Case Summary: State of Punjab v.
Davinder Singh (2025)
Citation: (2025) 1 SCC 1 Court: Supreme Court of India (7-Judge Constitution Bench)
Bench: Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. and B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj
Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. Decided on: August 1, 2024
I. FACTS
The litigation originated from the enactment of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and
Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 by the State Legislature of Punjab.
Section 4(5) of the Act stipulated that 50% of the vacanciesreserved for Scheduled Castes
(SCs) in direct recruitment would be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, if available, as
a first preference from amongst the SC category.
This provision was challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In 2010, the
High Court declared Section 4(5) unconstitutional, relying on the five-judge bench decision
in ***E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005)***, which had held that SCs form a
homogeneous class that cannot be further sub-divided by States.
The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, a three-judge
bench (in 2014) and later a five-judge bench (in 2020) expressed doubt regarding the
correctness of Chinnaiah, noting its apparent inconsistency with the nine-judge bench ruling
in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) regarding the sub-classification of backward
classes. Consequently, the matter was referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to
revisit the permissibility of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes. Related matters concerning the
Tamil Nadu Arundhatiyars Act, 2009, and a 1994 Haryana government notification were
clubbed with this reference.
II. ISSUES
1. Whether sub-classification of a reserved class (specifically Scheduled Castes) is
constitutionally permissible under Articles 14, 15, and 16.
2. Whether Scheduled Castes constitute a homogeneous or a heterogeneous grouping.
3. Whether Article 341 creates a homogeneous class through the operation of a
"deeming fiction," thereby barring further classification by the States.
4. Whether the five-judge bench decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005) was
correctly decided.
5. Whether the "creamy layer" principle is applicable to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
III. LAW
Constitutional Provisions:
● Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws;
permits reasonable classification.
● Article 15(1), (4) & (5): Prohibits discrimination; enables special provisions for the
advancement of SCs, STs, and socially and educationally backward classes.
● Article 16(1), (4), (4-A) & (4-B): Guarantees equality of opportunity in public
employment; enables reservations in appointments and promotions, and carry-forward
of unfilled vacancies.
● Article 46: Directs the State to promote with special care the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs.
● Article 335: Requires the claims of SCs/STs to be considered consistently with the
maintenance of efficiency of administration; includes a proviso for relaxation in
qualifying marks.
● Article 338: Governs the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
● Article 341: Empowers the President to specify the List of Scheduled Castes (341(1))
and reserves the power to vary this list solely to Parliament (341(2)).
● Article 342 & 342-A: Parallel provisions for Scheduled Tribes and Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).
● Article 366(24) & (25): Definitions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Statutes & Other Legal Tools:
● Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act,
2006.
● Tamil Nadu Arundhatiyars Act, 2009.
● Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: Regarding the power to vary or
rescind notifications.
IV. ANALYSIS
1. Sub-classification and Substantive Equality: The majority held that Article 14 does not
merely guarantee formal equality but substantive equality. Sub-classification is a facet of
equality; the State may further classify a heterogeneous class if the constituents are not
similarly situated for the purpose of the law.
2. Heterogeneity of Scheduled Castes: The Court found that SCs are not a homogeneous
class. While they share a common identity due to historical untouchability, empirical
evidence shows they suffer from varying degrees of social backwardness based on their
traditional occupations (e.g., scavengers vs. weavers).
3. Scope of Article 341 and the Deeming Fiction: The Court clarified that the "deeming
fiction" in Article 341(1) only assigns a constitutional identity to the castes for the purpose
of identification. It does not create an internally homogeneous unit. Article 341(2) prohibits
States from adding or removing castes from the Presidential List (tinkering with the list), but
it does not prohibit sub-classification for the purpose of distributing reservation benefits.
4. Overruling E.V. Chinnaiah: The Court held that E.V. Chinnaiah was wrongly decided.
Chinnaiah erroneously assumed that Article 341 governed reservation, whereas it only
governs identification. The power to sub-classify is traceable to the enabling provisions of
Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
5. The Creamy Layer Principle: A significant majority (6:1) held that the creamy layer
principle is applicable to SCs and STs. Justice Gavai and others noted that to achieve real
equality, the State must identify and exclude those who have advanced sufficiently to no
longer require the benefit of affirmative action.
6. Mandatory Data Collection: States must justify sub-classification based on quantifiable
and empirical dataregarding the "inadequacy of effective representation" and the
comparative backwardness of the sub-groups. Effective representation is measured
qualitatively (across all posts/grades), not just numerically.
V. CONCLUSION
1. Sub-classification Permissible: The Supreme Court (per majority) held that
sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation is
constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 15, and 16.
2. E.V. Chinnaiah Overruled: The decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005) is
expressly overruled.
3. Creamy Layer Applicable: The "creamy layer" principle applies to SCs and STs.
The State must evolve policies to exclude the advanced sections to ensure benefits
reach the most backward.
4. Limits to Sub-classification:
○ It must be based on a rational principle for differentiation having a nexus
with the object of sub-classification.
○ It must be supported by empirical data.
○ It must not lead to the total exclusion of any caste in the Presidential List.
5. Dissent: Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, maintaining that SCs form a homogeneous
class by legal fiction and that States lack the competence to vary the Presidential List
through sub-classification.