By Harleen Kaur
---
Act: Constitution of India, Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act 2006
Principle: The state has the legislative competence to sub-classify within SC/STs
FACTS:
The State of Punjab passed the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006, section 4(5) of which provided preferential treatment to two specific castes within the SCs, thus subclassifying the SCs. The provision was struck down by the P&H High Court for being violative of EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where 5-Judge bench of the SC held that sub-classification within SCs is impermissible under the Constitution. The State of Punjab appealed and the matter was listed before another 3-Judge bench which referred the case to the current 5 Judge Bench.
ISSUES:
- Whether the provisions contained under section 4(5) of The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act2006 are constitutionally valid?
- Whether the state had the legislative competence to subclassify within SCs and STs in light of Article 341 of the Constitution?
- Whether EV Chinnaiah needed to be reconsidered by a 7 Judge bench?
CORAM:
- Arun Mishra, J
- Indira Banerjee, J
- Vinit Saran, J
- MR Shah, J
- Aniruddha Bose, J
HELD:
The state has the
legislative competence to sub-classify within SC/STs, and section
4(5) of the Act is constitutionally valid. Further, EV Chinnaiah needs to be
reconsidered by a 7 Judge Bench.
DECISION:
The Court unanimously
found in favor of the Petitioners. The majority judgement was authored by
Mishra, J. and held as below:
The Court reasoned
that Article 16(4) which allows the state to provide reservation for “backward
classes” includes SCs/STs. Thus, SCs/STs are to be treated on the same footing
as SEBCs (in common parlance, OBCs) and, since in Indira Sawhney v Union of
India, the Court upheld sub-classification within OBCs, the same can be
done for SCs/STs. The Court held that the addition of Article 342A, which
provides for a presidential schedule for Backward Classes, which is similar to
Article 341 further strengthens this conclusion.
Further, the Court
held that denying sub-classification within SC/STs amounts to denial of
equality since not all castes within SC/STs are on the same footing, and thus,
the same is a reasonable classification.
The Court also held that the states do have the legislative competence to sub-classify as it does not amount to amendment or changing of the list under Article 341. The sub-classification is merely a pragmatic way of meeting the State’s mandate of empowering the backward classes, in light of anthropological studies showing heterogeneity within Scheduled Castes.
---
Harleen Kaur is a quirky (also clumsy?), sometimes cynical and other times obsessively ambitious human with a talent for overthinking everything to the last detail. A 2nd-year B.A. LL. B (Hons.) student at NLU Delhi, she is keen to explore the vast multitude of possibilities law as a field offers. She is currently especially drawn towards issues that affect women, questions of public policy, as well as sociology and economics. She feels out-of-place in pretty much every life setting, but is equally reluctant to blend in (it’s a dilemma, really). You will often find her curled up with her Kindle in a corner listening to some indie playlist in a language she does not understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment