NDLI: The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India Equal Treatment Backward Class
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (22 of 2006)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Matter Referred to Larger Bench
Headnote	Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342 and342A – Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes(Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – s. 4(5) – Sub-classificationwithin a socially and educationally backward class (caste) – TheState Government by a circular provided that out of seats reservedfor Scheduled Castes, fifty per cent of the vacancies would be offeredto Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs – The circular was struck down bythe High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. againstthe same – The Punjab Act was notified in 2006 – s.4(5) of thePunjab Act made similar provisions as made in the circular, whichwas struck down – The High Court struck down the provisionscontained in s.4(5) of the Punjab Act relying upon the decision inE.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors.– In the Supreme Court, athree Judges Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench forconsideration opining that the judgment of a 5-Judge Bench in E.V.Chinnaiah is required to be revisited in the light of Art. 338 of theConstitution and not correctly following the exposition of the lawin Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India – It was noted that thematter involved interpretation and interplay between Arts. 16(1),16(4), 338 and 341 of the Constitution – Held: In Indra Sawhney, itwas held that it is permissible to make sub-classification withinsocially and educationally backward classes – Same would beapplicable for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as theyadmittedly fall u/Art. 16(4) – The sub-classification was madeu/s.4(5) of the Punjab Act to ensure that the benefit of the reservationpercolate down to the deprived section and do not remain on paperand to provide benefit to all and give them equal treatment – As faras its permissibility u/Art.14 is concerned, it would be permissibleon a rationale basis to make such sub-classification to providebenefit to all to bring equality, and it would not amount to exclusionfrom the list as no class (caste) is deprived of reservation in totality– There are unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, ScheduledTribes and socially and educationally backward classes – Variousreports indicate that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes donot constitute a homogenous group – When the reservation createsinequalities within the reserved castes itself, it is required to be takencare of by the State making sub-classification and adopting adistribution justice method so that State Largesse does notconcentrate in few hands and equal justice to all is provided – TheState has the competence to grant reservation benefit to all ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes in terms of Arts. 15(4), 16(4) and alsoArts. 341(1) and 342(1) – It prescribes the extent/ percentage ofreservation to different classes – The State Government cannottamper with the list, it can neither include nor exclude any caste inthe list or make enquiry whether any synonym exists – The Statecan provide preference on rational criteria to the class within listsrequiring upliftment – There is no vested right to claim thatreservation should be at a particular percentage – It has to accordwith ground reality as no one can claim the right to enjoy the wholereservation, it can be proportionate one as per requirement – Theinterpretation of Arts.14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342 and 342A is a matterof immense public importance, and correct interpretation of bindingprecedents in Indra Sawhney and other decisions – Therefore, theopinion of the 3 Judges Bench is endorsed that E.V. Chinnaiah isrequired to be revisited by a larger Bench – The Hon’ble ChiefJustice is requested to place the matters before a Bench of 7 Judgesor more as considered appropriate.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 512
Petitioner	The State Of Punjab & Ors.
Respondent	Davinder Singh & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 10 S.C.R. 857
Judgement Date	2020-08-27
Case Number	2317

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Bachan Singh S/o Saudagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Makhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jai Bir Singh

Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India and Others Etc.

Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others

National Travel Services Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, Viii

The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.

The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Bachan Singh S/o Saudagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Makhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jai Bir Singh

Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India and Others Etc.

Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others

National Travel Services Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, Viii

The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.