Decode Politics: How Punjab came to be among first states to sub-categorise SCs, and has been fighting to retain it

A look at the context that led to the SC sub-categorisation in Punjab, and where the state currently stands on the issue:

The first move

In 1975, when the Congress was in power in the state under Giani Zail Singh, the Punjab government issued a circular which reserved 50% jobs within the 25% quota for SCs for members of the Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. It was reasoned that some SC communities were cornering the benefits of reservation, while backward communities such as the Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs had been left behind.

A Bill is brought in

This circular continued to function until 2006. In July that year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down in a judgment titled Dr Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab. The circular was challenged in the backdrop of the E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh case (2004), where a five-judge Supreme Court Bench struck down the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, for violating the right to equality. The Andhra law contained an expansive list of SC communities identified in the state and the quota provided to each of them.

Even as the case regarding the notification was being heard in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mazhabis and Valmikis protested, alleging that another SC community, the Ravidassias, were influencing the case. The allegation was specifically directed at then Punjab minister Chaudhary Jagjit Singh, a Ravidassia.

Subsequently, in September 2006, then Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh, heading a Congress government, brought a Bill in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha to “protect and safeguard the reservation rights of the Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs”. This was called ‘The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006’. It was passed unanimously, though a few members of the Opposition alleged that Singh’s move was aimed at appeasing voters.

Singh argued that the Bill would safeguard the rights of the Mazhbis and Valmikis who “fall at the bottom of the reservation pyramid and mostly remain left out from the benefit due to their extreme educational and economic backwardness”.

The provisions of the Act

It set aside 50% of the jobs reserved in the SC quota for Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, “as first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes”. The other 37 SC communities in the state were given the rest of the reservation pie.

One reason for the protest by the other Dalit communities, such as Ravidassias, Adharmi, Bazigar, Mochi, Megh and others, was that the Valmikis and Mazhabis were getting the chunk of the benefits despite comprising only 12.61% of the SC population.

What happened to the Act?

In 2010, the Act was challenged by the Chamar Mahasabha in the High Court, and its Section 4(5), providing 50% reservation to the Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, struck down by a Division Bench on March 29 that year.

After this, the Valmikis organised statewide protests, seeking restoration of their quota in jobs and educational institutions.

In July 2010, a delegation under the banner of the Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh Arakshan Bachao Morcha, and other organizations, met then CM Parkash Singh Badal of the Akali Dal on the matter, and was assured that the government would move the Supreme Court and take up the issue with the Prime Minister.

The state went to the Supreme Court the same year and got a stay on the High Court order. In 2014, the Punjab government again moved the Supreme Court, now against the High Court ruling, arguing that the Supreme Court had in 2004 incorrectly concluded that SCs could not be sub-classified.

The case thus came to be referred to Constitution Benches. In 2020, a Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in E V Chinnaiah required reconsideration.

What has Punjab argued before the SC?

Punjab’s Advocate General Gurminder Singh has argued that “reservation was a tool the State could use to reduce inequality”, that “it was not an act of charity or benevolence” and that “inequality had another layer”. “It is no longer only about the advantaged and the disadvantaged but also about the disadvantaged and the more disadvantaged,” he has said.

Punjab is also arguing that the President identified SCs in an Order in 1950, and that Parliament had the power to include and exclude certain categories from this list. States, on the other hand, he argued, had the right and obligation to further demarcate communities within this group based on “relative backwardness”.