THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 857 · Decided: 27-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
857
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 857
857
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
v.
DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011)
AUGUST 27, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342 and
342A – Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
(Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – s. 4(5) – Sub-classification
within a socially and educationally backward class (caste) – The
State Government by a circular provided that out of seats reserved
for Scheduled Castes, fifty per cent of the vacancies would be offered
to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs – The circular was struck down by
the High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. against
the same – The Punjab Act was notified in 2006 – s.4(5) of the
Punjab Act made similar provisions as made in the circular, which
was struck down – The High Court struck down the provisions
contained in s.4(5) of the Punjab Act relying upon the decision in
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors.– In the Supreme Court, a
three Judges Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench for
consideration opining that the judgment of a 5-Judge Bench in E.V.
Chinnaiah is required to be revisited in the light of Art. 338 of the
Constitution and not correctly following the exposition of the law
in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India – It was noted that the
matter involved interpretation and interplay between Arts. 16(1),
16(4), 338 and 341 of the Constitution – Held: In Indra Sawhney, it
was held that it is permissible to make sub-classification within
socially and educationally backward classes – Same would be
applicable for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they
admittedly fall u/Art. 16(4) – The sub-classification was made
u/s.4(5) of the Punjab Act to ensure that the benefit of the reservation
percolate down to the deprived section and do not remain on paper
and to provide benefit to all and give them equal treatment – As far
as its permissibility u/Art.14 is concerned, it would be permissible
on a rationale basis to make such sub-classification to provide
benefit to all to bring equality, and it would not amount to exclusion
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
from the list as no class (caste) is deprived of reservation in totality
– There are unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes – Various
reports indicate that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes do
not constitute a homogenous group – When the reservation creates
inequalities within the reserved castes itself, it is required to be taken
care of by the State making sub-classification and adopting a
distribution justice method so that State Largesse does not
concentrate in few hands and equal justice to all is provided – The
State has the competence to grant reservation benefit to all Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in terms of Arts. 15(4), 16(4) and also
Arts. 341(1) and 342(1) – It prescribes the extent/ percentage of
reservation to different classes – The State Government cannot
tamper with the list, it can neither include nor exclude any caste in
the list or make enquiry whether any synonym exists – The State
can provide preference on rational criteria to the class within lists
requiring upliftment – There is no vested right to claim that
reservation should be at a particular percentage – It has to accord
with ground reality as no one can claim the right to enjoy the whole
reservation, it can be proportionate one as per requirement – The
interpretation of Arts.14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342 and 342A is a matter
of immense public importance, and correct interpretation of binding
precedents in Indra Sawhney and other decisions – Therefore, the
opinion of the 3 Judges Bench is endorsed that E.V. Chinnaiah is
required to be revisited by a larger Bench – The Hon’ble Chief
Justice is requested to place the matters before a Bench of 7 Judges
or more as considered appropriate.
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court discussed the concept of socially and
educationally backward classes in Indra Sawhney; however, the
Court observed that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are
admittedly included within the backward classes, as such there
was no need to discuss that. Thus, the discussion was confined
to whether socially and educationally backward classes can be
included in Article 16(4), it was opined that ken of Article 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.