The Beginning
On February 6, 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, began hearing a case referred to it by a five-judge bench. The bench, which also included Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, reserved its judgment on February 8, 2024. “The case, State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors. (2024), has sparked discussions about the fair distribution of reservation benefits among different Scheduled Caste (SC) communities.”
The Case Background:
The Three-Judge Bench
The journey of this case began with a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices R M Lodha, Kurian Joseph, and R F Nariman. “On August 20, 2014, they referred the case to a larger bench for consideration. They believed that the judgment of a five-judge bench in E V Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors.,[1] (2005) needed to be reconsidered in light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, 1950.”
The Five-Judge Bench
“Following the referral, a five-judge bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah, and Aniruddha Bose, heard the matter. The bench suggested that the State could provide preferential treatment by setting a reasonable quota out of reserved seats to ensure adequate representation in services. They acknowledged that reservation is a powerful tool for the liberation of the oppressed class. However, they also noted that the benefits are not reaching the most needy and poorest of the poor.” Considering the public interest involved in the case, they referred the matter to a larger bench.
The E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh Case
Connection with the Current Issue Before Supreme Court
The current debate has its roots in the landmark case E V Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). “In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that only the President could designate communities eligible for reservation benefits under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, 1950.”
Initiation
The case began when the validity of the Andhra Pradesh SCs (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The case was dismissed by a five-judge bench, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Major Issue Involved
The main issue in the case was whether the impugned enactment creates a sub-classification or micro-classification of Scheduled Castes, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance on Indra Sawhney Judgment
“During the case, it was argued that further classification of the backward class is permissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. (1992).[2] The principles laid down in this case were argued to be applicable even to the Scheduled Castes.”
The Verdict
The bench argued that creating sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes (SCs) would infringe upon the right to equality, a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. “The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s observation in the case of Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1992), where it was noted that the discussion of the ‘creamy layer’ is limited to other backward classes and is irrelevant in the context of SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs).”
The court pointed out that the impugned legislation attempted to re-group the homogeneous group specified in the Presidential Notification for the purposes of reservation and appointments. This, they argued, would amount to reverse discrimination and would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Legal Challenges Stemming from Reinterpretation
Despite the ruling in the E V Chinnaiah case, some states have challenged its premise, asserting their authority to ensure an equitable distribution of reservation benefits. The 1975 notification from Punjab, which divided SC reservations into two categories, and the subsequent legal battles, exemplify the intricate interplay between state policies and judicial interpretations.
The Sub-Classification Debate
The heart of the debate is whether sub-classification is necessary to address the underrepresentation of certain SC communities. Advocates for sub-classification argue that it is akin to the ‘creamy layer’ concept and would ensure that the most disadvantaged groups receive preferential treatment. However, critics argue that such categorization undermines the fundamental principle of equality among SCs. They contend that all SCs should be treated equally, and introducing sub-classifications would violate this principle. This contentious issue continues to stir debates and discussions in the legal and social spheres.
Conclusion
In summary, the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors. (2024) has ignited a significant debate on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes in India. The verdict of this case could potentially reshape the landscape of reservations, impacting the principle of equality and the state’s role in promoting social justice. As the nation anticipates the judgment of the seven-judge bench, the implications of this case underscore the complexity of ensuring equitable distribution of reservation benefits among various SC communities. The outcome holds the potential to redefine the future of reservations in India, making it a landmark case in the annals of the country’s legal and social history.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394
[2] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is written and submitted by Devam Krishnan during her course of internship at B&B Associates LLP. Devam is a 4th-year B.A.LL.B (hons) student at NUSRL, Ranchi.
