Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Seven judges bench upheld the sub-classifications among the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes so that benefits of reservation can reach to the weaker of the weakest sections of the society. The bench includes Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.

• The Supreme Court with 6:1 majority gave this verdict in the case of State of Punjab And Ors. v. Davinder Singh And Ors.

What is the Background of State of Punjab And Ors. v. Davinder Singh And Ors. Case?

• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000, which had sub-classified Scheduled Castes into four groups.
  • The Court held that Scheduled Castes form a homogeneous class by themselves and cannot be further sub-divided or sub-classified.
• Origin:
  • The case originated from Punjab's attempts to give preference to Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities within SC reservations.
  • The State Legislature of Punjab enacted Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.
  • It stipulated that 50% of the vacancies within the Scheduled Castes quota in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes.
  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared this unconstitutional.
• Haryana Government Notification 1994:
  • On 9^th November 1994, the Government of Haryana issued a notification classifying the Scheduled Castes in the state into two categories - Blocks A and B - for reservation purposes.
  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed this notification.
• Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Act 2009:
  • The Act stipulated that 16% of the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes in educational institutions shall be offered to the Arunthathiyars.
  • The constitutional validity of this Act was challenged before the Supreme Court.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020):
  • On 27^th August 2020, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the judgment in Chinnaiah case requires to be revisited by a larger Bench of seven Judges.
  • The Court observed that Chinnaiah failed to consider significant aspects bearing on the issue of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes.
  • This referral in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) led to the current constitutional examination of whether sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for affirmative action, including reservation, is valid.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Issue 1: Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16?
• Held: Yes, Sub-classification within beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must be rooted in a rational basis indicative of social backwardness. The criterion for such sub-classification should reflect inter-se social backwardness among the groups, which may be determined based on the same or different social identities.
• Issue 2: Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping?
• Held: The logical corollary of the identification of castes or groups as Scheduled Castes is not that this creates a homogenous unit.
• Issue 3: Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the operation of the deeming fiction?
• Held: Even if Article 341 creates a deeming fiction, the provision does not create an integrated class that cannot be further sub-classified. The provision only puts certain castes or groups or parts of them into a group called the Scheduled Castes.
• Issue 4: Whether there any limits on the scope of sub-classification?
• Held: Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for reservation purposes is subject to constitutional limits.
  • The State may choose between two models: a preference model, where certain sub-castes are prioritized for reserved seats, or an exclusive model, where seats are reserved specifically for sub-castes.

What were the Majority’s Opinion?

• CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra:
  • Article 14 allows sub-classification within a class if it's not homogeneous for the law's purpose.
  • Sub-classification is not limited to Other Backward Classes but applies to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
  • Article 341(1) does not create a fiction that Scheduled Castes are a homogenous class.
  • The Chinnaiah judgment prohibiting sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is overruled.
  • States must collect data on inadequate representation in state services as an indicator of backwardness.
  • Article 335 doesn't limit power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4) but reaffirms considering SC/ST claims in public services.
• Justice B R Gavai:
  • The State must justify that the group receiving more beneficial treatment is inadequately represented compared to other castes in the Scheduled Castes list.
  • Such justification by the State must be based on empirical data showing the sub-class is inadequately represented.
  • The State cannot reserve 100% of seats available for Scheduled Castes in favor of a sub-class to the exclusion of others in the list.
  • Sub-classification is only allowed if there is a reservation for the sub-class and larger class.
• Justice Vikram Nath:
  • Justice Vikram Nath concurs with the views of the CJI and Justice B.R. Gavai.
• Justice Pankaj Mithal:
  • Justice Pankaj Mithal agrees with the opinions of CJI and Justice B.R. Gavai that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) is constitutionally permissible.
  • He concurs with Justice B R Gavai's view that the 'creamy layer' principle should be applied to SCs and STs.
  • Recommendations:
    • Re-evaluation of Reservation Policies: He suggests a fresh look at reservation policies and potential new methods for uplifting disadvantaged groups, without dismantling the existing system until a new approach is ready.
    • Limitation of Reservation: Reservations should be confined to the first generation of beneficiaries. Subsequent generations should not automatically receive these benefits if the family has achieved a higher status.
    • Periodic Review: There should be regular assessments to exclude individuals or families who have progressed and no longer need reservation benefits.
• Justice Satish Chandra Sharma:
  • He concurs with the opinions of CJI and Justice B.R. Gavai that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible.
  • Justice S C Sharma aligns with Justice B R Gavai’s perspective that the ‘creamy layer’ principle

Who gave Dissenting Opinion in Sub-Classification Case?

Justice Bela M Trivedi gave a lone dissenting opinion in the SC/ST sub-classification case.

• Constitutional Framework:
  • The Presidential List specifying "Scheduled Castes" under Article 341 assumes finality upon publication of the notification.
  • Only Parliament can include or exclude castes from the Scheduled Castes list notified under Article 341(1).
  • States have no legislative competence to sub-classify or regroup castes enumerated as Scheduled Castes in the Article 341 notification.
• Homogenous Nature of Scheduled Castes
  • Though drawn from different castes/tribes, Scheduled Castes attain special status by virtue of the Presidential notification under Article 341.
  • The history and background of "Scheduled Castes" make them a homogenous class that cannot be tinkered with by states.
• Limits on State Powers
  • States cannot vary the Presidential List or tinker with Article 341 under the guise of reservation or affirmative action.
  • Any state action sub-classifying Scheduled Castes would be unconstitutional.
• Limits of Article 142 Powers
  • Article 142 cannot be used to build a new edifice by ignoring express constitutional provisions.
  • The Supreme Court cannot validate state actions violating the Constitution, even if well-intentioned.
• Conclusion
  • The law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case is correct and should be upheld.
  • States have no power to sub-classify Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341.

What are the Major Amendments Related to Reservation?

What are the Key Cases on Reservation in India?

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
  • The Supreme Court ruled that caste-based reservations in educational institutions violated Article 29(2) of the Constitution.
• B. Venkataramana v. State of Madras (1951)
  • Declared caste-based reservations in public services unconstitutional under Articles 16(1) and 16(2).
• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)
  • The Supreme Court set a 50% cap on reservations and ruled that excessive reservations violated Article 15(4).
• T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964)
  • The Court invalidated the carry-forward rule for unfilled reserved vacancies, asserting it violated equal opportunity principles.
• State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
  • Upheld relaxation in qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates, shifting the interpretation towards substantive equality.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
  • The landmark decision upheld OBC reservations but ruled against reservations in promotions. Also reiterated the 50% cap on total reservations.
• Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995)
  • Introduced the catch-up rule for general category candidates in promotions.
• Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996)
  • Emphasized balancing reservations with administrative efficiency, reinforcing the catch-up rule.
• S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (1996)
  • Held that relaxation in qualifying marks for promotions for SC/ST candidates violated the equality principle.
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
  • Upheld constitutional amendments allowing reservations in promotions with consequential seniority, provided they don't impact administrative efficiency.
• Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
  • Upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in higher education but excluded the creamy layer from its ambit.
• BK Pavitra (II) v. State of Karnataka (2019)
  • Upheld consequential seniority for SC/ST employees in promotions, reinforcing the principle of substantive equality.
• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
  • The Supreme Court reiterated the need to exclude the creamy layer among SC/ST for reservation benefits.
• Maratha Quota Case (Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra) (2021)
  • The Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra's law granting reservations to the Maratha community, ruling it breached the 50% cap set by Indra Sawhney.
• Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India (2022)
  • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the reservation system, reinforcing the principle of substantive equality.