Introduction of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024)

The landmark case of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024) deals with the issue of sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation benefits. The decision of the Punjab Government of granting 50% quota in SC-reserved vacancies for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs was duly challenged for adjudication. The matter was brought before the seven-judge Constitution Bench to determine whether states have the authority to classify SCs into sub-groups for reservation purposes. Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Download State of Punjab v Davinder Singh PDF

The case at hand revolves around the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation benefits. The attempt of the Punjab Government to allocate 50% of SC-reserved vacancies to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs was struck down. The matter escalated before the 7-Judges Constitutional Bench. The following are the brief facts of the case of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh -

1975: Initial Sub-Categorization by Punjab Government

The Punjab Government issued a circular (No. 1818-SW-75/10451, dated 5.5.1975) that introduced sub-categorization within the Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation. It directed that 50% of the SC-reserved vacancies be allotted to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. However, this circular was challenged in the Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against this decision was also rejected by the Supreme Court.

2006: Reintroduction Through Legislation

In an attempt to reinstate sub-categorization, the Punjab Government introduced the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. Section 4(5) of the Act reflected the previous circular by reserving 50% of SC-reserved vacancies for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court once again struck it down and cited the decision of the Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).

Legal Challenge and Supreme Court Referral

The E.V. Chinnaiah decision had held that Scheduled Castes form a single, homogeneous group and any sub-categorization would violate Article 14 of Indian Constitution. The Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on this precedent to declare the 2006 Act unconstitutional.

Current Status: Review by a Seven-Judge Bench

Given the widespread implications of sub-categorization, the matter was brought to the Supreme Court which initially upheld the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling. However, in 2020, a Constitution Bench recommended reconsideration of 2004 decision. Currently, a seven-judge bench is reviewing the issue, as only a larger bench can overrule the decision of a smaller one. The outcome will significantly impact the distribution of SC reservations across various states.

Arguments of the Appellants

The Appellants contended that E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) was wrongly decided, as it assumed that state governments do not have the power to sub-categorize Scheduled Castes (SCs). They assert that the Punjab Act, 2006 introduced under Article 16(1), Article 16(4), Article 245 and Article 246 is constitutionally valid and within the legislative competence of the State.

They relied on the Indra Sawhney judgement (1992) where the Supreme Court allowed sub-classification within backward classes and recognized that some groups are more disadvantaged than others. The same principle, they contend, should apply to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The State can provide preferential treatment to the most deprived groups without infringing Article 14.

Arguments of the Respondent

The Respondents argued that according to Article 341 only Parliament can alter the SC list. They contended that E.V. Chinnaiah remains a binding precedent and should not be overturned unless it causes legal uncertainty or injustice.

Issue addressed in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024)

The main issue which was acknowledged in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh was whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its decision in V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.? The Supreme Court also examined whether the State has the authority to enact Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006? The Court also analysed whether the government can sub-classify backward classes into backward and more backward categories and whether Article 16(4) requires both social and educational backwardness for reservations?

In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024), Article 14, Article 15 and Article 16 of Indian Constitution played an important role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Equality before the law

Article 14 deals with equality before law. It states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This ensures fairness and prohibits arbitrary state action. 

Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibition of Discrimination and Special Provisions for Backward Classes

It guarantees safeguard against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15 is considered as a cornerstone of the commitment of the nation to social justice and equality. The provision allows for special provisions to uplift marginalized groups. It acknowledges several aspects of discrimination and provides avenues for the State to promote the welfare of disadvantaged sections.

Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

Article 16 of Indian Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and ensures that the state does not discriminate based on religion, caste, sex, or place of birth. It grants the right to be considered for public employment opportunities but does not guarantee employment and ensures no discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, etc., in public employment.

Judgment and Impact of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024)

In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024) the 7-Judge Constitution Bench by 6:1 majority ruling held that Scheduled Castes can be categorised without violating the equality principle under Article 14 or the Presidential List under Article 341(2). The Court held that creation of sub-categories within Scheduled Castes does not obstruct Article 15 and Article 16. But it is to be noted that the classification is based on substantial evidence of underrepresentation rather than arbitrary or political motives. Furthermore, such classifications would be subject to judicial review to ensure fairness.

The majority opinion highlighted in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh that states must give preferential treatment to the most disadvantaged sections within the Scheduled Castes since only a select few within these communities have benefitted from reservations.

The Supreme Court observed a flaw in the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment where it was wrongly considered that Article 341 forms the basis of reservation. Instead, Article 341 merely identifies castes eligible for reservation while the requirement for sub-classification should be whether a specific section within the larger group faces greater discrimination and social exclusion.

The judges also of the opinion that states should identify and exclude the ‘creamy layer’ within the SC/ST categories to ensure that reservation benefits reach the most marginalized groups. 

In addition, the decision suggested that reservations should not extend beyond one generation. It means that if a family has already benefitted from reservations and achieved a higher social and economic status, their subsequent generations should not be eligible.

However, Justice B.M Trivedi dissented and argued that states lack the authority to modify the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes, which can only be altered by Parliament through legislation under Article 341. He warned that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes would disrupt the integrity of the Presidential List, which was designed to prevent political interference in caste-based reservations. According to him, any preferential treatment for a sub-group within Scheduled Castes would unfairly deprive other members of the same category of equal reservation benefits.

Conclusion

In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024) the Supreme Court by a 6:1 majority upheld the validity of sub-categorization within SCs. The Court stated that it does not violate Article 14 or the Presidential List under Article 341. The Court highlighted the need for equitable distribution of reservation benefits and suggested identifying the most disadvantaged sections within SCs. The decision has significant implications for reservation policies across India.