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 nine- judge 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
Comments