Subclassification Necessary To Uplift Most Backward Among Scheduled Castes : State Of Punjab Tells Supreme Court [Day 1]

A 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 6) began hearing the referred matter on the permissibility of sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SC)& Scheduled Tribes (ST).The Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also comprises Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.The matter was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, was required to be reconsidered.The arguments were opened by Gurminder Singh, the Advocate General of Punjab who engaged the bench in socio-legal nuances of the deeply rooted caste system in India. Highlighting the two perspectives on reservations, firstly of those who think they are entitled and secondly, those who are actually in need, Singh expressed that reservation cannot be seen as an act of benevolence. “ Reservation is no benevolence, is not an act of benevolence by the entitled to the needy at all. If at all it is, it is the compensation for centuries of oppression of the needy…” According to him, reservation was a tool in the hands of the state to achieve the ultimate goal of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.Singh weaved the twin effect of reservations as a tool which not only ensures equal opportunities for the disadvantaged to enable equal status but also ensures a life of dignity.Spotlighting the issue of 'Heredity of Caste', it was argued that caste-based occupations like that of cobblers, sweepers, blacksmiths etc have continued to be handed down to future generations of India. The evil, Singh expressed, lay in the rigid mindset of the society which has chained itself to the notion of caste-influenced fate.Justice Gavai in a later part of the hearing also impressed upon the issue of carrying forward reservation advantages intergenerationally within the advanced sections among the Scheduled Castes. He opined : “ Within a particular backward class, certain caste has reached that position and power, then they should move out but then that is only for the Parliament to decide...now what happens, a person from SC/ST gets into IAS / IPS etc, once your are into that, their children do not suffer the disadvantages that persons suffer from the other SC communities. But then, by virtue of reservation, they are also entitled to the second generation and again the third generation.” Understanding Subclassification & State's Preferential Treatment Referring to the main issue at hand, Singh submitted that Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (Act of 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. He further explained that the reservation was done on a two-fold check and balance, 1. It was limited to 50% which in the development of law has become the lakshman rekha which were not advised to cross, 2. This was implemented on a preferential basis. He explained, “ This was not an act of exclusion, this was an act of inclusion of those who were the most backward of the backward to bring them up from where they stood.” Picking from there, the CJI verbally observed the underlining nuance of equity wherein subclassification seeks to make an exclusion within the socially excluded, thus bringing into relevance the notion of relative backwardness within the backward sections of the society. “We cannot gloss over the point of exclusion. The same exclusion that applies to reservation per se when courses are reserved for backward communities, there is necessarily an exclusion of the forward community in competing for those courses, yet our constitutional jurisprudence permits it. Why, because we treat equality as a substantive equality, not formal equality therefore.... the same applies for the reservation of the backward community... the block backwards v. forward would also apply within the backward community because what we are also doing here, by the measurement as brought in by Punjab legislature, was this that within the reservation of SCs, 15.5 % of the 50% is for Mazhbis and Valmikis so to that extent the reservation is exclusively carved out for them, the other backwards castes cannot compete for those seats .... the only question now is this - can that exclusion not be justified on the same yardstick which we have applied in the exclusion of the backward v. forward context.?” EV Chinnaiah Misreads The Observations In Indira Sawhney: Punjab Advocate General IllustratesTackling with the main issue in the decision of the Court in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra...

Subclassification Necessary To Uplift Most Backward Among Scheduled Castes : State Of Punjab Tells Supreme Court [Day 1]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags