Law Maker

E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Supreme Court of India · 5 November 2004 · 5 judges

Overruled in whole or in part by State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), which says: “The holding in Chinnaiah (supra) that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled.”

The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, which split the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes into four groups with separate quotas, was beyond State legislative competence and violated Article 14.

Facts

Acting on the report of the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission, Andhra Pradesh divided the castes in the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes for the State into four groups, A to D, based on inter se backwardness, and apportioned the existing 15% Scheduled Caste reservation in education and State services among them (1%, 7%, 6% and 1%). This was done first by Ordinance and then by A.P. Act 20 of 2000. A five Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by a majority of 4:1, dismissed the challenges and certified the case fit for appeal. The appeals were referred to a Constitution Bench.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether the impugned Act is violative of Article 341 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the State Legislature had legislative competence to enact it.
  3. Whether sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes in the Presidential List violates Article 14.

What the Court held

  • Under Article 341 there is one Presidential List of Scheduled Castes for a State, and only Parliament can include or exclude castes. Any State action that interferes with, re-groups or re-classifies the castes in the List violates Article 341.
  • Castes in the Presidential List are deemed to be Scheduled Castes and form one class by themselves; dividing them amounts to tinkering with the List.
  • In pith and substance the Act only sub-divides the Scheduled Castes and redistributes reservation already made. It is not a law on education or State services under Entry 41 of List II or Entry 25 of List III and is beyond State competence.
  • Sub-classifying the Scheduled Castes for reservation is impermissible micro classification violating Article 14. The Act was declared ultra vires and the appeals allowed.

Why it matters

A Constitution Bench held that the Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341 form a single homogeneous class that a State cannot sub-divide for reservation. It treated the sub-classification of backward classes allowed in Indra Sawhney as inapplicable to Scheduled Castes, and applied the pith and substance doctrine to find the State Act outside the education and services entries.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Therefore any executive action or legislative enactment which interferes, disturbs, re-arranges, re-groups or re- classifies the various castes found in the Presidential List will be violative of scheme of the Constitution and will be violative of Article 341 of the Constitution.”
N. Santosh Hegde, J.Page 5 of the judgment
“Thus from the scheme of the Constitution, Article 341 and above opinions of this Court in the case of N.M. Thomas (supra), it is clear that the castes once included in the Presidential List, form a class by themselves. If they are one class under the Constitution, any division of these classes of persons based on any consideration would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List.”
N. Santosh Hegde, J.Page 6 of the judgment
“Whatever may be the object of this sub- classification and apportionment of the reservation, we think the State cannot claim legislative power to make a law dividing the Scheduled Castes List of the State by tracing its legislative competence to Entry 41 of List II or Entry 25 of List III. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in pith and substance the enactment is not a law governing the field of education or the field of State Public Services.”
N. Santosh Hegde, J.Page 8 of the judgment
“For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned legislation apart from being beyond the legislative competence of the State is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence is liable to declared as ultra vires the Constitution.”
N. Santosh Hegde, J.Page 11 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

  • Distinguishes Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)“We do not think the principles laid down in Indra Sahani's case for sub-classification of other backward classes can be applied as a precedent law for sub- classification or sub-grouping Scheduled Castes in the Presidential List” (page 10)

Case and bench

Parties
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Case
Civil Appeal No. 6758 of 2000 (with Civil Appeal Nos. 6934 and 7344 of 2000 and 3442 of 2001)
Decided
5 November 2004
Bench
N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, S.B. Sinha
Opinions
Unanimous. N. Santosh Hegde, J. delivered the main judgment; S.B. Sinha, J. and H.K. Sema, J. wrote separate concurring judgments agreeing with him. S.N. Variava and B.P. Singh, JJ. wrote no separate opinion.

Questions on this case

5 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which held Section 377 IPC unconstitutional in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults, expressly overruled:

    1. A. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
    2. B. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation
    3. C. P. Rathinam v. Union of India
    4. D. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India
    Show the answer

    B. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation

    The Constitution Bench in Navtej Singh Johar held that Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation ((2014) 1 SCC 1), which had upheld Section 377 IPC in full, 'needs to be, and is hereby, overruled'. Sowmithri Vishnu was overruled in Joseph Shine (2018), P. Rathinam in Gian Kaur (1996) and E.V. Chinnaiah in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024).

  2. Question 2 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (judgment of 1 August 2024), a seven-Judge Bench held that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes for reservation is permissible and overruled:

    1. A. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
    2. B. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
    3. C. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta
    4. D. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.
    Show the answer

    D. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.

    The seven-Judge Bench held that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible and that the holding in E.V. Chinnaiah (2005), that such sub-classification is impermissible, is overruled. The majority drew support from Indra Sawhney, which had allowed backward classes to be sub-classified.