STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. V/s. DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS. (2024)

October 9, 2024

Introduction

The case of Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab serves as a landmark ruling in explaining and clarifying the law of reservation in India. It was finally observed that a sub-classification may also be done under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe as it is done in the case of Other Backward classes. Also, issues were settled as to the application of creamy layer on SC/ST.

 The Supreme Court in this case has extensively talked about the various provisions related to reservation in the Indian Constitution, the historical perspective on reservation and the various findings of the Supreme Court itself in which it has established the law on reservation through its various rulings.

This article is an attempt to present before the readers the issues which the apex Court decided in this judgment, the reasons for that and the final observation.

What is reservation? (SC/ST Reservation rules)

Reservation is a form of positive measure or positive discrimination wherein some advantages or benefits are conferred in the favor of some marginalized sections of the society to bring them at par with other sections of the society. These marginalized sections may be women, children, or some socially discriminated citizens like people belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes.

Historically, India has witnessed huge amount of caste discrimination. The society was divided on the basis of labor.  People from lower classes or caste were not allowed to sit with higher caste and were considered to be inferior. When the Constitution was enacted the framers were aware of that caste discrimination. Therefore, certain provision were made in the Constitution itself to cater to the interest of those people. These may be in the form of reserving some seats or services in the favor of these people or through some other positive measures.

For example, Article 16(4) stated that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointment in favor of any backward classes of citizens which in the opinion of the state is not adequately represented.

Also, there was Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which stated that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the state from making special provision for women and children.

It shows that India always advocated for the idea for proportional equality and not the formal equality because equality may be prevailed only among the equals. That is why the first priority of a State must be to promote equality.

Reservation provisions added afterwards (SC/ST Reservation rules)

Considering the idea of proportional equality and the condition of backward classes of citizens Indian Parliament has done some amendments in the Constitution to further address the issues of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. For example-

  1. Addition of Article 15(3) – Allows the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes.
  2. Addition of Article 15(5)- Allows the State to reserve the seats for socially and educationally backward classes in private educational institutions.
  3. Addition of Article 15(6)- Reservation of 10% of seats to the economically backward citizens.
  4. Addition of Article 16 (4A)- Allowing the State to make provision for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority.

At various instances the Constitutional validity of these provisions of the Constitution challenged. (In Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India, the validity of 10 % reservation on economic criteria was challenged) on the ground that these provisions violate the Right to Equality as guaranteed under Article 14 and also a discrimination on the basis of caste, violating Article 15.

However, the Supreme Court has upheld these provisions to be valid on the following grounds-

  1. India promotes the idea of formal equality, i.e. equality may only be prevailed only among equals. Therefore, first the unequals must be brought at par with equals through these affirmative measures like reservation.
  2. Guaranteeing reservation doesn’t violate any of the tenet of basic structure of the Constitution, therefore constitutional.
  3. Indian Constitution is also committed to the idea of fraternity as guaranteed under the Preamble. To protect and uphold such idea reservation policy is required.

Accordingly, citing these reasons mainly provision were held to be constitutional.

Limitations imposed on reservation (SC/ST Reservation rules)

Though as noted earlier, the Supreme Court at various occasions upheld the newly added reservation provisions, however, with a caution. It has been observed that the Parliament in its zeal to uplift the backward classes of citizens, must not discriminate against the other classes of citizens and accordingly following limitations were imposed in the landmark case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992, also known as Mandal Commission Case. 

  1. The reservation must not exceed 50% of the total number of seats. Later on in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, it was clarified that if reservation exceeds 50% then compelling reasons, decisive factors, and strong justification must be given to exceed such limit.
  2. Moreover, a concept of creamy layer shall be applied which means if some castes belonging to the backward classes cease to be backward then reservation shall not be granted to that class.

It is to be noted that the concept of creamy layer was applied only to the cases of Other Backward Classes of Citizens or only to the OBC’s. It was not applied to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.

Facts in the case of Devinder Singh V. State of Punjab

In the case mentioned above, the various State Governments enacted the laws according to which sub classification was done in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe which was challenged before the Supreme Court.

In an earlier occasion in E V Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court had ruled that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe itself constitutes a homogenous class and no further sub classification may be done. Also, the concept of creamy layer which was applied in Indira Sawhney Case was limited only to the OBCs because that was only dealt in that judgment. Therefore, this particular decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issues before the Court

  • Whether the Sub –classification of Scheduled Caste and Tribe is permissible under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?
  • Whether SC/ST itself form a homogenous group and no classification is permissible?
  • Whether concept of creamy layer may be employed in SC/ST?

Observations made by the Supreme Court (Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab)

It was that the sub-classification within the SC/ST is permissible on the following grounds-

  1. Article 14 allows or validates sub classification provided that if there is intelligible differentia and if the classification has a nexus with the objective.
  2. For the most effectual implementation of the provisions of reservation, it is required that benefits must reach to the needy. That is why such classification may be allowed.
  3. However, before allowing for reservation it has to be shown there is a valid classification and the requirements of test as laid down under Article must be fulfilled.

Conclusion

This judgment comes out as a seminal ruling on the concept of creamy layer and sub-classification in SC/ST. The ruling will definitely help in applying the provisions of reservation in a fair manner.

Leave a Comment