No image available for this title
Bookmark Share

Text

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. V. DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS., 2024

FACTS OF THE CASE
The Punjabi government implemented in 1975 that it intended to
divide the 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) into two distinct classes. Balmikis
(Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs were to be given half of the seats set put aside for the SC
category. The remaining groups in the SC category occupied the other half of the reserved
seats. Before a similar law in Andhra Pradesh was overturned by the Supreme Court's five-
judge bench in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), this notification remained
in force for 31 years. The Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated the Punjab notification
on July 25, 2006, after the Supreme Court's Chinnaiah ruling declared that sub-classification
within the SC category was not allowed.
There are actually two primary elements to the SC's determining in E.V. Chinnaiah. First, no
group of people can be classified as a Scheduled Caste by state governments. According to
Article 341, the President by itself has this authority. Secondly, the entire Scheduled Caste
category (as defined by Article 341) was a single "homogenous" group. This meant that
members of the same class would be treated differently as a result of any sub classification
within a homogeneous group, which would be against the right to equality.
The Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (the
Act) was passed by the Punjab government in response to the Chinnaiah ruling. The Balmikis
and Mazhabi Sikhs were given "first preference" reservations under Section 4(5) of the Act,
indicating that they would be given half of the seats set aside for the SC category before any
other SC groups. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Chinnaiah, the Punjab and Haryana
High Court invalidated this section of the Act on March 29, 2010, sparking an appeal to the
Supreme Court. The Punjab government contended that E.V. Chinnaiah failed to comply
with the ruling of the Supreme Court's nine-judge panel in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
(1992). The SC acknowledged in the Indra Sawhney case that particular classes falling under
the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category might be more or less backward than others. For
the purpose of to address these disparities, states were constitutionally permitted to create
subcategories within the OBC category. The Punjab government maintained that E.V.
Chinnaiah misinterpreted this to imply that the SC category could not be subdivided and that
only the OBC category could.
The three-judge bench considering the appeal sent the case to a five-judge Constitution
Bench on August 20, 2014, to determine whether E.V. Chinnaiah was correct.

A five-judge panel consisting of Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and
Aniruddha Bose, led by Justice Arun Mishra, started listening to the case on July 15, 2020.
One aspect of the right to equality, according to the appellants (the Punjab government), is
receiving special consideration. The Punjab government's introduction of sub-classification,
which was allowed by Article 16(4), advanced the goal of adequate representation.
Furthermore, by acknowledging the "creamy layer" concept, the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling
in Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta allowed sub-classification within the SC group.
The five-judge Bench pointed out that Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
(SEBCs) were allowed to be sub classified under Article 342A, which became effective in
2018 and gives the President the authority to create a list of SEBCs. It declared that the
constitutional provisions recognizing Scheduled Tribes (Article 342), Scheduled Castes
(Article 341), and SEBCs (Article 342A) were "pari materia," or "on the same matter," and
thus needed to be understood in a similar manner According to Indra Sawhney, sub-
classification had been permitted under the SEBC category, so it cannot be prohibited for the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes categories.
Furthermore, the SC pointed out the fact that in order to implement the spirit of the right to
equality, the State ought to be allowed to create sub-classifications, given its authority to
grant reservations for the SC and ST categories under Articles 15 and 16. Indra Sawhney and

other SC previous decisions had to be properly followed because the appeal against E.V.
Chinnaiah involved the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A. As a
result, it was the subject of great significance to the community.

As a result, the five-judge bench stated that it lacked the authority to reexamine E.V.
Chinnaiah, which was also heard by a five-judge bench. On August 28, 2020, it sent the case
to a seven-judge panel.
The Supreme Court postponed the proceedings until February 6, 2024, on February 1, 2024.
The seven-judge panel, presided over by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, set aside judgment
in the case following three days of hearings.

In a 6:1 majority ruling on August 1, 2024, the highest court maintained the legality of sub
classification under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories as well.

ISSUES OF THE CASE –
 Can sub-classification is allowed for the SEBC group, is it also allowed for the SC and
ST categories?
 Can legislative bodies in states create subcategories within the SC and ST categories?
 Are the equal protection fundamentals outlined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian
Constitution violated by the sub classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) for the purposes
of reservations?
 The legality of the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling, which originally stated that SCs are a
homogeneous group and cannot be further split for the reason of reservations.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER
The State of Punjab's Advocate General, Mr.
Gurminder Singh, and the Additional Advocate General, Mr. Shadan Farasat, argued that
 The Chinnaiah ruling incorrectly views the Scheduled Castes as an inseparable a single
entity or block. Substantial equality is promoted by special consideration. Justice SB
Sinha's ruling in Chinnaiah (above) is in conflict; it goes against the fundamental
principle of reservations, which requires protective discrimination based on relative
backwardness. Although it acknowledges that there are differences between the

Scheduled Castes, it maintains that the solution for these differences is illegal under the
Constitution. Sub-classification of the class would be in pursuit of genuine equality soon
after inter-se difference is recognized. Sub-classification throughout a class is consistent
with Justice Mathew's viewpoint in NM Thomas (above), which held that additional
classification throughout the class was attainable. The State has the authority to sub-
classify considering the enabling power to reserve seats includes supplementary and
supplemental provisions like choices, modifications, and deductions. This court
recognized personal distinctions within castes in Indra Sawhney.
 The Scheduled Castes experience different levels of intolerance and are not a
homogenous group. The President fulfilled the first part of the duty under Article 16(4) to
determine disadvantage, and the Parliament then fulfilled the second part under Article
341. A directive for the States is the second component of the investigation into
"inadequate representation." The second part of Article 16(4) would become meaningless
and the function of the States would ultimately become unnecessary if the Scheduled
Castes list was viewed just like a single entity. Since the caste is a sociological reality and
the list is constructed using legitimate literary fiction, Scheduled Castes retain their
separate identities after being listed. The additional Scheduled Castes in the List notified
under Article 341 will not be excluded due to the restricted choice given to certain groups
by sub classification due to their compared disadvantaged status.
 Senior attorney Mr. Shekhar Naphade, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, argued that
Chinnaiah (above) fails to establish a connection between Article 341 and sub
classification. The State legislature's authority to categorize the Scheduled Castes
identified is unaffected by the straightforward language of Article 341, and Article 14
governs classification based on inter-se backwardness. This inter-se backwardness occurs
within the Scheduled Castes, not between individuals. The Scheduled Castes sub
classification is appropriate for Indra Sawhney (above).
On the basis of Intervenor Madiga Jana Seva Samiti, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior
counsel, argued that Scheduled Castes or Tribes are not castes due to the use of "deemed"
in Article 366(24).
 The Petitioner Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi's learned senior counsel, Mr. KK
Venugopal, argued that Article 14 forbids injustice by treating disparate groups equally in
addition to requiring equal treatment for everyone. He argued that Article 38(2) gives
people with different statuses the right to preferential treatment in order to put them on

the same level. Article 38(2) must be read in conjunction with Article 341. The Attorney
General of India, Mr. R Venkataramani, argued that Articles 14 to 16 and Articles 341
and 342 have distinct functions. Homogeneity is not implied by merely being designated
according to Article 341. The Indian Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, argued that
equality is a dynamic idea.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Manoj Swarup, senior counsel, argued
that those classified as Scheduled Castes as defined by an announcement delivered by the
President under Article 341(1) are a class in their own, and that the second section of Article
341(2) provides that no alteration to the List will be allowed excluding by a law established
by Parliament. As is clear from the Constituent Assembly debates on Article 341, Parliament
is the only body with the authority to change the Presidential list; otherwise, the executive
would modify with the list to accomplish its political objectives.
 The special consideration of Balmikis Sikhs and Mazhabi in Punjab's 50% reserved seats
for Scheduled Castes inevitably results in the exclusion of members of various Scheduled
Castes. The Seventh Schedule contains no information pertaining to Scheduled Castes.
Entry 97 of List I is the sole category that permits the enactment of a law pertaining to
reservations for the Scheduled Castes. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes,
established under Article 338, can take into account any newly acquired information sets
or observations concerning the Scheduled Castes and offer suggestions, even if sub-
classification of the Scheduled Castes is allowed. Parliament alone, not the State
Legislature, has the authority to legislate such a law. No caste may be added or removed
by courts by means of judicial action from the President's list of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes.
 Due to Articles 341, 342, and 342-A are pari materia, the Scheduled Castes' sub
classification cannot be deemed legally binding. The Scheduled Castes and the Other
Backward Classes are two different classes. One thing that all castes that have been
designated as Scheduled Castes have in frequently encountered is that they have all been
harmed historically by untouchables.
 According to senior counsel Dr. KS Chauhan, the court determined in Indra Sawhney
(above) that a caste may qualify as a class for the purposes of reservation under Article 16
if it is socially and educationally downward. According to Justice Jeevan Reddy's

observation in Indra Sawhney (above), Article 16(4) of the Constitution primarily
considers the requirement that reservations be made on the basis of social inequalities.
Because all of the castes that the president has designated as Scheduled Castes have
untouchables as their predominant socioeconomic disadvantage, there is no room for
additional classification of the Scheduled Castes.
 According to senior counsel Mr. Sanjay Hegde, this court's rulings following Indra
Sawhney (above) noted that their applicability to other backward classes was restricted.
This Court ruled in State of Kerala v. NM Thomas 48 that the Scheduled Castes are a
class unto themselves. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union
of India, similar findings were noted. According to Article 341, states are required to
provide advantages to all castes that the president has alerted. The State Government may
suggest that a caste be removed from the list of Scheduled Castes if it believes that certain
advantages are no longer necessary to be granted to members of the caste system.
 According to the viewpoint of Justice SB Sinha in Chinnaiah (above), Mr. Mallela
Venkata Rao, the counsel, argued that other affirmative action initiatives must be used to
address inter-se backwardness within the Scheduled Castes in a way that is both
acceptable and legally binding. Counsel Mr. Mallela Venkata Rao argued that the proper
and legitimate course of conduct is to follow Justice SB Sinha's ruling in Chinnaiah
(above), which states that other initiatives such as affirmative action must be used to
address inter-se backwardness within the Scheduled Castes. A social welfare group called
Anusuchit Jaati- Janjati Adhikari Evam Karamchari Sangh argued that the Scheduled
Castes' sub classification negates the rationale behind their special reservation systems.

JUDGEMENT-
A landmark Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of sub classifying
Scheduled Castes (SCs) for affirmative action, including reservations under Articles 14, 15,
and 16 of the Indian Constitution, was rendered in the case of The State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Davinder Singh & Ors. (2024). The Court overturned the earlier ruling that such a sub
classification was unconstitutional, which was made in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2005).The Supreme Court ruled that sub classification throughout SCs is permitted
by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution in order to guarantee an equitable distribution
of reservation advantages​

The Court underlined that treating SCs as a homogeneous group does not address the
disparities among them, acknowledging the social and historical heterogeneity within them.​
The Court clarified that any sub classification must be supported by measurable and
verifiable information about portrayal in government organizations and levels of
retardation.​ Such a sub classification must be consistent with the goals of Articles 15(4) and
16(4) and ought not to completely deny any group the advantages of reservation systems.​
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Bela M. Trivedi claimed that sub classification went against
Article 341 of the Constitution, which establishes the Scheduled Castes list. She was worried
that the benefits meant for the historically marginalized populations designated as SCs might
be diminished as a result of sub classification.
With its emphasis on equal treatment in SCs, this ruling represents a paradigm shift in the
jurisprudence surrounding affirmative action. It guarantees that the most marginalized
individuals benefit from reservations by enabling the state to acknowledge and deal with
unique requirements within various SC segments. The disapproving view, however,
emphasizes the necessity of cautious application to avoid possibly leaving out worthy groups.

Detail Information
Title
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. V. DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS., 2024
Court
: supreme court.,
Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules
-
Language
English
Case Number/Citation
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2011
Matter(s)
-
Councels
PETITIONER DEVYANI GUPTA, ANIS AHMED KHAN, R. D. UPADHYAY AND KARAN SHARMA. RESPONDENT BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, SATYENDRA KUMAR, SHEKHAR KUMAR AND NARESH BAKSHI.
Statement of Responsibility
See Also

No other version available

File Attachment
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment