THE STATE OF PUNJAB vs DAVINDER SINGH, 2024
Case Title and Citation: The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh 2024 INSC 562 (1 August 2024).
Factual Background
The dispute arose from the State of Punjab’s attempt to distribute reservation benefits among Scheduled Castes (SCs) by prioritizing the most disadvantaged groups within the SC list. Specifically, Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, stipulated that fifty percent of the SC reservation quota was to be offered as a first preference to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared this provision unconstitutional in 2010, relying on the prior Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). The Chinnaiah judgment prohibited state sub-classification of SCs, asserting that SCs form a single homogeneous class, and that any sub-classification would amount to “tinkering” with the Presidential List notified under Article 341, a power reserved exclusively for Parliament. Following an appeal of the Punjab Act, a series of referrals led to a seven-judge bench to resolve the conflict regarding the correctness of the Chinnaiah decision, with similar challenges from Haryana and Tamil Nadu also being tagged.
Issue(s)
- Whether State Legislatures possess the authority under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution to create sub-classifications among Scheduled Castes for the purpose of extending reservation benefits?
- What is the true legal character of the Scheduled Castes designated under Article 341; specifically, do they constitute a monolithic, homogenous class, or a heterogeneous grouping, thus permitting further classification?
- Does sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for reservation benefits violate Article 341(2) by unlawfully altering or tinkering with the Presidential List?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Seven-Judge Bench, by a majority of 6:1, held that it is constitutionally permissible for states to create sub-classifications among the Scheduled Castes when implementing reservation policies. The Court overruled the holding in E.V. Chinnaiah which deemed such state sub-classification impermissible. The decision also affirmed that the creamy layer principle is applicable to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for excluding the socially advanced individuals from reservation benefits.
Reason for the Decision
- SCs are Not a Homogenous Class: The inclusion of various castes and groups in the Presidential List under Article 341 is for the limited purpose of identification as Scheduled Castes, which entitles them to constitutional benefits. This process does not create a uniform, internally homogenous class that precludes further sub-classification. Historical and empirical evidence confirms that inequality exists within the SCs themselves, making them a heterogeneous group in terms of relative disadvantage.
- Sub-classification is an Aspect of Substantive Equality: The concept of equality recognized in Articles 14, 15, and 16 is one of substantive equality, meaning it requires differential treatment of those who are unequal (i.e., treating unequals unequally). Sub-classification within a class (such as SCs) is a constitutional requirement to ensure that the more backward sections, which are inadequately represented, receive meaningful benefits, thereby fulfilling the mandate of substantive equality and preventing the entire benefit from being “usurped by few castes”.
- No Violation of Article 341: Article 341(2) prohibits the States from including or excluding castes from the Presidential List. Sub-classification for reservation purposes does not violate this restriction because it does not remove any group from the SC List; rather, it aims at a rational apportionment of benefits among the already recognized groups. The State’s power to sub-classify stems from its competence to enact affirmative action policies under Articles 15 and 16, provided that such action is supported by empirical data demonstrating inter-se backwardness and inadequacy of effective representation.
- Applicability of Creamy Layer: Excluding the most advanced individuals (creamy layer) from the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes does not amount to “tinkering” with the Presidential List; rather, it ensures that the benefits flow to the truly needy. The application of the creamy layer principle is permissible under the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the power of State Legislatures to create rational sub-classifications within the list of Scheduled Castes to ensure that reservation benefits are equitably distributed to the most disadvantaged and inadequately represented groups within that category. The ruling affirmed that the objective of reservation is best served by recognizing the heterogeneity within the SC list and ensuring “effective representation” across all levels of service.
Case Materials
Day 1 of Arguments: 6 February 2024 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 2 of Arguments: 7 February 2024 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 3 of Arguments: 8 February 2024 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
