Case Title: The State of Punjab and others v. Davinder Singh and others
According to the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench, the State Government may favour one additional disadvantaged class among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes without depriving others the benefits.
The Court made several observations while ruling in favour to review the dicta in E V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The court in E V Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh noted that there were disparities among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward groups, and that the benefits of reservation do not extend to the lowest socio-economic strata. It was noted that the State's ability to address the qualitative and quantitative differences among various groups and implement corrective measures could not be taken away. The court made the following observation at the end of its 78-page judgement:-
"The interpretation of Articles 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. Though we have full respect for the principle of stare decisis, at the same time, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and shut its eyes to stark realities. The constitutional goal of social transformation cannot be achieved without taking into account changing social realities."
Are castes both included and excluded in preferential treatment?
The bench considered a number of issues, including whether subclassification or preferential treatment within the category of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes can be characterised as an exercise in inclusion or exclusion, especially when the other castes on the list of Scheduled Caste persons are not denied the benefit?
The Court stated that all castes on the Scheduled Castes list were given the benefit of reservation in accordance with representation in the workforce, but only a specific percentage was fixed for preferential treatment to a caste or class that was unable to benefit from reservation due to their higher level of backwardness among the Scheduled Castes' backward classes. The preferential treatment would not amount to the entire deprivation of any of the castes on the list of Scheduled Castes under Article 341 as does the exclusion of other groups.
The bench also pointed out that it was decided in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India that subclassification among socially and educationally underdeveloped strata is acceptable. Since Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were admittedly covered under Article 16, that discussion would also apply to them.
How can the benefit reach those on the lowest side?
In light of the decisions in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which allowed for the subclassification of backward classes, and in Jarnail Singh and Ors v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors, which held that the "creamy layer concept" for exclusion of benefit could be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it was questioned whether subclassification for the purpose of providing benefit to all castes could be said to be tampering with the list under Articles 341, 342 and 342A. The court stated:-
“The caste or group or subgroup continued exactly as before in the list. It is only those persons within that group or subgroup, who have come out of untouchability or backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy layer, who are excluded from the benefit of reservation. The million-dollar question is how to trickle down the benefit to the bottom rung; reports indicate that benefit is being usurped by those castes (class) who have come up and adequately represented. It is clear that caste, occupation, and poverty are interwoven. The State cannot be deprived of the power to take care of the qualitative and quantitative difference between different classes to take ameliorative measures.”
The State Government is responsible for determining how reservations should be distributed fairly.
The court observed that it was the responsibility of the State to work towards the liberation of the underprivileged segment of society and the eradication of disparities. When the reservation led to inequities within the reserved castes themselves, the State should have addressed them by subclassifying and using a distributive justice approach so that State wealth did not concentrate in a small number of hands and equitable justice would have been granted to everyone.
Furthermore, it stated that the State legislatures had the authority to provide a portion of the reservation within the permitted limits. Its concurrent ability to reasonably classify individuals into the distinct classifications of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes couldn’t be taken away without affecting others on the list. In accordance with constitutional dynamics, the needy should always receive benefits.