STATE OF PUNJAB VS DAVINDER SINGH : SUB-CLASSIFICATION WITHIN SCHEDULED CASTES PERMISSIBLE
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2317/2011) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible under Article 15(4) and Article 16 (4) of the Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The State Legislature of Punjab enacted the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. Section 4 (2) of the Act provided that reservation of twenty-five percent shall be made for members of the Scheduled Castes and twelve percent for Backward Classes while filing up vacancies by direct recruitment in services. Section 4 (5) provided that fifty percent of the vacancies of the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes. High Court of Haryana and Punjab declared the Act unconstitutional relying on E V Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC.
Similarly, initiatives for classifying Scheduled Castes by Haryana and Tamil Nadu were declared unconstitutional by respective High Courts relying on E V Chinnaiah.
The issue whether sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible was referred to the Constitution Bench.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court in E. V. Chinnaiah had held that principles laid down in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India (1991) Suupl. (3) SCC 217 for sub-classification of backward classes will not be applicable for sub-classification of Scheduled Caste. Presidential List under Article 341 will be deemed to be one class of persons. State Legislature does not have competence to sub-classify Scheduled Castes.
No bar on Sub-classification of SC
The Supreme Court observed that a class which is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law can be further classified. The test that the Court must follow to determine the validity of the sub-classification of a class is – (i) If the class is homogenous, the class cannot be sub-classified. (ii) If the class is not homogenous, class can be sub-classified but there must be a yardstick to further classifying the class. The yardstick must have rational nexus with the object of the statute.
The Supreme Court observed that observations in Indra Sawhney were made in the specific context of Other Backward Classes.
The Supreme Court observed that it is one thing to argue that the Scheduled Castes cannot be sub-categorized on account of their limited heterogeneity and common identity as opposed to the other backward class. But it is another issue to completely disregard the application of the principle of sub-classification to the Scheduled Castes on the ground that the Indra Sawhney limited its application to the Other Backward Class. The Supreme Court did not find merit in argument that the observations in Indra Sawney was to limit it to the other backward classes to the exclusion of the Scheduled Castes. The principle of sub-classification was given judicial assent in Indra Sawhney to ensure that the principle of substantive equality is fulfilled. The principle of classification will be applicable to the Scheduled Castes if the social position of the constituents among the caste/groups is not comparable.
Impact of Article 341
The Supreme Court observed that Article 341 (1) refers to the power of the President to specify the castes, races, tribes or parts of or groups within these three groups. In E. V. Chinnaiah it was held that Scheduled Castes, though drawn from various sources, races and tribes, attain a new status by the Presidential notification. Once notified through a Presidential Notification Article 341 (1) Scheduled Castes attain a homogenous status.
The Supreme Court observed that the inclusion of certain castes within the Scheduled Caste category is only to demarcate them from other castes which are not included in the category. The inclusion does not automatically lead to the formation of a uniform and internally homogenous class which can not be further classified. Article 341 creates a legal fiction for the limited purpose of identification of Scheduled Castes by distinguishing them from other groups. If offers no guidance on how the Scheduled Castes fare among themselves or on heterogeneity among the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of the Constitution. The legal fiction which assigns an identity to the Scheduled Castes separate from other categories cannot be stretched to draw inferences about the existence or non-existence of internal differences among the Scheduled Castes. The only logical consequence is that each of the groups that is included in the list will receive the benefits that the Constitution provides to the Scheduled Castes as a class. The Supreme Court held that view taken in Chinnaiah that Schedudled Class is homogenous class is erroneous.
The Supreme Court overruled Chinnaiah Judgment and held that State in exercise of the power under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) can further classify the Sheduled Castes. Inter-se backwardness can, inter alia, be identified based on inadequacy of effective representation. However, it must be proved that inadequacy of effective representation of a Caste is because of its social backwardness. State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the “services of the State” because it is used as an indicator of backwardness.
The Supreme Court also held that Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16 (1) and 16 (4). Rather it is restatement of the necessity of considering the claims of the Scheduled Tribes in Public Services. Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality a required by Article 16 (1).
___________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.