LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors. C.A. No. 2317/2011

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling marks a pivotal development in the application of affirmative action in India. In a 6-1 judgement, a seven-judge bench upheld the constitutionality of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes (SCs) to create separate quotas for groups within the SC categories that are considered more backward. This ruling provides a nuanced approach to reservation policies aimed at addressing varying degrees of social and economic disadvantage within the SC community.In a significant decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that states have the authority to sub-classify groups within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) based on varying degrees of backwardness. This ruling, in the case of State of Punjab and Ors vs. Davinder Singh and Ors, overrules the earlier 2005 judgement in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

The seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and including Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, found that sub-classification is permissible under the Constitution. The majority opinion emphasizes that while Article 341 grants the President the authority to list SC/STs, it does not preclude the possibility of further classification within these groups based on their relative backwardness.

Justice Bela Trivedi, however, dissented, arguing that such sub-classification is not allowed under the existing constitutional framework. She highlighted that systemic discrimination often prevents SC/ST members from advancing, and while Article 14 allows for sub-classification, the class must be examined for homogeneity and integration to determine if further classification is appropriate.

The majority ruling indicates a flexible interpretation of Article 14, permitting states to create sub-categories within SC/ST groups to address varying degrees of social and economic backwardness. This judgment could have significant implications for how reservations and affirmative action policies are implemented at the state level.

Key Aspects of the Judgment:

1. Permissibility of Sub-Classification:
   1. The Court affirmed that states can sub-classify SCs to allocate specific reservations to more backward groups within the SC category. This sub-classification is intended to ensure that the benefits of reservation are more effectively targeted to those who need them the most.
2. Limitations on Reservation Quotas:
   1. While states can create sub-categories, the Court clarified that it is not permissible to earmark 100% of reservations for a single sub-class. This ensures that the reservation system remains inclusive and does not entirely exclude other deserving groups within the SC category.
3. Empirical Justification:
   1. States must substantiate their sub-classification with empirical data demonstrating the inadequacy of representation for the specific sub-class. This requirement aims to ensure that the sub-classification is based on objective criteria rather than arbitrary decisions.
4. Exclusion of Creamy Layer:
   1. The judgment reinforces the principle that the “creamy layer” — more advanced or socially and economically better-off members within SC/ST categories — should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. This ensures that reservations are directed towards those who are truly disadvantaged.

Implications:

• Enhanced Targeting: The ruling allows for a more targeted approach to reservations, which can potentially improve the effectiveness of affirmative action by focusing on those who are most in need within the SC categories.
• Policy and Implementation: States will need to carefully design and justify their reservation policies based on empirical evidence. This will involve a more detailed assessment of the socio-economic conditions of different sub-groups.
• Legal Precedent: The decision sets a precedent for how sub-classifications within reserved categories can be approached in future legal and policy frameworks.

This judgment represents a significant shift in how affirmative action can be structured to address intra-group disparities, with the goal of promoting greater social equality and inclusion.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form