Article 341 | Only Parliament Can Amend Scheduled Castes List; Courts Cannot Deem Unlisted Castes as Synonyms: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the inclusion or exclusion of castes in the Scheduled Castes list under Article 341 of the Constitution of India is exclusively within the domain of Parliament. The judgment underscores that courts cannot direct the inclusion of castes as synonyms or sub-castes of those already listed in the Presidential Order, reinforcing the constitutional scheme that only Parliament can amend such notifications.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Chandra Shekhar Nishad, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh to include the communities of Mallah, Majhwar, Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, and Bind in the list of Scheduled Castes under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The petitioner contended that these communities are synonyms or generic names of the caste Majhwar, which is already listed as a Scheduled Caste at Entry No. 52 (later Entry No. 51) of the Order. The petitioner further sought a gazette notification to formalize this inclusion and grant these communities the benefits available to Scheduled Castes.

Key Facts

• The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, issued under Article 341(1), lists the caste Majhwar at Entry No. 52 (later amended to Entry No. 51 and subsequently Entry No. 53).
• The castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, Kashyap, and Bind are not mentioned in the Order but are recognized as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
• A State Government notification dated 10.10.2005 (issued under Section 13 of the U.P. Act of 1994) had temporarily included the castes Kewat, Mallah, Nishad, and Bind as Scheduled Castes, but this notification was rescinded on 04.07.2007.
• The petitioner relied on:
  • Appendix-F of the Census Manual, 1961, which lists synonyms for the caste Majhwar, including Mallah and Kewat.
  • Judgments of the Supreme Court in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa (AIR 1965 SC 1269) and State of Orissa v. Dasarathi Meher (Civil Appeal No. 7362 of 2013), where castes not explicitly listed in the Presidential Order were held to be synonymous with listed castes.

Procedural History

• 2012: The writ petition (Writ - C No. 4422 of 2012) was filed before the Allahabad High Court.
• 12.03.2026: Arguments concluded, and the judgment was reserved.
• 22.06.2026: The High Court delivered its judgment dismissing the petition.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

1. A direction to the respondents to include the communities of Mallah, Majhwar, Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, and Bind in the Scheduled Caste list under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
2. A gazette notification formalizing this inclusion.
3. Grant of Scheduled Caste benefits to these communities, including reservation quotas.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the castes Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind could be deemed synonymous with the caste Majhwar, which is listed as a Scheduled Caste in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and whether they could be granted the same benefits without a parliamentary amendment to the Order.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

1. Synonymy Argument: The petitioner contended that the castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind are synonyms or generic names of the caste Majhwar, as evidenced by:

   • Appendix-F of the Census Manual, 1961, which lists these castes as synonyms of Majhwar.
   • Aadarsh Hindi Shabdkosh, which defines "Manjhi" as a Boatman, Mallah, or Kewat.
   • The common profession of these communities as boatmen.

2. Judicial Precedents: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgments in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa and State of Orissa v. Dasarathi Meher, where castes not explicitly listed in the Presidential Order were held to be synonymous with listed castes due to special circumstances.

3. State Notification: The petitioner pointed to the State Government notification dated 10.10.2005, which had included these castes as Scheduled Castes under the U.P. Act of 1994, arguing that this demonstrated their entitlement to such benefits.

4. Moulding of Relief: The petitioner submitted that the Court could mould the relief in the interest of justice, citing judgments such as Food Corporation of India v. S. Nagarkar (2002) 2 SCC 475 and State of Rajasthan v. Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. (1988) 3 SCC 449.

For the Respondent

1. Legislative Exclusivity: The respondents argued that the inclusion or exclusion of castes in the Scheduled Castes list is exclusively a legislative function under Article 341(2). Courts cannot direct such inclusion, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4.

2. No Synonymy Permissible: The respondents contended that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 cannot be varied by judicial interpretation. If a caste is not explicitly listed, it cannot be deemed synonymous with a listed caste, even if they share common characteristics or professions.

3. Rescission of State Notification: The respondents highlighted that the State Government notification dated 10.10.2005 had been rescinded on 04.07.2007, and the petitioner had suppressed this fact in the writ petition.

4. Distinct Castes: The respondents submitted that the castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind are recognized as distinct castes under the OBC category and cannot be equated with the Scheduled Caste Majhwar.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and the judicial precedents governing the inclusion of castes in the Scheduled Castes list.

Constitutional Scheme Under Articles 341 and 342

The Court observed that Articles 341 and 342 empower the President to issue notifications specifying the castes, races, or tribes that shall be deemed Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes for constitutional purposes. However, clause (2) of these Articles stipulates that such notifications can only be amended by Parliament and not by any other authority, including courts.

"The object of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 was to avoid disputes regarding whether a caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of the Constitution. Whether a particular caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 is to be determined by looking at the entries as they stand. Clause (2) of the said Articles does not permit anyone to seek modification of the said Orders by leading evidence to establish that a caste or tribe other than the one mentioned in the Order should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be."

Judicial Precedents on Synonymy

The Court analyzed the Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh (AIR 1965 SC 1557), and State of Maharashtra v. Milind, which collectively establish that:

1. No Inquiry Permissible: Courts cannot hold inquiries or admit evidence to establish that a caste not listed in the Presidential Order is synonymous with a listed caste.
2. No Modification of Order: The Presidential Order cannot be modified, amended, or varied by any authority other than Parliament.
3. Distinct Castes: If a caste is not explicitly mentioned in the Order, it cannot be deemed synonymous with a listed caste, even if they share common characteristics.

"It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950."

The Court noted that in B. Basavalingappa, the Supreme Court had allowed an inquiry only under special circumstances, where a Government Order had directed that the community known as "V oddar" would henceforth be called "Bhovi." However, in the absence of such special circumstances, the normal rule is that no inquiry is permissible.

Application to the Present Case

The Court found that:

1. No Synonymy in Order: The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 lists only the caste Majhwar at Entry No. 52 (later amended to Entry No. 51 and 53). The castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, Kashyap, and Bind are not mentioned in the Order, either as synonyms or sub-castes.

2. Distinct Recognition: The castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind are recognized as Other Backward Classes under the U.P. Act of 1994 and cannot be equated with Scheduled Castes.

3. Rescission of State Notification: The State Government notification dated 10.10.2005, which had included these castes as Scheduled Castes, was rescinded on 04.07.2007. The petitioner had failed to disclose this rescission, which the Court termed "unfortunate."

4. Misplaced Reliance on Precedents: The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on Dasarathi Meher and B. Basavalingappa was misconceived, as those cases involved special circumstances where the castes in question were not recognized as distinct entities. In contrast, the castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind are recognized as distinct castes under the OBC category.

5. Inapplicability of Davinder Singh Judgment: The petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2025) 1 SCC 1 was misplaced, as that case dealt with sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and not the inclusion of unlisted castes as Scheduled Castes.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

1. The inclusion of castes in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is exclusively within the domain of Parliament under Article 341(2).
2. Courts cannot direct the inclusion of castes as synonyms or sub-castes of those already listed in the Order.
3. The castes Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, Kashyap, and Bind are recognized as Other Backward Classes and cannot be deemed Scheduled Castes without a parliamentary amendment to the Order.
4. The petition was devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed. No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Parliament’s Exclusive Power Under Article 341

This judgment reaffirms that Article 341(2) vests exclusive power in Parliament to amend the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Courts cannot:

• Direct the inclusion of castes not listed in the Order.
• Deem unlisted castes as synonyms or sub-castes of listed castes.
• Grant Scheduled Caste benefits to communities recognized as OBCs.

Practitioners must note that judicial review is limited to interpreting the Presidential Order as it stands, and no evidence can be led to modify its entries.

No Judicial Inquiry Into Synonymy

• Courts cannot hold inquiries to determine whether an unlisted caste is synonymous with a listed caste.
• The normal rule is that the Presidential Order must be read as it is, without judicial modification.
• Exceptions (as in B. Basavalingappa) are rare and require special circumstances, such as a Government Order directing a change in nomenclature.

Implications for Reservation Benefits

• Communities recognized as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) cannot claim Scheduled Caste benefits without a parliamentary amendment.
• State Government notifications granting Scheduled Caste status are subject to rescission and cannot override the Presidential Order.
• Petitioners must disclose all material facts, including rescission of notifications, to avoid adverse inferences.

Sub-Classification vs. Inclusion

• The judgment in Davinder Singh pertains to sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and does not permit the inclusion of unlisted castes.
• Practitioners must distinguish between sub-classification (permissible under Davinder Singh) and inclusion of new castes (impermissible under Milind).