State of Punjab & Others v. Davinder Singh & Others (2024)

Introduction 

This Supreme Court judgment addressed the constitutional validity of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation purposes. The seven-judge bench dismissed the Chinnaiah precedent that treated SCs as homogeneous, establishing that sub-classification is constitutionally permissible to ensure reservation benefits reach the most backward sections within these communities. 

Facts 

• Seven-judge bench comprising former CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma. 
• Punjab Legislature enacted Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. 
• Act stipulated 50% of SC quota vacancies for Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities as first preference. 
• Punjab and Haryana High Court declared this unconstitutional. 
• Haryana Government Notification 1994 classified SCs into Blocks A and B - also quashed by High Court. 
• Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Act 2009 reserved 16% of SC seats for Arunthathiyars in educational institutions. 
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) had struck down SC sub-classification as unconstitutional. 
• Constitution Bench in 2020 referred matter to larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration. 

Issues 

• Whether sub-classification of reserved classes is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16. 
• Whether Scheduled Castes constitute homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping. 
• Whether Article 341 creates homogeneous class through deeming fiction. 
• Whether there are limits on scope of sub-classification. 
• Constitutional validity of state legislation enabling SC/ST sub-classification. 

Court's Observations 

Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra observed: 

• Article 14 permits sub-classification within class if not homogeneous for law's purpose. 
• Sub-classification applies to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), not limited to OBCs. 
• Article 341(1) doesn't create fiction that Scheduled Castes are homogeneous class. 
• E.V. Chinnaiah judgment prohibiting SC sub-classification is overruled. 
• States must collect empirical data on inadequate representation as backwardness indicator. 
• Article 335 reaffirms considering SC/ST claims in public services without limiting Articles 16(1) and 16(4). 

Justice B.R. Gavai observed: 

• State must justify preferential treatment based on empirical data showing inadequate representation. 
• Cannot reserve 100% of SC seats for sub-class excluding others in list. 
• Sub-classification allowed only when reservation exists for both sub-class and larger class. 
• Creamy layer principle should apply to SCs and STs. 

Justice Pankaj Mithal recommended: 

• Fresh evaluation of reservation policies for disadvantaged groups. 
• Reservations confined to first generation beneficiaries. 
• Periodic review to exclude families achieving higher status. 
• Regular assessments of those no longer needing reservation benefits. 

Court's Ruling: 

• Upheld sub-classification among Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes with 6:1 majority. 
• Overruled E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) precedent. 
• Held sub-classification must be rooted in rational basis indicating social backwardness. 
• Established two models: preference model (prioritizing sub-castes) or exclusive model (specific seat reservation). 
• Mandated empirical data collection by states showing inadequate representation. 
• Applied creamy layer principle to SCs and STs as per majority justices. 

Dissenting Opinion - Justice Bela M. Trivedi: 

• Presidential List under Article 341 assumes finality upon notification. 
• Only Parliament can include/exclude castes from Scheduled Castes list. 
• States lack legislative competence to sub-classify Article 341 enumerated castes. 
• Scheduled Castes form homogeneous class despite different origins. 
• Any state sub-classification violates constitutional provisions. 
• Article 142 powers cannot validate unconstitutional state actions. 
• E.V. Chinnaiah precedent should be upheld. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment establishes constitutional framework for SC/ST sub-classification while ensuring reservation benefits reach the most disadvantaged sections. The Court's 6:1 majority decision provides states flexibility to implement targeted affirmative action based on empirical data, subject to constitutional limits. The judgment balances social justice objectives with constitutional principles, marking significant evolution in reservation jurisprudence while maintaining safeguards against arbitrary classifications.