), which is the first step for granting reservations. State laws can then be created for reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) once a community is listed.
Subcategorization for Enhanced Administration: Subcategories within reserved groups like SCs can lead to more diverse and effective governance by ensuring all subgroups are represented.
Heterogeneity in Scheduled Castes: The range of experiences and levels of discrimination within SCs varies significantly because of factors such as occupation, highlighting the necessity of creating subcategories to tackle particular issues.

Arguments made by the Respondents:

Article 341(1) promotes ‘homogeneity’ by consolidating different Scheduled Castes groups into a single category, recognizing their shared experiences of discrimination.
The responsibility of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes falls on Parliament according to Article 341(2), not on state governments. The president holds the constitutional authority to add or remove specific backward classes from the Scheduled Castes lists, while state governments can express their concerns through other channels.

Judgement In the State of Punjab and Ors. V. Davinder Singh and Ors.:

Sub-categorization allowed: States can now implement sub-categorization within the SCs and STs.
Creamy Layer: The Court stressed the importance of excluding the ‘creamy layer’ – more privileged members- within SC and ST groups from the benefits of affirmative action.
Requirement of empirical study: Before implementing sub-categorization in SCs and STs the State shall conduct an empirical study and their decisions will be subject to judicial review

CONCLUSION

The decision in the E.V. Chinnaiah case has been reversed by the Supreme Court. In the case of the State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors., the Supreme Court has allowed for sub-categorization in SCs.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. DAVINDER SINGH & ORS. (2024). In Supreme Court of India.

FAQs