The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that state governments can make sub-classifications in the quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs) to uplift the more underprivileged castes within these communities.

A seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, said the SCs formed a socially heterogeneous class. But it also cautioned the States that the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by “quantifiable and demonstrable data by the States, which cannot act on its whims”.

Only one judge on the bench, Justice Bela Trivedi, dissented.

The bench, also comprising justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Mishra, was hearing 23 petitions, including the lead one filed by the Punjab government challenging a 2010 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The bench delivered six separate judgements.

The CJI wrote for himself and Justice Misra. Four judges wrote concurring judgments while Justice Trivedi dissented. In her dissenting verdict, Justice Trivedi said states cannot tinker with the Scheduled Caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution.

The verdict came on references to revisit the five-judge Constitution bench judgement of 2004 in the case of EV Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh. It had ruled that the SCs are homogenous groups and hence, States cannot further sub-classify them to grant quota inside quota for more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.

Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, said that States must identify the creamy layer in SCs and take them out of reservation. Justice Vikram Nath said he agreed with Justice Gavai, and that the "criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes".

Justice Pankaj Mithal said that reservation policy requires a fresh relook and new methods are needed for the uplift of people belonging to SCs, STs and OBCs.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said SCs are not an integrated or homogenous group.

States can identify the differing degrees of discrimination or backwardness and focus on greater benefits to sub-classes of SCs. This would not violate the President’s exclusive authority under Article 341 to identify SCs.