The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2024 INSC 562, decided on 1 August 2024)
Justice: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Satish C. Sharma (Justice Trivedi dissented) 6:1 majority Key Issues:
1. Is sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservations permissible under the Indian
Constitution?
2. Can states make such sub-classifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution?
Background:
- Article 341 empowers the President to list castes as SCs, while Parliament can amend this list. Several states, including Punjab, had laws offering preferential reservations within SCs (e.g., Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab). In 2010, the Punjab High Court deemed such provisions unconstitutional, relying on the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment, which held that sub-classification of SCs
violated Article 341.
- In 2020, the Supreme Court referred the matter for reconsideration by a larger bench, leading to the current decision by a seven-judge bench.
Decision:
By a 6:1 majority, the Court ruled that states can sub-classify SCs for reservations. (Justice Trivedi dissented)
Reasoning:
- Sub-classification Permitted: The majority held that Indra Sawhney did not bar sub- classification of SCs and recognized the need for internal distinctions to achieve substantive equality. It found that sub-classification is permissible to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits within SCs, provided that no caste is removed from the President’s list.
- SCs Are Not Homogeneous: The majority ruled that while SCs are treated as a class distinct from non-SCs, they are not necessarily homogeneous internally. Thus, sub-classification to address varying degrees of disadvantage is allowed.
- State Power Under Articles 15 and 16: Sub-classification does not alter the Presidential list of SCs but identifies differences in levels of representation among groups within the list. Therefore, states can make sub-classifications under Articles 15 and 16, as long as empirical evidence supports the unequal representation.
- Criteria and Judicial Review: The majority emphasized that states must base sub-classifications on empirical data showing inadequate representation due to backwardness. Such policies are subject to judicial review to prevent arbitrary classifications.
- Creamy Layer Exclusion: The majority held that states should exclude the "creamy layer" (wealthier or more advantaged individuals) within SC/ST groups from reservations to ensure that benefits reach the most disadvantaged. However, it cautioned that the criteria for identifying the creamy layer for SCs should differ from those applied to OBCs.
Dissent: Justice Trivedi dissented, arguing that:
- SCs, once included in the Presidential list, form a homogeneous class and cannot be further divided.
- States lack constitutional authority to sub-classify SCs, as such power resides exclusively with Parliament.
- The creamy layer concept is not applicable to SC/ST groups, as they are deemed uniformly backward by Presidential order.
- The referral of Chinnaiah for reconsideration lacked adequate justification.
Conclusion:
The majority ruling permits states to make sub-classifications within SCs for reservation purposes, provided these distinctions are based on clear evidence of unequal representation. This decision marks a significant shift from the previous view in Chinnaiah, broadening the scope of state intervention in reservation policies.
