Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15,16– The judgment in EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [[2004] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 9722004 INSC 644], which held that sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of giving more beneficial treatment to a group in the larger group of the Scheduled Castes is not permissible, does not lay down a good law; (ii) that sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for giving more beneficial treatment is permissible in law; (iii) that for doing so, the State will have to justify that the group for which more beneficial treatment is provided is inadequately represented as compared to the other castes in the said List; (iv) that while doing so, the State will have to justify the same on the basis of empirical data that a sub-class in whose favour such more beneficial treatment is provided is not adequately represented; (v) that, however, while providing for sub-classification, the State would not be entitled to reserve 100% seats available for Scheduled Castes in favour of a sub-class to the exclusion of other castes in the List; (vi) that such a sub-classification would be permissible only if there is a reservation for a sub-class as well as the larger class; (vii) that the finding of M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh and Davinder Singh to the effect that creamy layer principle is also applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lays down the correct position of law; (viii) that the criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes. [Conclusion of Judgment by BR Gavai J is the majority judgment]