Background of the 6:1 Judgment:
According to Justice BR Gavai of the hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide his concurring judgment in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024) INSC 562 dated: 01st August, 2024, the following observations about the Case deserve mention:
● The present case raises a dispute amongst various classes in the group of Scheduled Castes who claim to be more underprivileged and therefore claim for a more differential treatment qua the more advantageous in that group.
Key Issues:
1) Can states sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SC) to ensure greater reservations of some SC groups over others?
2) Is the exclusion of sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories invalid when the same is permitted for the Socially and Educationally Backward categories?
3) Was the SC’s 5-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh incorrect?
Case Description:
In 1975,
- the government of Punjab issued a notification dividing its existing 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) into two categories.
- Half of these seats reserved for the SC category were to be offered to Balmikis (Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs.
- The other half of the reserved seats was for the remaining groups within the SC category.
- This notification continued to remain in effect for 31 years, until the SC’s five-judge bench decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) set aside a similar law in Andhra Pradesh.
- Since the SC’s Chinnaiah decision ruled that sub-classification within the SC category was not permitted;
- Following the Chinnaiah decision, the Punjab government passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (the Act).
- Section 4(5) of the Act reintroduced “first preference” reservation for the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs—half of the total seats reserved for the SC category would be offered first to these two communities before all other SC groups (Supreme Court Observer, 2024)
On 29 March 2010,
- the Punjab and Haryana HC struck down this provision of the Act based on the SC’s decision in Chinnaiah, leading to a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.
- The Punjab government argued that E.V. Chinnaiah was not in accordance with the SC’s nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992).
- In Indra Sawhney, the SC recognised that some classes within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category may be more or less backward than others.
- Accordingly, states were permitted under law to make sub-classifications within the OBC category to address such differences.
- The Punjab government contended that E.V. Chinnaiah wrongly understood this to mean that only the OBC category could be sub-classified and not the SC category (Supreme Court Observer, 2024)
On 15 July 2020,
- a five-judge bench led by Justice Arun Mishra and comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and Aniruddha Bose began hearing the matter.
- The appellants (Punjab government) pointed out that preferential treatment was a facet of the right to equality.
- Sub-classification, as introduced by the Punjab government, was permitted by Article 16(4) and furthered the cause of adequate representation.
- The five-judge Bench noted that sub-classification was permitted for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) under Article 342A (introduced in 2018), which empowers the President to prepare a list of SEBCs.
- It stated that the constitutional provisions for recognising Scheduled Castes (Article 341), Scheduled Tribes (Article 342), and SEBCs (Article 342A) were ‘pari materia’ (meaning ‘on the same matter’) and must therefore be interpreted similarly.
- Since sub-classification was permitted within the SEBC category (per Indra Sawhney), it cannot be disallowed for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes categories (Supreme Court Observer, 2024)
28 August 2020
- Accordingly, the five-judge bench noted that it was not competent to revisit E.V. Chinnaiah which was also heard by a five-judge bench.
- It referred the matter to a seven-judge bench on 28 August 2020.
On 1 February 2024,
- After three days of hearings, the seven-judge bench of the Apex Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reserved judgment in the case.
On 1 August 2024,
- the top court upheld the validity of sub-classification with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories in a 6:1 majority.
In conclusion:
The CJI Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud in his Judgment on 01st August, 2024, in State of Punjab V. Davinder Singh (2024) INSC 562 held:
The holding in Chinnaiah (supra) that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled.
The scope of sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is summarised below:
i. The objective of any form of affirmative action including subclassification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes.
The State can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes…;
ii. The State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the “services of the State” because it is used as an indicator of backwardness; and
iii. Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4)...Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1) (D. Y. Chandrachud, 2024).
