In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), a 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld that States can sub-classify Scheduled Castes for equitable distribution of reservation benefits, overruling the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah judgment.
Constitutional Basis:
- Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law; permits reasonable classification.
- Article 16(1): Ensures equal opportunity in public employment.
- Article 16(4): Allows reservation for backward classes not adequately represented.
- Article 15(4): Permits special provisions for socially & educationally backward classes.
- Article 341(1): The President notifies SCs for each state.
- Article 341(2): Only Parliament can modify the SC list.
Key Judicial Rulings:
- E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005)- Held SCs are a homogeneous group; sub-classification by states violates Article 341.
- State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)-
- Overruled Chinnaiah judgment; Supreme Court allowed States to sub-classify SCs under Articles 15(4) & 16(4).
- Held, this is a reasonable classification under Article 14.
- Does Not Violate Article 341: Clarified that sub-classification does not alter the SC list notified under Article 341(1); it only aims to rationalize the internal distribution of benefits.
- Affirms Article 14 & 16: Held that equality means treating unequals unequally, and sub-classification is a form of affirmative action to uplift the most backward within SCs.
- State’s Power Recognized: Emphasized that the State has legislative and executive competence to make such classifications based on data showing unequal access to benefits.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)-
- Recognized sub-classification within OBCs to prevent benefits from being monopolized.
- Though related to OBCs, it laid the conceptual foundation for sub-grouping in reservation policies.
- The Supreme Court interpreted Article 356 of the Constitution to define the contours of proclamation of President’s rule.
- The ruling stated that the President’s proclamation can be subject to judicial review on grounds such as illegality, malafide, extraneous considerations, abuse of power, or fraud.
- Parliamentary approval is now necessary for imposing President’s rule. Till then, the President can only suspend the state legislature. The ruling emphasized that states are not mere appendages of the Centre, setting a redline for center-state relationships.
- Laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power.
- The use of Article 356 was justified only when there was a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not that of administrative machinery.
- Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Extra:
- Based on the Sarkaria Commission report (1988), the SC in this case has enlisted where the use of the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper.
- It was invoked in recent cases challenging President’s rule in Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016).
- I R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): popularly known as the Ninth Schedule case
- Supreme Court held that ninth schedule items are not immune to judicial review
- Furthermore, no item in the ninth schedule can abrogate fundamental rights as they form basic features of the constitution
- Article 31B shields laws in the Ninth Schedule from challenge based on violating fundamental rights but the judgment in this case, restored the balance between the three organs, and hence, judicial review forms a key feature of the basic structure of the constitution.
- Since April 24, 1973, any constitutional amendment must pass a test ensuring its compatibility with the fundamental principles enshrined in Articles 21, 14, and 19.
(9th Schedule which was introduced by the 1st amendment to protect certain acts in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 is not immune from judicial review.)
- In this landmark judgment a nine judges’ bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It can be traced to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The fundamental right to privacy would cover at least three aspects: intrusion with an individual’s physical body, informational privacy, and privacy of choice.
- Restrictions : The right may be restricted only by state action that passes each of the three tests:
- First, such state action must have a legislative mandate,
- Second, it must be pursuing a legitimate state purpose, and
- Third, it must be proportionate. Thus, proportionality test to be applied while examining a particular provision is the ‘just, fair and reasonable test’ .
- Use of Aadhar for welfare schemes : Upheld the use Aadhar for government services by using the Doctrine of Proportionality. But, Aadhaar must not be made compulsory for school admission and the administration cannot make it mandatory.
- Importance of Privacy as a Fundamental right→
- One can move to the Supreme Court or high court against tyranny of state.
- Provides for protection against the state’s interference in private matters including marriage, family & sex.
- made the state accountable & seek justice in case of any infringement in the private zone & in case of unnecessary surveillance without her consent.
The Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) judgment reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and upholding the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Background- The case challenged parts of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), particularly Sections 4 & 55, which gave primacy to Directive Principles (Part IV) over Fundamental Rights (Part III) and curtailed judicial review.
Key Significance:
- Reinforced Basic Structure Doctrine-
- Reaffirmed that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited.
- Fundamental Rights form an essential part of the basic structure.
- Limited Parliament’s Amending Power:
- Declared Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment (which gave primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and barred judicial review) as unconstitutional, thus limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- Maintained Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
- The Court held that harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is essential, and one cannot override the other completely.
- Judicial Review Upheld-
- Section 55, which barred court review of constitutional amendments, was struck down.
- Judicial review is declared as inviolable to constitutionalism.
- Democracy and Rule of Law Protected-
- Prevented concentration of power in one organ of the State.
- Upheld the idea of limited government under the Constitution.
- Legacy of Constitutional Morality-
- Rejected the supremacy of any one constitutional part.
- Promoted coherence, balance, and mutual respect between Parts III and IV.
- Limits on Authoritarian Amendments-
- Aimed to roll back excessive centralization and abuse of power during the Emergency era.
- Re-established civil liberties and constitutional checks.
- Strengthened Independence of Judiciary-
- Validated the judiciary’s role as guardian of the Constitution.
- Ensured courts can strike down unconstitutional amendments by Parliament.
