The Supreme Court of India’s recent decision (State of Punjab and Others vs
Davinder Singh and Others, C.A. No. 2317/2011) on the sub-classification of Scheduled
Castes (SCs) has prompted heated debate over its implications for constitutional ideals of
equality and social justice. The decision, given by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, answers a critical question: Is sub-classification of SCs for reservation purposes
constitutionally permissible?
The case involves many appeals and petitions challenging various state legislations and
notices that tried to create sub-categories within the SCs to ensure equitable distribution of
reservation benefits. The key constitutional articles under consideration are Articles 14, 15, 16,
and 341, which jointly guarantee equality before the law, bar caste discrimination, and lay the
groundwork for quota schemes.
The core issue presented to the Constitution Bench was whether sub-classification
within the SCs violated constitutional principles. The argument centered on the interpretation
of Article 341, which allows the President to identify the castes considered to be SCs in a state
or union territory.
Several state legislatures, including Punjab, Haryana, and Tamil Nadu, enacted laws to
sub-classify SCs for reservation in public employment and education. For instance, the Punjab
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006 and the Tamil
Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation) Act 2009 aimed to ensure that historically
marginalized sub-groups within the SCs received adequate representation.
The judgment revisits several landmark cases, including the nine-Judge Bench decision
in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and the Constitution Bench ruling in EV Chinnaiah v. State
of Andhra Pradesh. While Indra Sawhney permitted sub-classification among Other Backward
Classes (OBCs), Chinnaiah declared sub-classification within SCs unconstitutional, arguing
that such an act would violate the homogeneity of the SC list notified under Article 341.
The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on interpreting the constitutional provisions and
examining historical and empirical evidence of inter-se backwardness among SCs. The key
points of the analysis include:
- Reservation as Substantive Equality: The Court emphasized that reservations aim to
achieve substantive equality by addressing historical injustices and socio-economic
disparities. Sub-classification can be a tool to ensure that the benefits of reservation
reach the most disadvantaged sections within the SCs. - Permissibility Under Article 14: The Court examined whether sub-classification
violates the right to equality. It concluded that Article 14 permits reasonable
classification if it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the
objective sought to be achieved. Sub-classification, aimed at equitable distribution of
reservation benefits, meets these criteria. - Article 341 Interpretation: The Court interpreted Article 341 to understand the scope
of the President’s notification power and the role of Parliament. It held that while the
President’s notification creates a unified SC list, it does not preclude the state from
making intra-caste distinctions for the purpose of reservation, provided it does not alter
the list itself. - Historical and Empirical Evidence: The judgment highlighted historical records and
contemporary data demonstrating significant disparities among SC sub-groups. It
referenced the findings of various commissions and studies that underscored the need
for targeted measures to uplift the most deprived sub-castes.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s dissenting opinion in the Davinder Singh case emphasizes the
importance of judicial dissent for legal advancement and criticizes the majority’s decision to
allow sub-classification within the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes. She believes that this
technique compromises the list’s homogeneity, has enough empirical explanation, and may
result in arbitrary outcomes. She also condemns the application of the “creamy layer” approach
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, citing that it could weaken the constitutional
benefits meant for these groups. Justice Trivedi’s dissent supports for keeping the constitutional
framework and ensuring that any amendments are done with adequate justification.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of sub-classification within SCs,
allowing states to create sub-categories for reservation purposes. The judgment reaffirms the
state’s role in ensuring social justice and equitable distribution of reservation benefits. It marks
a significant step towards achieving substantive equality and addressing the nuanced realities
of caste-based discrimination in India.
By, Aishwarya Pathak | Advocate-on-Record | Supreme Court of India