The State of Punjab & Ors. vs Davinder Singh & Ors.

Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court

HELD: 1. This Court discussed the concept of socially and educationally backward classes in Indra Sawhney; however, the Court observed that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are admittedly included within the backward classes, as such there was no need to discuss that. Thus, the discussion was confined to whether socially and educationally backward classes can be included in Article 16(4), it was opined that ken of Article 16(4) is wider than Article 15(4). It was also observed that backward classes contemplated under Article 16(4) do comprise some castes. The Scheduled Castes include quite a few castes. Based on the aforesaid foundational basis, interpretation was made. In opinion of this Court, the decision is relevant for interpreting Article 16(4) provisions in their application to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes. They stand on the similar footing, and they cannot be treated as different from other as also fortified by insertion of Article 342A which is pari materia to Article 341 or 342 and considering the definition in Article 366(24) and (26C) and classification of backward classes can be done. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes admittedly are backward, and the same yardstick would apply to all. In Indra Sawhney, it was held that it is permissible to make sub-classification within socially and educationally backward classes. That discussion would be applicable for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they admittedly fall under Article 16(4). [Para 36][917-C-G]

2. There is cry, and caste struggle within the reserved class as benefit of reservation in services and education is being enjoyed, who are doing better hereditary occupation. The scavenger class given the name of Balmikis remains more or less where it was, and so on, disparity within Scheduled Caste is writ large from various reports. The sub-classification was made under Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act to ensure that the benefit of the reservation percolate down to the deprived section and do not remain on paper and to provide benefit to all and give them equal treatment, whether it is violative of Article 14? In opinion of this Court, it would be permissible on rationale basis to make such sub-classification to provide benefit to all to bring equality, and it would not amount to exclusion from the list as no class (caste) is deprived of reservation in totality. In case benefit which is meant for the emancipation of all the castes, included in the list of Scheduled Castes, is permitted to be usurped by few castes those who are adequately represented, have advanced and belonged to the creamy layer, then it would tantamount to creating inequality whereas in case of hunger every person is required to be fed and provided bread. The entire basket of fruits cannot be given to mighty at the cost of others under the guise of forming a homogenous class. [Para 40][918-G-H; 919-A-B]

3. The State’s obligation is to undertake the emancipation of the deprived section of the community and eradicate inequalities. When the reservation creates inequalities within the reserved castes itself, it is required to be taken care of by the State making sub-classification and adopting a distributive justice method so that State largesse does not concentrate in few hands and equal justice to all is provided. It involves redistribution and reallocation of resources and opportunities and equitable access to all public and social goods to fulfil the very purpose of the constitutional mandate of equal justice to all. [Para 42][919-E-F]

4. Providing a percentage of the reservation within permissible limit is within the powers of the State legislatures. It cannot be deprived of its concomitant power to make reasonable classification within the particular classes of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes without depriving others in the list. To achieve the real purpose of reservation, within constitutional dynamics, needy can always be given benefit; otherwise, it would mean that inequality being perpetuated within the class if preferential classification is not made ensuring benefit to all. [Para 43][919-G-H; 920-A]

5. The sub-classification is to achieve the very purpose, as envisaged in the original classification itself and based thereupon evolved the very concept of reservation. Whether the subclassification would be a further extension of the principle of said dynamics is the question to be considered authoritatively by the Court. [Para 44][920-B]

6. The Scheduled Castes as per Presidential List are not frozen for all the time, and neither they are a homogenous group as evident from the vast anthropological and statistical data collected by various Commissions. The State law of preferential treatment to a limited extent, does not amend the list. It adopts the list as it is. The State law intends to provide reservation for all Scheduled Castes in a pragmatic manner based on statistical data. It distributes the benefits of reservations based on the needs of each Scheduled Caste. [Para 45][920-C]

7. The State has the competence to grant reservation benefit to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in terms of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and also Articles 341(1) and 342(1). It prescribes the extent/percentage of reservation to different classes. The State Government can decide the manner and quantum of reservation. As such, the State can also make subclassification when providing reservation to all Scheduled Castes in the list based on the rationale that would conform with the very spirit of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution providing reservation. The State Government cannot temper with the list; it can neither include nor exclude any caste in the list or make enquiry whether any synonym exists as held in Milind. [Para 46][920-D-F]

8. The State Government is conferred with the power to provide reservation and to distribute it equitably. The State Government is the best judge as to the disparities in different areas. In opinion of this Court, it is for the State Government to judge the equitable manner in which reservation has to be distributed. It can work out its methodology and give the preferential treatment to a particular class more backward out of Scheduled Castes without depriving others of benefit. [Para 47][920-F-G]

9. Apart from that, the other class out of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/socially and educationally backward classes, who is not denied the benefit of reservation, cannot claim that whole or a particular percentage of reservation should have been made available to them. The State can provide such preference on rational criteria to the class within lists requiring upliftment. There is no vested right to claim that reservation should be at a particular percentage. It has to accord with ground reality as no one can claim the right to enjoy the whole reservation, it can be proportionate one as per requirement. The State cannot be deprived of measures for upliftment of various classes, at the same time, which is the very purpose of providing such measure. The spirit of the reservation is the upliftment of all the classes essential for the nation’s progress. [Para 48][920-H; 921-A-B]

10. In the federal structure, the State, as well as the Parliament, have a constitutional directive for the upliftment of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and backward classes. Only inclusion or exclusion in the Presidential notification is by the Parliament. The State Government has the right to provide reservation in the fields of employment and education. There is no constitutional bar to take further affirmative action as taken by the State Government in the cases to achieve the goal. By allotting a specific percentage out of reserved seats and to provide preferential treatment to a particular class, cannot be said to be violative of the list under Articles 341, 342, and 342A as no enlisted caste is denied the benefit of reservation. [Para 49][921-C-D]

11. The “inadequate representation” is the fulcrum of the provisions of Article 16(4). In opinion of this Court, it would be open to the State to provide on a rational basis the preferential treatment by fixing reasonable quota out of reserved seats to ensure adequate representation in services. Reservation is a very effective tool for emancipation of the oppressed class. The benefit by and large is not percolating down to the neediest and poorest of the poor. [Para 50][921-E-F]

12. 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 this Cout has full respect for the principle of stare decisis, at the same time, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and shut eyes to stark realities. The constitutional goal of social transformation cannot be achieved without taking into account changing social realities. [Para 51][921-F-G] Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 3 Suppl. SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454; Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 396 : [ 2018] 10 SCR 663; K. C. Vasanth Kumar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Suppl. SCC 714 : [1985] Suppl. SCR 352; State of Kerala & Anr. v. N. M. Thomas & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC

310 : [1976] 1 SCR 906; Jagdish Negi, President, Uttarakhand Jan Morcha & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 203 : [ 1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 477; State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors.,(2001) 1 SCC 4 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65; GVK. Industries Limited& Anr. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 36 : [2011]

3 SCR 366 – relied on.

E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC

394 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454; M. R. Balaji & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1963] 1 Suppl. SCR 439; Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 312 : [2018] 10 SCR 513; M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336; I. R. Coelho v. State of T. N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 : [2007] 1 SCR 706; Indra Sawhney and R. K.

Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745 : [1995] 2 SCR 35; State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 146 : [2017] 11 SCR 247; B. K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 129 : [ 2019] 7 SCR 1086; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 130 : [ 1990] 2 SCR 843; Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942; Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 50 : [2010] 1 SCR 483; Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan & Ors. v. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan & Ors., (2019)

12 SCC 735; S. R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2707; T. M. A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587; Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 800 : [2005] 1 SCR 848; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., (2008) 6 SCC 1 : [2008] 4 SCR 1; B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [1965] 1 SCR 316; Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh [1965] 2 SCR 877; Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura & Ors., (1990) Supp. SCC 220 : [1990] SCR 576; Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 359 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 872; Heikham Surchandra Singh & Ors. v. Representatives of “Lois” Kakching, Manipur (A scheduled caste uplift body) & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 523 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 371; Shree Surat Valsad Jilla K.M.G. Parishad v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 360 : [2007] 6 SCR 257; Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 : [2003] 2 Suppl.

SCR 743; Subhash Chandra v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2009) 15 SCC 458 : [2009]

12 SCR 978; Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1973) 1 SCC 856 : [1974] 1 SCR 1; Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1955] 2 SCR 603; Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1965] 2 SCR; Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc., (1989) 2 SCC 754 : [1989] 3 SCR 316; Goodyear India Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1990) 2 SCC 71 : [1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 510; Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine SC 383; Indra Sawney and Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 50 : [2010]

1 SCR 483 – referred to.

State of Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219; David Burnet v. Colorado Oil & Gas Company 285 U.S. 393; Graves v. People of the State of New York 306 U.S. 466; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304; 4 L. Ed. 97, 102 – referred to.