Summary
A five-Judge Bench referred the challenge to Punjab’s preferential reservation for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs to a Bench of seven or more Judges. It considered E.V. Chinnaiah’s prohibition on sub-classification within Scheduled Castes in need of reconsideration, distinguishing rational distribution of reservation benefits from alteration of the Presidential List. Being of coordinate strength, the Bench did not overrule Chinnaiah or finally determine the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act.
Issues
- Whether preferential distribution within Scheduled Caste reservations altered the Presidential List or could further substantive equality.
- Whether E.V. Chinnaiah required reconsideration by a larger Bench in light of Indra Sawhney, subsequent decisions and constitutional developments.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16(1), 16(4), Constitution of IndiaExamined substantive equality, inadequate representation and rational preferential distribution as grounds for reconsidering the prohibition on sub-classification. (¶¶ 19, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51)
- Articles 341 and 342, Constitution of IndiaDistinguished inclusion or exclusion from Presidential Lists, reserved to Parliament, from preferential distribution of benefits without denying other listed groups reservation. (¶¶ 27, 29, 30, 31, 45, 46, 49)
- Article 342A and Article 366(24), (25), (26C), as then in force, Constitution of IndiaConsidered the 2018 provisions and the definitions of protected classes an additional reason for authoritative reconsideration by a larger Bench. (¶¶ 27, 36, 52)
Held
- The litigation concerned Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, reserving first preference for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs for fifty per cent of Scheduled Caste direct-recruitment vacancies, subject to availability. The High Court had struck it down by applying E.V. Chinnaiah. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
- In explaining the need for reconsideration, the Bench viewed reasonable preference for more disadvantaged groups, without wholly depriving other listed castes of reservation, as distribution of benefits rather than alteration of the Presidential List. Parliament’s exclusive authority over inclusion and exclusion remained intact. (¶¶ 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
- The Bench considered Indra Sawhney’s reasoning on classification and substantive equality, and Jarnail Singh’s distinction between exclusion from reservation benefits and alteration of a Presidential List, relevant to reconsidering Chinnaiah. Constitutional interpretation had to account for the inequalities within reserved groups and subsequent constitutional developments. (¶¶ 19, 23, 24, 27, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 51, 52)
- E.V. Chinnaiah could not be revisited by a Bench of coordinate strength. The three-Judge Bench’s request for reconsideration was endorsed and the Chief Justice was requested to place the matters before seven or more Judges. The constitutional validity challenge was referred rather than finally decided. (¶ 52)
Result
Matters referred to a larger Bench. The Chief Justice was requested to constitute a Bench of seven or more Judges to reconsider E.V. Chinnaiah; no final disposal of the statutory validity challenge.