Introduction and Background of the case:
The Supreme Court's approach to affirmative action witnessed a watershed moment in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, where a seven-judge constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, addressed the critical question of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs). This landmark judgment transcends mere constitutional interpretation, delving into the heart of India's complex social fabric. At its core, the case examines whether the existing framework of reservations can be further refined through sub-classification, reflecting the nuanced reality of disparities within disadvantaged groups.

Facts:
The Punjab Government initially issued a circular in the year 1975, which provided that out of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, 50% of the vacancies would be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. However, this circular was struck down by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Special Leave Petition filed against the same was also dismissed.

Subsequently, the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 was notified. Section 4(5) of the Act made similar provisions as were made in the earlier circular, stipulating that 50% of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, subject to their availability, by providing first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidates. However, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court once again struck down the provisions contained in Section 4(5) of the Act after relying upon the decision of the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors.[1] judgment.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, a Bench of three Judges referred it to a larger Bench for consideration, opining that the judgment of a 5-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah needed to be revisited in light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and for not correctly following the exposition of the law in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors[2], which dealt with the sub-classification of the OBCs.

The case essentially revolved around the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which was meant to preferentially treat certain SC category subjects, specifically Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, through "first preference" in government jobs and other positions from the 50% quota reserved for SCs. The rationale behind the Act was that these portions of the SC category had long suffered neglect and required affirmative action to catch up with the relatively more advantaged groups within the same category.

Issues:

• Whether the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services Act, 2006) are constitutionally valid?
• Whether it is justified for the state to sub-classify in order to ensure more reservation for some SC groups over others?
• Was the decision of the 5-judge constitutional bench wrong in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, and does it require revisitation?

Rule of Law:

• Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – Section 4(5)
• Article 14, 15(4), 16(1), and 16(4) of the Constitution of India

Article 341 of the Constitution of India:

1. The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races, or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races, or tribes which shall, for the purposes of this Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
    
2. Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race, or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race, or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

Article 342 of the Constitution of India

• Article 342 of the Constitution of India
  1. The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be."
      
  2. Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
      
• Article 342A of the Constitution of India
  1. The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the socially and educationally backward classes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be socially and educationally backward classes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
      
  2. Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the Central List of socially and educationally backward classes specified in a notification issued under Clause (1) any socially and educationally backward class, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said Clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
      

Analysis

• Arguments of the Appellant –
  1. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 was enacted under article 16(1) and 16(4), thereby stating that section 4(5) of the aforementioned act was well within the legislative competence of the state.
      
  2. In E.V. Chinnaiah case, the Court misinterpreted the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney regarding sub-classification within a class. Five of the nine judges in Indra Sawhney held that within the broader category of backward classes, certain groups may be more disadvantaged, and that the State is legally permitted to make such distinctions. The majority opinion clearly supported the view that backward classes can be further divided into more and less backward groups.
      
  3. Preferential treatment is an aspect of equality under Article 14 and Article 16. Any State law that prioritizes the more disadvantaged within the backward classes fulfils the intent of Article 16(4). In Indra Sawhney, six out of nine judges held that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1). Preferential treatment for certain Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes does not violate Article 14; instead, it seeks to achieve proportional equality. The State is allowed to give preferential treatment within the list based on the relative backwardness of particular groups, and nothing in Article 341 prohibits this. Article 341 does not limit the State's authority under Article 16(4) to enact provisions that afford preference. Such preferential treatment is not only permitted but also essential to achieving equality as the phrase used of "backward class of citizens" in article 16(4) includes SCs, STs and other socially and economically backward classes.
      
  4. There is no restriction on the State's ability to grant preference under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. The Constitution does not prohibit mere preference, though the State Government cannot exercise power over inclusion or exclusion from the list. This Court in Indra Sawhney upheld the classification of backward and more backward classes under Article 16(4).
      
• Arguments of the Respondent:
  1. Parliament has the authority to make laws concerning any subject for any part of India that is not within a State, even if that subject is listed in the State List, thereby it has the power to exclude castes listed in the schedule.
      
  2. The learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied on the Doctrine of Binding Precedents and contended that the decision passed in E.V. Chinnaiah is not required to be revisited. In Indra Sawhney, the sub-classification of the OBCs was restricted to socially and educationally backward classes, and its observations do not apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are considered backward under Article 16(4) without the need to meet criteria for social and educational backwardness. E.V. Chinnaiah correctly interpreted the Indra Sawhney decision in this context.
      
  3. It was further argued that the legal fiction established under Article 341 must be fully upheld. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 cannot be deemed constitutionally valid, as the Governor's role under Article 341 is limited to making recommendations for changes to the list. No additional classification can be made once Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are included under Article 16(4).

What was held?
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, observed that SCs are not a homogeneous group and thus the sub-classification does not violate the Constitution. States can implement sub-classification, but it must be justified with empirical data, and reservations cannot be allocated 100% to any sub-class. Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and S.C. Sharma supported the view observing that the states have a duty to offer preferential treatment to more backward SC groups.

The "creamy layer" principle should apply to SCs as well, excluding more advantaged individuals from affirmative benefits. Justice B.M. Trivedi dissented, arguing that sub-classification amounts to altering the Presidential list of SCs, which should only be modified by Parliament. Sub-classification could lead to unequal benefits among different SC sub-groups and is beyond the states' legislative powers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court has ruled, by majority of 6:1, that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste (SC) category is permissible, overturning its previous E.V. Chinnaiah judgment.

The ruling highlights that sub-classification is permissible, but it must be carefully justified and cannot result in exclusive reservations for any single sub-class. The Supreme Court has realized the necessity for sub-classification within the SC category, which reveals deep-seated inequalities and an abhorrence for a more nuanced approach to reservations. It illustrates the intricate dynamics of caste conflict and hierarchy amidst economic development in modern India, reflecting the continued challenges between constitutional guarantees of equality and the depth of caste-based discrimination.


End Notes:

1. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217