Background:

The present case is related to the State of Punjab's efforts to ensure that the benefits of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) reached the most disadvantaged groups within that category, specifically Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. In 1975, Punjab introduced a policy to provide first preference to these communities within the SC quota. However, this policy, and a subsequent legislative attempt in 2006 (Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006), were challenged and struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court's decisions were based on the Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that sub-classification within the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes was impermissible, treating them as a homogeneous group. Doubting the correctness of Chinnaiah, the State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the matter being referred to a larger seven-judge Constitution Bench to re-examine the legality of sub-classification within SC/ST categories.

Issues

1. Whether sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories for the purpose of reservations is constitutionally permissible?

2. Whether state legislatures possess the competence to introduce such sub-classification?

3. Whether the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 394 required to be revisited?

Observations:

The Supreme Court, by a 6:1 majority, made following observations:

• • The Court acknowledged that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not homogenous groups.
• • The object of reservation is to achieve substantive equality by addressing historical injustices and ensuring adequate representation for all marginalized sections, including the "weakest of the weak" within the reserved categories.
• • The power to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution is broad enough to permit sub-classification and they act as independent enabling provisions.
• • The Court clarified that the President's power under Article 341 to notify Scheduled Castes is for identification purposes.
• • While not directly applying it in this case for SCs/STs, some concurring opinions hinted at the desirability of applying the "creamy layer" principle (exclusion of the more advanced individuals from reservation benefits) to SCs/STs as well.
• • The Court clarified that the concern for "efficiency of administration" under Article 335 should not be interpreted in a manner that dilutes the constitutional mandate of affirmative action for SCs/STs.

Decision:

The Supreme Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

• • The Court overruled the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment (2005).
• • It held that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories for the purpose of providing reservations is constitutionally permissible.
• • It affirmed that state legislatures have the legislative competence to enact laws for such sub-classification, provided it is based on empirical data to identify the "weakest of the weak" within these categories and aims to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits.

Why this case matters?

• o It significantly empowers state governments to frame more nuanced and effective reservation policies to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most marginalized within the SC/ST communities.
• o The overruling of E.V. Chinnaiah, a significant constitutional bench decision that stood for nearly two decades, marks a crucial shift in reservation jurisprudence.
• o While not explicitly applied, the discussions around the "creamy layer" for SCs/STs in concurring opinions could pave the way for future legislative or judicial interventions on this aspect.
• o It reaffirms the legislative competence of states in matters of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

Laws related there with:

Under the Indian Constitution:

• - Article 14- Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• - Article 15(4)- Enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
• - Article 16(4)- Enables the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• - Article 341- Pertains to the identification and notification of Scheduled Castes by the President, and the power of Parliament to include or exclude castes from this list.
• - Article 342- Similar to Article 341, but for Scheduled Tribes.
• - Article 335- Concerns the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts, consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

Under the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006: Specifically, Section 4(5) of this Act was at the heart of the challenge.

Judicial Precedents:

• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394: This was the primary precedent that was revisited and ultimately overruled by the Davinder Singh judgment.

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) (Mandal Commission Case): This nine-judge bench judgment upheld the validity of reservations for OBCs and allowed for sub-classification within OBCs (backward and more backward classes), and also introduced the "creamy layer" concept for OBCs. The Davinder Singh court drew parallels and distinguished Chinnaiah from the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney.

• State of Kerala & Anr. v. N.M. Thomas & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 310: This case dealt with the scope of Article 16(4) and held that it is not an exception to Article 16(1) but an emphatic way of stating the principle of equality.