Verdict

In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate / Original Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011
With connected SLP’s, Writ petitions, Applications etc.

The State of Punjab & Ors. …Appellants
V/s
Davinder Singh & Ors. …Respondents

On 1st August 2024, majority of the 7-Judge Bench of Supreme Court pronounced a judgment empowering States to further sub-classify Scheduled Castes (‘SC’) and Scheduled Tribes (‘ST’) for purpose of reservation in government educational institutions and government jobs. In a 565-page Judgment, the 6:1 ruling upheld the ‘quota within quota’ overruling a previous judgment on the same issue.    

A look at the highlights of the landmark judgment:

Facts & Background

1. In 1975, Punjab government notified that Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs would be given first preference over other SCs after observing these communities got lesser representation than others in the List.
2. In 2004, a 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394 that the SC/ST List is a ‘homogenous group’ that cannot be divided further.
3. The above Judgment was struck down by Punjab & Haryana High Court (‘P&H HC’) in 2006. Thereafter, Punjab Assembly passed the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Class (Reservations in Services) Act 2006 that reintroduced first preference for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in reservations.
4. When this Act was challenged by Davinder Singh (a non-Balmiki and non-Mazhabi Sikh), the P&H HC struck down this Act.  consequently, the Punjab government challenged this striking down in the Supreme Court, which referred the case to a 5-Judge Bench to decide if  the EV Chinnaiah case (supra) was to be reconsidered. This 5-Judge Bench recognised that in reality, inequality did exist among the castes/ tribes. Consequently, a 7-judge Bench was formed in February 2024 to re-examine the case.

Issues 

1. Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16?
2. Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping?
3. Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the operation of the deeming fiction; and
4. Whether there any limits on the scope of sub-classification?
   

Analysis & Judgment

The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a host of Judgments including but not limited to:

• Indra Swahney Vs Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477; 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454
• NM Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, (1976) 2 SCC 310;
• General Manager, Southern Railway Vs Rangachari (1962) 2 SCR 586 
• All India Station Masters & Assistant Station Master’s Association Vs. General Manager, Central Railways AIR 1960 SC 384.

Majority of the 7-Judge Bench arrived at the following conclusion(s): 

1) Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16?
Article 14 guarantees equality and equal protection before law. 
Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 16 guarantees equal opportunities for employment in government offices and appointments to state offices for all citizens.

Majority of the Bench was of the view that equality before law (Art 14) signifies the absence of any special privileges for any individual. It does not mean that same law should apply to everyone, but same law should apply to those who are similarly situated. Among equals law must be equally administered.   

Since the essence of Article 14, 15 & 16 entails guarantee of equality, it means that all persons in like circumstances must be treated alike. That there must be a parity of treatment under parity of conditions. Also, it was observed that though certain castes / tribes were classified as scheduled caste or tribes, within the group ‘scheduled caste’ there were sub castes who were more backward and deprived. Now that sub caste or group would differ in each State. Hence it is fair to empower States to make any special provisions for the advancement of SCs/STs and to provide reservations to any backward class of citizens who are not adequately represented. It also held that communities that are on a different socio-economic footing cannot be provided the same opportunities of advancement. 

Based on the above, the majority Bench held that sub classification within Scheduled Castes has been held to be constitutionally permissible and the same are permissible under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. 

They were of the view that any exercise involving sub-classification by the State, must be supported by empirical data that ought to underscore the more ‘disadvantaged’ status of the sub-group to which such preferential treatment is sought to be provided vis-à-vis the Constitutional Class as a whole. Sub-classification of a group should be based on quantifiable proof of disadvantage in not only their appointments but also in their periodic promotions in service.

2) Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping?
In “E V Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh” case, the Apex court held that Constitution did not recognise relative backwardness among individual castes and hence all castes must be treated equally. Differing from this interpretation, the CJI in the 7-Judge Bench Judgment held that ‘mere inclusion in List does not automatically lead to formation of a uniform and internally homogenous class that cannot be further classified”. 

The CJI termed the Presidential List of SCs/STs a “legal fiction” – ‘something that does not exist in reality but treated as real and existing for purpose of law’. Historically, Schedules Castes were a heterogenous group. Empirical data showed that within the Scheduled Castes there were varying degrees of social, economic and educational backwardness. The hardships that they suffered differed from category to category. Therefore, it is fair to interpret that Scheduled Castes constitute a heterogenous group.

3) Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the opery virtue ation of the deeming fiction?
By virtue of Article 341 of the Indian Constitution the President of India is vested with the power to specify / modify List Scheduled castes in various States and Union Territories.

Article 341(1) does not create a deeming fiction. The phrase “deemed” is used in the provision to mean that the castes or groups notified by the President shall be “regarded as” the Scheduled Castes. Even if it is accepted that the deeming fiction is used for the creation of a constitutional identity, the only logical consequence that flows from it is that castes included in the list will receive the benefits that the Constitution provides to the Scheduled Castes. The operation of the provision does not create an integrated homogenous class.

The CJI also observed that the Presidential List also indicates heterogeneity as certain castes notified as Scheduled castes in one State were not present or did not exist in another State. Certain castes are notified only in specific localities. 

Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List. Sub classification would violate the provision only when either preference or exclusive benefit is provided to certain castes or groups of the Scheduled Castes over all the seats reserved for the class.

4) Whether there any limits on the scope of sub-classification?
Regarding the scope of sub classification of Schedules castes, the CJI was of the view that: 

• The objective subclassification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes. The State can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish such inadequacy of representation of a caste/group are because of its backwardness. Accordingly, the State must collect data of such inadequacy in representation /backwardness.
• Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4). It is rather a restatement of the necessity of considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in public services. Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1).

In addition to the above stated issues, 4 out of the 7 Judges of the Constitution Bench  have held that ‘creamy layer’ i.e. families of SCs/STs that have already derived reservation benefit or have exceeded a pre-fixed income ceiling shall not be eligible for extension of reservation benefit. This is to enable the needy beneficiaries are given reservation.

For full text of Judgment:
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/25536/25536_2010_1_1501_54462_Judgement_01-Aug-2024.pdf