LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1321 : 2024 INSC 562 The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011 01 August 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, B.R. Gavai,* Vikram Nath,* Bela M. Trivedi,* Pankaj Mithal,* Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Supreme Court was required to adjudicate upon whether the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of providing affirmative action, including reservation is valid. In this context, the following issues arose for consideration: Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution; Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping; Whether Article 341 of the Constitution creates a homogenous class through the operation of the deeming fiction; and Whether there any limits on the scope of sub-classification. Headnotes† Reservation – Whether sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for purposes of reservation is constitutionally permissible – Held (per majority), Yes. Held (per Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJI) (for himself and Manoj Misra, J.): 1. Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-classification of a class which is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law – The Court while testing the validity of sub- classification must determine if the class is a homogenous integrated class for fulfilling the objective of the sub-classification – If the class is not integrated for the purpose, the class can be further classified upon the fulfillment of the two-prong intelligible differentia standard. [Para 205(a)] 2. The holding in Chinnaiah that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled. [Para 205(f)] Held (per B.R. Gavai, J.) (Concurring): 1. E.V. Chinnaiah, which held that sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for the * Author 1322 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports purpose of giving more beneficial treatment to a group in the larger group of the Scheduled Castes is not permissible, does not lay down a good law. [Para 296 (i)] 2. Sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for giving more beneficial treatment is permissible in law. [Para 296 (ii)] Held (per Vikram Nath, J.) (Concurring): I am generally in agreement with the reasons and conclusions arrived at in the opinions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Brother Justice Gavai in particular that the holding in E.V. Chinnaiah, that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes was impermissible, does not lay down good law and stands over-ruled. [Para 1] Held (per Pankaj Mithal, J.) (Concurring): 1. The issue of sub- classification of scheduled castes has been appropriately answered by the Chief Justice and my esteemed brother Justice Gavai by their separate opinions with which I respectfully agree. [Para 9] 2. The policy of reservation as enshrined under the Constitution and by its various amendments requires a fresh re-look and evolvement of other methods for helping and uplifting the depressed class or the downtrodden or the persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities – So long no new method is evolved or adopted, the system of reservation as prevailing may continue to occupy the field with power to permit sub-classification of a class particularly scheduled caste as I would not be suggesting dismantling of an existing building without erecting a new one in its place which may prove to be more useful. [Para 84(i)] 3. Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible in law for the purposes of reservation. [Para 85] Held (per Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) (Concurring): I have had the privilege of reading the lucid and detailed opinion(s) authored by Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y.Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, respectively – I am fully in agreement with both opinions to the extent that the validity of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes has been held to be constitutionally permissible. [Para 1] Held (per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) (Dissenting): 1. When the law was settled by the Constitution Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah after considering all the previous judgments including Indra Sawhney and after investing substantial judicial time and resources, the [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1323 The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. same should not have been doubted and referred to the larger bench by the Three-Judge Bench in Davinder Sin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.