The constitution bench comprising five SC judges observed that since in Indian federal structure the State Governments have the power to make reservations according to their demographic assessment, they also can sub-classify it.
Yes, this is the question that a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has referred to a larger bench of 7 judges. In an important decision that can empower State Governments to make sub-classifications within the prescribed reservation quota of Schedule Tribes and Schedule Caste.
The Supreme Court bench on Thursday held that the 2004 decision of a coordinate bench of E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be revisited before referring it to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger bench.
The constitution bench comprising five SC judges observed that since in Indian federal structure the State Governments have the power to make reservations according to their demographic assessment, they also can sub-classify it. Tinkering would not affect the reservation beneficiary list within the State.
Justice Arun Mishra observed, "In a federal structure, the State Government cannot be denied the power to make laws to give preferential treatment to sub-categories within the reservations list". Justice Mishra was reading the operative part of the judgment.
The judges also expressed their view that 'EV Chinniah' did not correctly apply the decision of 'Indira Sawhney'. The amendment to Article 342A of the Constitution was also not taken into account in the 2004 EV Chinniah decision.
The observation was made while delivering the verdict in the case State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh and others and connected cases by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice MR Shah, and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Punjab and Haryana High Court in a judgment had struck down Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. This Act offered 50 percent vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs as a first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes, only if available.
Relying on E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394 the Punjab and Haryana High Court held this provision as unconstitutional. The High Court held that all the castes in the Presidential Order under Article 341 (1) of the constitution formed one class of the homogeneous group and the same could not be further sub-classified. The Court observed that any such legislation entry in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A three-judge bench of the supreme court had referred the matter to the Constitution Bench citing that submission of the E.V. Chinnaiah is not in accord with the nine-Judge bench judgment in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India.
The three-judge bench comprising of Justice RM Lodha, Justice Kurian Joseph, and Justice RF Nariman had said in 2014,"We are of the view that E.V. Chinnaiah needs to be revisited in the light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and, inter alia, exposit of law in Indra Sawhney".
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court of India")
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}