Case Commentary - State Of Punjab And Ors V. Davinder Singh And Ors 2024 SCC Online SC 1860

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy

Published: 2026-08-23T18:43:31.687Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:06:25.199Z

CASE COMMENTARY: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS V.

DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1860

Sneha Brigit Prince, LLM (Constitutional and Administrative Law), Christ (deemed to be university), School of Law, Bengaluru Introduction The reservation system in India always faces strong criticism on various grounds. The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Punjab and ors V. Davinder Singh and ors marks an important chapter on the discussions of reservation policies. In this case, the apex court has to decide upon the validity of the sub-classification of the scheduled castes. The constitutional bench led by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud upheld the validity of sub-classification in a 6:1 majority, overruling the five-judge bench decision in E. V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh1. The provision that sub-classified the Scheduled Caste into four groups in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000 was questioned in Chinnaiah’s case.

In a unanimous decision, the constitutional bench declared the Act unconstitutional, ruling that the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes violated Article 341 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The inconsistency of Chinnaiah’s judgement with the ruling of the ninejudge Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India2 and the interplay between Article 16 and Articles 338 and 341 of the Constitution were key points of contention before the apex court in this case, highlighting the gravity of the issue and the need for a re-examination. Facts of the case The state government of Punjab enacted the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which mandates the reservation of scheduled castes and backward classes in government services.

Section 4(2) of the Act reserves 25% of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and 12% for Backward Classes in direct recruitment. Section 4(5) further

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.

stipulates that 50% of the Scheduled Castes quota must be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs as first preference. The validity of this section was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, relying on the ruling of EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, declared it unconstitutional. Aggrieved with the judgment, the state government appealed to the apex court, arguing that the Chinnaiah judgment was inconsistent with the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. A three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench for a reexamination of Article

16 and Articles 338 and 341 of the Constitution, thereby initiating a sequence of legal

proceedings that underscore the complexity and significance of the issues at stake. Likewise, the government of Haryana also issued a notification for reservation by subclassifying the Scheduled Castes into Block A and B. Block B included castes such as Chamars, Ramdasias, and Ravidasias. At the same time, Block A comprised the remaining 36 Scheduled Castes. The notification mandated that 50% of reserved vacancies for SC in government jobs be filled by applicants from Block A and the other from Block B. When the matter came before the High Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the notification. A special Leave Petition was filed challenging the High Court’s decision.

Similarly, Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in educational institutions, including private educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in services under State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act 2009 by the Tamil Nadu Government mandates3 that 16% of the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in educational institutions be allocated to Arunthathiyars. It further provides a 16% reservation for Arunthathiyars in government jobs as part of the Scheduled Castes quota. 4 Its constitutionality was challenged in the Supreme Court for violating the Chinnaiah judgment. All challenges to the Punjab, Haryana, and Tamil Nadu laws were tagged together for joint consideration by the Court. Analysis of the Judgment The seven-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in this case has given six different opinions.

Justice Bala Trivedi issued a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion on the crucial issues is as follows. 3 Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation) Act, 2009, § 3, No. 4, Acts of Tamil Nadu State Legislature,

2009 (India).

4 Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation) Act, 2009, § 4, No. 4, Acts of Tamil Nadu State Legislature,

2009 (India).

1. Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15, and

16? The apex court held that Article 14 of the Constitution allows sub-classification of a reserved class if that class is not similarly situated for the purposes of the law. They tested whether the class is a homogeneous integrated class to fulfil the objective of sub-classification. In this case, as the class is not integrated, it can be further classified based on intelligible differentia and must satisfy the two-prong standard: a. A rational basis for classification and b. a connection with the purpose of the sub-classification. Additionally, in Indra Sawhney, the Court upheld the principle of sub-classification not only for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but for other beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) as well. Thus, the court overruled the judgment of the Chinniah.

2. Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogeneous grouping?

Historical and empirical evidence suggests that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogeneous class because they comprise various castes with different levels of socioeconomic backwardness. Because of this heterogeneity, the State has the power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to classify the Scheduled Castes further, provided that there is a rational principle for differentiation and that this principle is connected to the purpose of the subclassification, such as addressing inadequate representation within the group.

3. Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the operation of the deeming

fiction? Article 341(1) does not create a homogenous class by operating a deeming fiction. The term "deemed" in Article 341 indicates that castes listed by the President will be regarded as Scheduled Castes and will receive the associated constitutional benefits. However, this does not imply that all castes in the list form an integrated, homogenous class. Instead, they are treated as Scheduled Castes for affirmative action, but the operation of Article 341 does not inherently unify them into a singular, undifferentiated class.

4. Whether there are any limits on the scope of sub-classification?

Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution allow sub-classification only under the two conditions: a. there must be a rational basis for the classification, such as addressing inadequate representation; b. this classification must promote substantive equality for the backward class. However, sub-classification violates Article 341(2) when it ensures preferential or exclusive benefits for specific castes over the reserved seats. The State shall also gather empirical data on underrepresented services to the sub-classification. Article 335 must ensure that the administration's efficiency would win as they advance equality and inclusion. Additionally, the court held that the state could not reserve 100% of the available seats for any sub-class.

Lastly, the creamy layer principle adds another layer of restriction, ensuring that the advanced members within these reserved groups do not continue to benefit from reservations indefinitely. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s majority ruling upheld the sub-classification's constitutionality, overruling the Chinnaiah’s decision. The decision emphasises that the sub-classification promotes substantive equality and addresses socio-economic disparities. On the other hand, Justice Bela Trivedi's dissent in the judgment further argued that the decision of the Chinnaiah ruling needs to be revisited. According to her, the three-judge bench in Davinder Singh erred in reversing the constitutional bench's decision without adequate reasoning. She held that the Presidential List under Article 341 amounts to a homogenous class.

That sub-classification would be nothing short of an amendment to the list, which, she felt, can only be done by Parliament. Justice Trivedi clarified that states could not alter the classification or provide quota benefits to subcastes but reiterated that Chinnaiah is a good law and should not be overruled. However, Justice Pankaj Mithal's opinion insisted on reviewing the existing reservation system. He suggested that reservations should only apply to a family's first generation and advocated a merit-based approach. He stated that once a family has benefited from reservations and improved its socio-economic scenario, it loses the right, especially under the creamy layer principle. Justice Mithal also advocated a way out of caste-based reservations, urging economic criteria and others like urban or rural background.

The Davinder Singh case has thus brought into sharp focus an essential debate on the most appropriate course towards realising social justice and equality within the framework of addressing intra-group inequalities. While the majority judgment upholding sub-classification as a valid tool for obtaining substantive equality reflects the broader legal discourse, the dissent presents the 'voice' in the overall tension between affirmative action and the tenets of meritocracy and uniformity within India's reservation system.