[Breaking] Is Sub-Classification Permissible Within SC-ST Reservation? SC 5 Judge Bench Refers Matter To Larger Bench; Says 'EV Chinnaiah' Decision Needs Reconsideration

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of a coordinate bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be revisited and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger bench.The bench expressed the view that once a State Government has the power to make reservation, it also has the power to make sub-classifications and that such sub-classification will not amount to tinkering with the reservation list."In a federal structure, the State Government cannot be denied the power to make laws to give preferential treatment to sub-categories within the reservation list", Justice Arun Mishra observed, while reading out the operative portion of the judgment.The bench opined that 'EV Chinniah' did not correctly apply the decision of 'Indira Sawhney' and did not take into account the amendment to Article 342A of the Constitution.However, in view of the contrary view expressed by a 5-judge bench in EV Chinniah, the bench said that the issue needs reconsideration.A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose delivered the verdict in the case State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh and others and connected cases.The batch of appeals arise from a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which struck down Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 provides that fifty per cent of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment, shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes. While holding this provision as unconstitutional, the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, wherein it was held that all the castes in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution formed one class of homogeneous group and the same could not be further sub divided. It was further held therein that any such legislation with reference to Entry 41 of List II or Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.A three judge bench of the Supreme Court, taking note of the submission of the E.V. Chinnaiah is not in accord with the 9-Judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India had referred the matter to the Constitution Bench."We are of the view that E.V. Chinnaiah needs to be revisited in the light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and and, inter alia, exposit of law in Indra Sawhney", the bench comprising Justices RM Lodha, Kurian Joseph and RF Nariman had said in 2014.Earlier this year, the Constitution bench had heard the parties on the following 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 the State had the legislative competence to enact the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Act?Whether the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A. P. & Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 394 is required to be revisited?The cases were reserved for judgment on 17th August 2020.Does Preferential Treatment Include and Excludes Castes?One of the questions considered by the bench, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, MR Shah, Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, was whether subclassification made or preferential treatment within the class of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes can be said to be an exercise of inclusion or exclusion particularly when the other castes in the list of Scheduled Caste persons are not deprived of the benefit of reservation in totality? It observed:All the castes included in the list of Scheduled Caste are given the benefit of reservation as per representation in service, but only specific percentage fixed for preferential treatment to a caste/class which was not able to enjoy the benefit of reservation on account of their being more backward within the backward classes of Scheduled Castes. The preferential treatment would not tantamount to excluding other classes as total deprivation caused to any of the castes in the list of Scheduled Caste under Article 341(2). Caste is nothing but a class. It is the case of classification to provide benefit to all and to those deprived of the benefit of reservation, being the poorest of the poor. Whether the action based on intelligible differentia to trickle down the benefit can be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and whether subclassification can be said to be an act of inclusion or exclusion particularly when various reports indicating that there is inequality inter se various castes included within the list of Scheduled Castes. They do not constitute homogenous class have been relied upon. Based on the report and to give adequate...

[Breaking] Is Sub-Classification Permissible Within SC-ST Reservation? SC 5 Judge Bench Refers Matter To Larger Bench; Says 'EV Chinnaiah' Decision Needs Reconsideration

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags