Vipul Ganda is an Independent Litigation Counsel with over 14 years of experience and a proven track record in Litigation and Dispute Resolution.

The State of Punjab & Ors. Versus Davinder Singh & Ors.


Court / Forum : Supreme Court of India
Citation : Civil Appeal No.2317 of 2011
Coram : Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Subject : Reservation in services
Date of Decision : 2020-08-27

Brief Facts

  • The present case arises out of the Appeal filed by State of Punjab against a judgment dated March 29, 2010 passed by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter titled “Devinder Singh v State of Punjab and another”, CWP No.18290 of 2009 (O&M). The High Court vide its order struck down Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (the “Act”) as unconstitutional.
  • Section 4(5) of the Act provides for ‘first preference’ to the Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikhs castes for Scheduled Caste reservations in public services on the premise that Section 4(5) of the Act created an unconstitutional sub-division within the Scheduled Castes, citing the precedent established by the 5 judge bench judgment titled “E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.”, Appeal (civil) 6758 of 2000. The Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) had established that any ‘sub-classification’ of the Scheduled Castes would violate Article 14 of the Constitution by stressing on the fact that only Parliament, not State Legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.
  • Section 4(5) of the Act provides for ‘first preference’ to the Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikhs castes for Scheduled Caste reservations in public services on the premise that Section 4(5) of the Act created an unconstitutional sub-division within the Scheduled Castes, citing the precedent established by the 5 judge bench judgment titled “E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.”, Appeal (civil) 6758 of 2000. The Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) had established that any ‘sub-classification’ of the Scheduled Castes would violate Article 14 of the Constitution by stressing on the fact that only Parliament, not State Legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.
  • The State of Punjab has therefore filed the present appeal against the judgement of the High Court on the ground that E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) does not apply to the current case, further claiming that the Punjab state legislature had the competence to enact Section 4(5) of the Act. In addition, it has raised the issue of whether a seven-judge Bench of the Court needs to revisit E.V. Chinnaiah.

Issues

    li>Whether any such classification can be made within the class of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or are to be treated as a homogenous class?
  1. Whether it is not permissible to provide any further reservation to the weakest out the weak, particularly when it has not been possible to trickle down the benefit of reservation to the weakest and the same is utilised by the upper class within the group, who enjoy the benefit of reservation to the maximum creating disparities within its class?

Decision

  • There is cry, and caste struggle within the reserved class as benefit of reservation in services and education is being enjoyed, who are doing better hereditary occupation. The scavenger class given the name of Balmikis remains more or less where it was, and so on, disparity within Scheduled Caste is writ large from various reports. The subclassification was made under Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act to ensure that the benefit of the reservation percolate down to the deprived section and do not remain on paper and to provide benefit to all and give them equal treatment, whether it is violative of Article 14? In our opinion, it would be permissible on rationale basis to make such subclassification to provide benefit to all to bring equality, and it would not amount to exclusion from the list as no class (caste) is deprived of reservation in totality. In case benefit which is meant for the emancipation of all the castes, included in the list of Scheduled Castes, is permitted to be usurped by few castes those who are adequately represented, have advanced and belonged to the creamy layer, then it would tantamount to creating inequality whereas in case of hunger every person is required to be fed and provided bread. The entire basket of fruits cannot be given to mighty at the cost of others under the guise of forming a homogenous class. (Para 40)
  • The Constitution is an effective tool of social transformation; removal of inequalities intends to wipe off tears from every eye. The social realities cannot be ignored and overlooked while the Constitution aims at the comprehensive removal of the disparities. The very purpose of providing reservation is to take care of disparities. The Constitution takes care of inequalities. There are unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes. Various reports indicate that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes do not constitute a homogenous group. The aspiration of equal treatment of the lowest strata, to whom the fruits of the reservation have not effectively reached, remains a dream. At the same time, various castes by and large remain where they were, and they remain unequals, are they destined to carry their backwardness till eternity? (Para 40)
  • Providing a percentage of the reservation within permissible limit is within the powers of the State legislatures. It cannot be deprived of its concomitant power to make reasonable classification within the particular classes of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes without depriving others in the list. To achieve the real purpose of reservation, within constitutional dynamics, needy can always be given benefit; otherwise, it would mean that inequality being perpetuated within the class if preferential classification is not made ensuring benefit to all. (Para 43)
  • The interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A is a matter of immense public importance, and correct interpretation of binding precedents in Indra Sawhney and other decisions. Though we have full respect for the principle of stare decisis, at the same time, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and shut eyes to stark realities. The constitutional goal of social transformation cannot be achieved without taking into account changing social realities. (Para 51)
  • Therefore, the matter was endorsed to a larger bench to revisit the opinion of a Bench of 3 Judges in E.V. Chinnaiah which is pending before the 7 judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Vipul Ganda is a Delhi based Advocate practicing largely at the Delhi High Court. His practice focus is Dispute Resolution and Litigation and his practice areas include Arbitration, Commercial, Civil, Constitutional, Corporate and Criminal Litigation.