*State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh* (2024)
Sub-Classification and the Creamy Layer Question for SC/ST
A seven-judge Constitution bench, on August 1, 2024, held by a 6:1 majority that state legislatures can sub-classify Scheduled Castes for reservation purposes to extend preferential treatment to the most disadvantaged sub-groups within the SC list, overruling the earlier five-judge ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2004) that had barred such sub-classification.
- The main opinion was authored by the then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, with concurring separate opinions by other judges; Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented.
- Although the specific question of sub-classification was the core issue decided, the judgment is also cited for obiter observations on the creamy layer: in a separate opinion, it was suggested that a "creamy layer"-type identification criterion could, in principle, apply differently within SCs and STs than it does for OBCs — an observation on which four of the seven judges expressed some degree of agreement, even though it was not the central issue framed for the bench.
- The ruling permits states to grant preferential treatment to more backward sub-groups within the SC list (sub-classification) but does not itself direct exclusion of a creamy layer from SC/ST reservation altogether — the two are analytically distinct: sub-classification redistributes benefits within SCs, while creamy layer exclusion removes some individuals from SC/ST reservation entirely.
- The Centre's affidavit treats the creamy layer observations in this 2024 verdict as non-binding obiter, distinct from its operative holding on sub-classification, and maintains that no binding precedent extends the creamy layer doctrine to SC/ST reservation as such.
● Tracked since August 06, 2026 · last seen August 29, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief