State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh: Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes

Introduction and Background of the Case

The Supreme Court's approach to affirmative action witnessed a watershed moment in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, where a seven-judge constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, addressed the critical question of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs). This landmark judgment transcends mere constitutional interpretation, delving into the heart of India's complex social fabric. At its core, the case examines whether the existing framework of reservations can be further refined through sub-classification, reflecting the nuanced reality of disparities within disadvantaged groups.

Facts

The Punjab Government initially issued a circular in the year 1975, which provided that out of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, 50% of the vacancies would be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. However, this circular was struck down by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Special Leave Petition filed against the same was also dismissed.

Subsequently, the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 was notified. Section 4(5) of the Act made similar provisions as were made in the earlier circular, stipulating that 50% of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, subject to their availability, by providing first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidates. However, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court once again struck down the provisions contained in Section 4(5) of the Act after relying upon the decision of the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors. judgment.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, a Bench of three Judges referred it to a larger Bench for consideration, opining that the judgment of a 5-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah needed to be revisited in light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and for not correctly following the exposition of the law in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, which dealt with the sub-classification of the OBCs.

Issues

• Whether the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services Act, 2006) are constitutionally valid?
• Whether it is justified for the state to sub-classify in order to ensure more reservation for some SC groups over others?
• Was the decision of the 5-judge constitutional bench wrong in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, and does it require revisitation?

Rule of Law

• Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – Section 4(5)
• Article 14, 15(4), 16(1), and 16(4) of the Constitution of India

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

Article 341

1. The President may, with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races, or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races, or tribes which shall, for the purposes of this Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
2. Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race, or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race, or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

Article 342

1. The President may, with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall, for the purposes of this Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
2. Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

Article 342A

1. The President may, with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the socially and educationally backward classes which shall, for the purposes of this Constitution, be deemed to be socially and educationally backward classes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
2. Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the Central List of socially and educationally backward classes specified in a notification issued under Clause (1) any socially and educationally backward class, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said Clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

What was Held?

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, observed that SCs are not a homogeneous group and thus the sub-classification does not violate the Constitution. States can implement sub-classification, but it must be justified with empirical data, and reservations cannot be allocated 100% to any sub-class.