State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) - Sub-Quota under SC/ST Quota

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/judiciary_add.asp

DATE: 27^th August, 2020

JUDGES:

• Arun Mishra
• Indira Banerjee
• Vineet Saran
• R. Shah
• Aniruddha Bose

PARTIES: The State of Punjab And Ors. (APPELANT) and Davinder Singh And Ors. (RESPONDENT)

SUBJECT

This judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court checks upon the validity of the section 4(5) Punjab Scheduled Caste's and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act. The said section provided for 50% seats to Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs out of the quota reserved for SCs. The question before the court was whether the preferential treatment to specific castes within the scheduled castes can be provided by state legislation or not.        

AN OVERVIEW

1. The Supreme Court in the present case is hearing an appeal made by State of Punjab against the 2010 judgement by Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the High Court making reference to E.V. Chennaiah case struck down section 4(5) of Punjab act as unconstitutional.
2. The appellant contended that the verdict given in E.V. Chennaiah is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Constitution which through Article 14, 15 and 16 ensures equality and social justice. Referring to Indra Sawhney case, which held it is permissible in law to identify more backward classes amongst the backward and the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes fall within backward classes, it was contended that the sub-classification of class within the SCs and STs fulfils the object of article 16(1) and article 16(4) gives power to state to enact any provision in favour of backward class of citizens.
3. Referring to Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, the appellant argued that it is permissible to give preferential treatment within the list provided under article 341on comparative basis of backwardness and it is not to be assumed that all castes are homogenous.
4. Supporting the verdict in E.V. Chennaiah, the respondent argued that in Indra Swhney the sub-division was extended to only socially and educationally backward and does not apply to Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.  
5. The power to amend the list resides with the Parliament which cannot be diluted by the interpretation of constitutional provision.
6. Distinction between caste and class was made and it was contended that scheduled castes are not castes but class.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

• Article 14(4): Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 16(1): Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment-there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
• Article 16(4): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• Article 341: Scheduled Castes

(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause ( 1 ) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

ISSUES

Following were key issues in the present case-

1. Whether the state legislature can give preferential treatment to specific castes within scheduled castes?
2. Whether the state has legislative competence to enact section 4(5) of Punjab Act?

• Whether the decision in E.V. Chennaiah can be revisited?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

• Reservation in education and service sector is a highly debated question in the India but it is known well to all that the benefits of these provisions reach only to the elite backwards who had better financial status and the really backward classes are stalled to the same position where they were. The Supreme Court in this judgement addressed a similar situation where sub-categorisation of backward within the backward classes was questioned.
• 50% reservation to Balmikis and Mzhabi Sikhs out of the seats reserved was held unconstitutional by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was the subject of the appeal.
• The question of preferential treatment was put up. To answer this contention, the supreme court referred to Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors., in which it was stated that article 15 prevents state from discriminating on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth but 15(4) also makes sure it shall not prevent state from making provisions in favour of socially and educationally backward classes.
• The court rightly stated that what is necessary is to take into account de facto inequalities which exist in the society and to take affirmative action by way of giving preference and reservation to the socially and economically disadvantaged persons or inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in order to bring about real equality.
• The competence of state legislature to sub-classify and whether sub-classification is tinkering with the list was raised in virtue of article 341 that only President can classify caste within castes and only Parliament is bestowed with the power to alter the list. To answer this question the Court said that castes and sub-groups were present and still continue exactly as they were before the list. The question is how to trickle down the benefit to the bottom rung. The reports indicate that benefit is being usurped by those castes or class who have come up and adequately represented. It is clear that caste, occupation, and poverty are interwoven. The State cannot be deprived of the power to take care of the qualitative and quantitative difference between different classes to take ameliorative measures.
• By allotting a specific percentage out of reserved seats and to provide preferential treatment to a particular class, cannot be said to be violative of the list under Articles 341, 342, and 342A as no enlisted caste is denied the benefit of reservation. The scheduled caste as per presidential list is not frozen and they are not homogenous group.
• Referring to the question of revisiting Chennaiah case, the court stated they are of the view that it should be reviewed by a larger bench and a request to the Hon'ble Cheif JusticeOF India is made to place the matter before a 7 judge bench.

CONCLUSION

• Reservation in India has its genesis from the age old practice of caste system which divided society into upper and lower classes and the lowest amongst them were the untouchables. This system thus recognises Brahmans as highest, the class lower to them is superior to some other. However, the point is that amongst the lower classes, there are sub-classes who are more and less backward than others.
• This judgement very prudentially recognises the purpose of reservation. If the unequals among the list of the scheduled castes and if they are ignored under the garb of statutory provision, the concept of reservation would be merely a tool for political agenda.
• Also, the approach of the court in recognising the capacity of the state legislature for making sub-classification is acknowledged. Every state in India has a different culture, tribes and class. The state can understand the status of the classes better, and has the mandate to empower the socially and educationally backward and establish equality.
• While the matter of reservation will always be debatable in a country which is divided into so many classes, it is always just to empower those who have suffered at the hands of casteism and bring all of them to equal ground in all aspect and provide dignity to all classes.  

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment