State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh: SC Sub-Classification

States May Sub-Classify Scheduled Castes for Reservation on Empirical Data; Chinnaiah Overruled by 6:1 Majority

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A seven-Judge Bench held, by six to one, that States may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), overruling E.V. Chinnaiah (Chandrachud CJI, para 205). Sub-classification must rest on quantifiable data on inadequate representation in State services and cannot give a sub-group preference over all the reserved seats (Chandrachud CJI, paras 182, 190). Gavai J. added that States must identify a creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Gavai J., para 295). Trivedi J. dissented (Trivedi J., para 80).

Key holdings

Chinnaiah's bar on sub-classifying the Scheduled Castes is overruled (Chandrachud CJI, para 205).

Sub-classification needs quantifiable data on inadequate representation in State services (Chandrachud CJI, paras 204-205).

A sub-class cannot be given all the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes (Gavai J., para 296).

Four Judges favoured identifying a creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Gavai J., para 295; Vikram Nath J., para 2; Mithal J., para 83; Sharma J., para 2).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006 offered half of the Scheduled Caste quota in direct recruitment to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs (Chandrachud CJI, para 6). Relying on Chinnaiah, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down on 29 March 2010 (Chandrachud CJI, para 7). On the State's appeal, a three-Judge Bench referred Chinnaiah to a larger Bench in 2014 (Chandrachud CJI, para 8), and on 27 August 2020 a Constitution Bench sent it to seven Judges (Chandrachud CJI, para 18). Connected matters concerned a 1994 Haryana notification and a 2009 Tamil Nadu Act for Arunthathiyars (Chandrachud CJI, paras 9-10).

Court's Findings

Chandrachud CJI, for himself and Misra J., held that Article 14 permits sub-classification of a class that is not similarly situated, tested by the two-prong intelligible differentia standard (Chandrachud CJI, para 205). Indra Sawhney did not confine sub-classification to the Other Backward Classes (Chandrachud CJI, paras 101, 205). Article 341(1) creates no homogenous class, and sub-classification neither includes nor excludes castes from the List (Chandrachud CJI, para 205). Historical and empirical evidence shows the Scheduled Castes are socially heterogenous (Chandrachud CJI, paras 138, 205). Giving some castes preference over all reserved seats is unconstitutional because other castes could be shut out (Chandrachud CJI, para 182). The State's choice is judicially reviewable and must rest on quantifiable data, not whim (Chandrachud CJI, para 190). Gavai J. agreed, adding that a sub-class cannot be given all the Scheduled Caste seats (Gavai J., para 296). Vikram Nath, Mithal and Sharma JJ. concurred and accepted Gavai J.'s creamy-layer view (Vikram Nath J., para 2; Mithal J., para 83; Sharma J., para 2). Dissenting, Trivedi J. held that only Parliament can alter the Presidential List and that States lack competence to sub-classify it (Trivedi J., para 79).

Legal Principle

The State may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) where a rational principle with a nexus to the purpose distinguishes the groups, proved by data on inadequate representation; Article 341(2) is breached only if some castes get preference over all the reserved seats (Chandrachud CJI, paras 182, 190, 205).

Precedents Relied Upon

EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394
Overruled Discussed at ¶ 7, 205
Held sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes impermissible; overruled.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217
Explained Discussed at ¶ 8, 101, 205
Did not confine sub-classification to the Other Backward Classes; the principle extends to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 18
A five-Judge Bench held that Chinnaiah required reconsideration by a larger Bench of seven Judges.

View all precedents (6)

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396
Explained Discussed at ¶ 198-199
Held that the State need not collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness of the Scheduled Castes; the Court explained that sub-classification still needs data on inter-se backwardness.
M Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 61, 201
The State must show quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation in the services.
State of Kerala v. NM Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 52, 113
Reservation is a constitutionally sanctified classification, and the Scheduled Castes are an amalgam of groups.

Statutory Provisions