The jurisprudence surrounding reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) has undergone a significant transformation with the Supreme Courtâs landmark judgment delivered on 1 August 2024 in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 562). A seven-judge Constitution Bench, by a 6:1 majority, held that sub-categorisation and sub-classification within SCs and STs are constitutionally permissible, and further held that for the purpose of achieving real and substantive equality, the âcreamy layerâ must be excluded even from SC/ST reservations. In doing so, the Court overruled the earlier decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held such sub-classification to be impermissible.
This judgment marks a watershed moment in affirmative action jurisprudence, as it re-examines long-standing assumptions regarding homogeneity within SC/ST communities and Bench aligns reservation policy with the constitutional goal of substantive equality.
BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION
The issue arose from legislative measures adopted by the State of Punjab, which sought to prioritise the most backward sections within the Scheduled Castes for reservation benefits. These measures were challenged on the ground that sub-classification of SCs violated Article 341(2) of the Constitution, which vests the power to modify the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes exclusively in Parliament.
In E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006), a Constitution Bench had held that SCs form a homogeneous class and that any sub-division by states would amount to unconstitutional tinkering with the Presidential List. However, a five-judge Bench in 2020, while hearing State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, doubted the correctness of Chinnaiah and referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench for reconsideration.
After reserving judgment on 8 February 2024, the Constitution Bench pronounced its verdict on 1 August 2024.
MAJORITY OPINION: SUB-CLASSIFICATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE
The majority held that sub-classification within SCs and STs does not violate Article 341(2), as such classification neither includes nor excludes any caste from the Presidential List. Instead, it merely regulates the distribution of reservation benefits among castes already recognised as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
The Court categorically rejected the assumption that SCs and STs constitute a homogeneous class. It observed that internal disparities in social, educational, and economic advancement exist within these communities, and treating unequals equally defeats the very essence of equality under Article 14.
Accordingly, the Court overruled E.V. Chinnaiah, holding that the earlier judgment adopted an overly rigid interpretation of Article 341 and failed to account for the evolving understanding of substantive equality.Â
CREAMY LAYER PRINCIPLE AND SC/ST RESERVATIONS
A central and transformative aspect of the judgment is the Courtâs holding that the creamy layer principle must be applied even to SCs and STs for the effective implementation of affirmative action.
Justice B.R. Gavai
 Justice B.R. Gavai, while extensively referring to Dr. B.R. Ambedkarâs writings, particularly What Gandhi and Congress Have Done to the Untouchables, emphasised that affirmative action is meant to uplift the truly disadvantaged, not to perpetually benefit those who have already achieved significant socio-economic advancement.
He observed that:
If a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, after availing reservation, reaches only a position such as a peon or a sweeper, such person may still continue to remain socially, economically, and educationally backward. However, those who, after availing reservation, have reached the high echelons of life cannot be considered backward so as to continue availing affirmative action.
Justice Gavai held that such individuals must âwalk out of the special provisionsâ and allow the benefits to reach the deserving and needy. He concluded that only by excluding the creamy layer can real equality under the Constitution be achieved.
CONCURRING OPINIONS ON CREAMY LAYER
Justice Vikram Nath
Justice Vikram Nath expressly concurred with Justice Gavai and held that the creamy layer principle is applicable to SCs and STs, though the criteria for exclusion may differ from those applicable to OBCs. This distinction recognises the unique historical and social context of SC/ST communities while maintaining the principle of equitable distribution.
Justice Pankaj Mithal
Justice Mithal supported the exclusion of the creamy layer and further held that reservation benefits should ideally be limited to the first generation. He emphasised that a child studying in an elite urban institution cannot be equated with a child studying in a rural or under-resourced school. He also observed that reservation must operate on criteria beyond caste alone, noting that the Constitution does not recognise caste hierarchy and aspires toward a caste-less society.
Justice S.C. Sharma
Justice Sharma echoed the view that identification of the creamy layer among SCs and STs has become a constitutional imperative, essential for achieving substantive equality within these communities.
NATURE OF THE DIRECTION: POLICY, NOT IMMEDIATE MANDATE
Importantly, while the majority strongly held that the creamy layer should be excluded, the Court clarified that it is for the State to evolve an appropriate policy for identifying such creamy layer. The judgment does not impose an automatic or uniform criterion but leaves the task to legislative and executive wisdom, subject to constitutional scrutiny.
This approach reflects judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers, while clearly laying down constitutional principles to guide future policy.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDIÂ Â
Justice Bela M. Trivedi delivered a detailed dissent, underscoring the importance of dissent in strengthening democratic adjudication. She held that the reference itself was improper, as the three-judge Bench failed to provide adequate reasons for referring the matter to a larger Bench.
On merits, Justice Trivedi held that:
â˘Only Parliament has the authority to modify the SC/ST lists, and even the President cannot do so unilaterally.
â˘Sub-classification by states amounts to tinkering with the Presidential notification, thereby violating Articles 341 and 342.
â˘Such sub-classification would result in discrimination against excluded sub-groups.
Justice Trivedi concluded that the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah was correctly decided and should not have been overruled.
CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment represents a decisive shift from formal equality to substantive equality. It recognises that equal treatment of unequal groups perpetuates injustice and that affirmative action must be continuously recalibrated to address internal inequalities.
By permitting sub-classification and endorsing the creamy layer principle for SCs and STs, the Court has sought to ensure that reservation benefits do not remain concentrated in a few relatively advanced sections but instead reach those most in need.
CONCLUSIONÂ
The Supreme Courtâs decision in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh stands as a constitutional milestone in Indiaâs reservation jurisprudence. By overruling E.V. Chinnaiah, permitting sub-classification within SCs and STs, and mandating the exclusion of the creamy layer for the realisation of substantive equality, the Court has reaffirmed the dynamic and transformative nature of the Constitution.
While the judgment opens the door for reform, its success will depend on the Stateâs ability to devise fair, data-driven, and constitutionally sensitive policies. Ultimately, the decision reinforces the principle that affirmative action is not an end in itself, but a means to achieve genuine equality and social justice.
