STATE OF PUNJAB V. DAVINDER SINGH

Nanthinisha. J, Student, The Central Law College

Introduction:

The landmark judgment “State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh” was delivered by the hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 1^st August 2024 which ruled that states can be allowed to make sub-classification within the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes for caste-based reservations. The ruling was made by a seven-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma where 6:1 majory in favor of the verdict with a dissenting opinion by justice Bela M. Trivedi. This judgment is considered to be a significant one as it overruled the decision made in the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh delivered in 2004, which was against the sub-classification within the SC’s and ST’s for reservation purposes and ruled that sub-classification within SC’s and ST’s are constitutionally invalid.

Background:

The Punjab State Government, issued a notification in the year 1975 where it divides 25% of reservations for the SC’s in which half of these seats were reserved for the Balmikis (Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs and other half seats reserved for the remaining groups in SC category and it was declared void and unconstitutional based on the precedent E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). Where it was held that Sub-classification within the SC’s and ST’s is violative of article 14 citing the constituent assembly debates and Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Further the court observed that the Scheduled Caste list provided in the constitution represents one class of homogenous group which could not be further divided. Additionally, it also held that only the parliament has the power to exclude caste from the Schedule Caste from the presidential list under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struct down the 1975 notification on 25^th July 2006. Later the State Government of Punjab again passed the “Punjab scheduled caste and backward classes (reservation in services) Act of 2006”. In which section 4(5) of the act reintroduced the preferential reservations for the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs as provided under the 1975 notification of the Punjab Government that is 50% of seats reserved for the SC’s will be further reserved to the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.

Facts of the Case:

The Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (reservation in services) Act 2006, was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29^th March 2010 by Davinder Singh who is a non-Balmiki and non-Mazhabi Sikhs SC member. The P&H High Court struct down the provision of the act which provided for sub-classification within SC’s and declared it to be unconstitutional as it provides ‘first preference’ to the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs relying upon the decision in the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment. Following this judgment the Punjab Government appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and contended that the E.V. Chinnaiah judgement was not relying upon the landmark judgment of Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India (1992) and to revise the E.V.Chinnaiah judgment. This matter was heard by a three judge bench in the Supreme Court of India. On 20^th August 2014 this matter was referred to a five judge bench. Finally, this matter was referred to a larger bench for consideration on 27^th August 2020.

Issues:

Whether the sub-classification within the SC category is constitutionally valid?
Whether the previous judgment pronounced in E.V. Chinnaiah case is as per the constitutional provisions and other precedents?
Whether as pronounced in the previous judgment a homogenous group cannot be further sub-classified for reservation purposes?

Judgment:

The Seven judge bench considered this case in two aspects one is the constitutional validity of sub-classification within the SC category i.e. is it constitutionally valid to sub-classify a homogenous group for the purpose of reservation. And the second aspect is the assessment of the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment. By 6:1 majority the SC of India held that States can make sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste for the purpose of reservations and such sub-classification does not violates Article 14 and 341. Further the CJI clarifiers that Scheduled classes are not homogenous groups but only identified as similar. Additionally, he stated that sub-classification is not an excise in identification but it is an apportionment of seats between groups of SC which was already identified under Article 341. He states that the authority of the state to make sub-classification drives from the Article 15(4) and 16(4). Which makes the power to sub-classify as a discretionary power of the state. Further the court clarified that State should justify its sub-classification on the basis of qualifiable data regarding inadequacy in representation of such sub-classified group. And the hon’ble Supreme court overturned the judgment of the E.V. Chinnaiah case.

Analysis:

After the judgment of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) reservations in India will have a drastic change as it allows the State to make sub-classifications within SC’s by overturning the E.V.Chinnaiah judgment which will be elevating the reservation system by specifically providing preferential treatment to the groups which has inadequate representation having a significant result in the upliftment of such groups. As the judgment itself states that the States should justify the sub-classification with qualifying data it ensures fair and equitable distribution of seats in public services. Which in turn helps in uplifting the precisely targeted groups. On the other hand it is equally important for the states to have clear criteria to identify the groups that need this sub-classification. However this judgment has left certain ambiguities unheard such as the applicability of Schedule VII to Article 15 and 16 which could potentially lead to certain conflicts. Therefore this significant piece of judgment has a very pivotal and much needed impact on the reservation system in India.

Conclusion:

This judgment sets as a significant precedent for the future cases involving reservations as it has brought a very pivotal change in the Indian reservation system. Further this judgment upholds the principles of equality, which ensures a more equitable approach in reservations for groups with inadequate representation, upholding the social justice. By allowing the states to make sub-classification, it aims to provide more equality in representation for such groups. Yet it is very crucial for the states to establish clear identification for the groups which has disparities and are in a great need of representation in order to provide what they need.