Scheduled Caste Sub-classification in India after Davinder Singh: Constitutionally Permitted, Doctrinally Incomplete

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh has revived the debate on sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste category in India, overruling E.V. Chinnaiah and rejecting the premise that a constitutional commitment to equality is satisfied by the formally uniform treatment of groups that are, in fact, internally unequal. Using doctrinal constitutional analysis of the judicial trajectory from M.R. Balaji through Indra Sawhney, E.V. Chinnaiah, and Davinder Singh, this article argues that while sub-classification is constitutionally permissible, the judgment remains doctrinally incomplete in three respects. First, the distinction between identification under Article 341 and benefit distribution under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is analytically thin. Second, the endorsement of creamy layer logic for Scheduled Castes sits in unresolved tension with Indra Sawhney. Third, the judgment offers no workable standard for judicial review of State-led sub-classification exercises. The article contends that these unresolved issues constitute the principal doctrinal challenge following Davinder Singh and argues that its constitutional promise can be fully realized only through a more coherent framework governing evidence-based, non-exclusionary, and judicially reviewable sub-classification.