Law Maker

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

Supreme Court of India · 1 August 2024 · 7 judges · 2024 INSC 562

The State may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) on a rational principle supported by data on inadequate representation; E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh was overruled.

Facts

Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 offered fifty percent of the Scheduled Caste quota in direct recruitment to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs as a first preference. In 2010 the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down, relying on E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held sub-classification of Scheduled Castes impermissible. A three-Judge Bench referred Chinnaiah's correctness to a larger Bench in 2014. Appeals on a 1994 Haryana notification dividing its Scheduled Castes into two blocks and writ petitions against the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Act, 2009 were tagged. On 27 August 2020 a five-Judge Bench in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh held that Chinnaiah required reconsideration by seven Judges.

Questions before the Court

  1. Is sub-classification of a reserved class permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16?
  2. Are the Scheduled Castes a homogenous or a heterogenous group, and does Article 341 create a homogenous class through a deeming fiction?
  3. What are the limits on the State's power to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes?

What the Court held

  • Article 14 permits sub-classification of a class whose members are not similarly situated for the purpose of the law, if the intelligible differentia test is met. Indra Sawhney did not confine sub-classification to the Other Backward Classes.
  • Article 341(1) does not create an integrated homogenous class; inclusion in the list only entitles castes to the benefits the Constitution gives Scheduled Castes. Historical and empirical evidence shows the Scheduled Castes are socially heterogenous.
  • Sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2), since no caste is included in or excluded from the list. It would offend the provision only if certain castes were given preference or exclusive benefit over all the seats reserved for the class.
  • Under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) the State may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes on a rational principle having a nexus with the purpose. It must show, on quantifiable data about representation in the services of the State (not cadre-wise), that a group's inadequate representation results from its backwardness.
  • Article 335 is not a limitation on Articles 16(1) and 16(4). E.V. Chinnaiah, so far as it held sub-classification of Scheduled Castes impermissible, is overruled.

Why it matters

A seven-Judge Bench overrules E.V. Chinnaiah and settles that States may create sub-quotas within the Scheduled Castes, subject to data showing inadequate representation linked to backwardness. It reads Article 341 as not making the Scheduled Castes a homogenous class and explains that Indra Sawhney's approval of sub-classification was not confined to the Other Backward Classes. The individual matters were sent to an appropriate Bench for decision.

In the Court's words

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

“Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogenous class. Thus, the State in exercise of the power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) can further classify the Scheduled Castes if (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification; and f. The holding in Chinnaiah (supra) that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled.”
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI (for himself and Manoj Misra, J.)Page 139 of the judgment
“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”
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI (for himself and Manoj Misra, J.)Page 138 of the judgment
“Thus, in view of the above discussion, the State for a valid exercise of power to sub-classify under Article 16(4) is required to collect quantifiable data with respect to the inadequacy of representation of the sub-categories in the services of the State. As held in the preceding section, the inadequacy of representation is an indicator of backwardness and thus, to use the cadre as a unit to determine representation alters the purpose of the indicator itself.”
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI (for himself and Manoj Misra, J.)Page 137 of the judgment
“that, however, while providing for sub-classification, the State would not be entitled to reserve 100% seats available for Scheduled Castes in favour of a sub-class to the exclusion of other castes in the List; (vi) that such a sub-classification would be permissible only if there is a reservation for a sub-class as well as the larger class;”
B.R. Gavai, J. (concurring)Page 420 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
Case
Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011 (with connected matters)
Decided
1 August 2024
Bench
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, Satish Chandra Sharma
Opinions
Majority 6:1. Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI wrote for himself and Manoj Misra, J.; B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. wrote separate concurring opinions. Bela M. Trivedi, J. dissented, holding that E.V. Chinnaiah laid down the correct law. Gavai, J. also held that the creamy layer principle applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. agreed with him on that point; the Chief Justice's opinion does not address it.

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.