The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment delivered on August 1, 2024 by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, held by a 6:1 majority that states possess the constitutional power to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe reserved categories. The Bench overruled its 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had treated the SC/ST lists under Articles 341 and 342 as constitutionally homogeneous classes that could not be internally differentiated.
Background
The dispute originated from the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which carved out a preferential allocation within the SC reservation quota for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs — communities that the Punjab legislature considered to be the most disadvantaged among the Scheduled Castes in the state. This legislation was challenged as violating the Constitution, relying on the five-judge Bench ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah (2004), which had struck down a similar Andhra Pradesh law on the ground that any sub-classification within the Presidential SC/ST list effectively amends the list, which only Parliament can do under Articles 341(2) and 342(2).
The matter was referred to a seven-judge Bench in 2020 after a five-judge Bench expressed doubts about the correctness of Chinnaiah. The reference acknowledged that the prohibition on sub-classification had prevented states from addressing differential levels of backwardness and marginalisation within the SC/ST categories, potentially undermining the very purpose of reservation.
Key Holdings
The seven-judge Constitution Bench held as follows:
Sub-classification permissible: By a 6:1 majority, the Court held that states may create sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories for the purpose of reservation in public employment and educational institutions. Such sub-classification does not amount to amending the Presidential list under Articles 341 or 342.
Substantive equality: The majority grounded its reasoning in the concept of substantive equality under Article 14. Formal equality — treating all SCs and STs identically — may perpetuate existing inequalities where some communities within the list are significantly more disadvantaged than others. Sub-classification enables the state to target benefits towards those who need them most.
E.V. Chinnaiah overruled: The Court expressly overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) to the extent it held that the SC/ST list constitutes an indivisible, homogeneous class. The majority observed that empirical evidence across states demonstrates that certain communities within the SC and ST categories have secured a disproportionate share of reservation benefits while others remain severely marginalised.
Empirical basis required: Any sub-classification must be based on demonstrable empirical data establishing differential levels of backwardness, marginalisation, or inadequate representation. States cannot sub-classify arbitrarily or based solely on political considerations.
Creamy layer concept: Certain opinions in the majority indicated that the creamy layer principle — which excludes the affluent section of a backward class from reservation benefits — could be applied to SC/ST categories. This observation, while not part of the operative order, signals a potentially transformative extension of the creamy layer doctrine.
Judicial review preserved: The Court affirmed that any sub-classification legislation enacted by a state remains subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, adequacy of empirical basis, and compliance with the constitutional framework.
Dissent: Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, holding that the Presidential list under Article 341 constitutes a special constitutional class that cannot be subdivided by state legislatures, and that the remedy lies with Parliament.
Implications for Practitioners
This decision opens a new chapter in India's reservation jurisprudence. States with diverse SC/ST populations — particularly those where certain communities within the list have historically dominated access to reservation benefits — may now enact sub-classification legislation to ensure more equitable distribution.
Practitioners advising state governments should note that the empirical evidence requirement is rigorous. States will need to commission and rely upon quantitative studies demonstrating differential representation in public employment and educational institutions across communities within the SC/ST list before enacting sub-classification measures.
The majority's observations on the creamy layer concept, though not forming part of the binding ratio, represent the most significant judicial indication to date that this exclusionary principle could extend beyond OBC reservations to SC/ST categories. Practitioners should anticipate challenges to existing reservation frameworks that may invoke these observations.
The decision will likely generate considerable litigation as states operationalise sub-classification and affected communities challenge the empirical basis and methodology adopted.