THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

The Court held that sub-classification within backward classes is permissible on a rational basis and that the same reasoning applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they fall within Article 16(4); the State has competence to adopt preferential allocations to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits, but because E.V. Chinnaiah is a coordinate-bench precedent on which differing views exist and interpretation of Articles 14,15,16,338,341,342 and 342A is of great public importance, the matter (including the correctness of E.V. Chinnaiah) is referred to a larger Bench for authoritative reconsideration.

Parties
Appellant: The State of Punjab & Ors.; Respondent: Davinder Singh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench
Outcome
Matter referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative consideration; opinion endorsed that E.V. Chinnaiah should be revisited
Legal Topics
Sub Classification Within Reserved Classes, Interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342 and 342 a, Creamy Layer Doctrine, Stare Decisis and Revisiting Precedent
Constitutional Law Reservation Law Public Employment Law Sub Classification Within Reserved Classes Interpretation of Articles 14,15,16,338,341,342 and 342 a Creamy Layer Doctrine Stare Decisis and Revisiting Precedent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State of Punjab & Ors.

Appellant

Davinder Singh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 are constitutionally valid?
  2. 2 Whether the State had the legislative competence to enact the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Act?
  3. 3 Whether the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 394 is required to be revisited?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that sub-classification within backward classes is permissible on a rational basis and that the same reasoning applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they fall within Article 16(4); the State has competence to adopt preferential allocations to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits, but because E.V. Chinnaiah is a coordinate-bench precedent on which differing views exist and interpretation of Articles 14,15,16,338,341,342 and 342A is of great public importance, the matter (including the correctness of E.V. Chinnaiah) is referred to a larger Bench for authoritative reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Matter referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative consideration; opinion endorsed that E.V. Chinnaiah should be revisited

Orders

  • Refer the matter to a Larger Bench (requested before a Bench of seven Judges or more) to consider whether E.V. Chinnaiah requires reconsideration and to authoritatively interpret Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342 and 342A
  • Request the Chief Justice to place the matters before an appropriate Larger Bench