The Allahabad High Court ruled that only Parliament has the constitutional power to amend the Scheduled Castes List. It held that castes cannot be treated as synonyms or granted SC status without specific legislation enacted by Parliament.
The Allahabad High Court held that communities not expressly mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 cannot be brought within the Scheduled Castes list merely by treating them as synonyms, sub-castes, or generic names of a caste already notified.
In a decision by a Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, the Court dismissed a petition that sought recognition of the Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind communities as synonymous with the “Majhwar caste”, which is officially notified as a Scheduled Caste for Uttar Pradesh under Entry No. 52 of the 1950 Order.
The Bench made it clear that only Parliament has the legislative authority to amend the Scheduled Castes list.
ALSO READ: Caste-Based Abuse Over Phone Does Not Attract SC/ST Act: Calcutta High Court
The writ petition, filed by Chandra Shekhar Nishad in 2012, prayed for a mandamus directing the government to extend Scheduled Caste (SC) benefits to the said communities.
The petitioner’s core contention was that all these groups belong to the same occupational category boatmen and should therefore be treated as synonymous or collective names of the caste “Majhwar.”
In support, reliance was placed on materials such as the 1961 Census manual, Hindi dictionaries, and a 2005 notification from the Uttar Pradesh State Government which had temporarily granted SC benefits to these communities.
Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that courts should be empowered to mould relief in the interests of justice. The petitioner also cited Supreme Court decisions including B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa and State of Orissa v. Dasarathi Meher, where the Court had reconciled synonymous caste names and spelling differences to grant SC/ST status.
The petitioner further referred to the Constitution Bench ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh concerning sub-classification of Scheduled Castes.
On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection, submitting that the relief sought was effectively legislative in nature. The State invoked the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind to contend that courts and state governments cannot conduct inquiries to add sub-castes, synonyms, or other variants to the Presidential list.
After examining Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Bench noted that the objective of these provisions is to prevent disputes over a caste’s constitutional status.
The Court stated that once a Presidential Order is issued under these provisions, it cannot be altered by later notifications even by the President unless Parliament enacts a law:
The Court unequivocally stated,
“Orders once issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 cannot be varied by any subsequent order or notification, even by the President, except by a law made by Parliament.”
The Court further held that no inquiry or evidentiary exercise is permissible to determine whether a caste (or part/group within a caste or tribe) is included in the Presidential Order if it is not expressly mentioned in the Order.
The Court observed,
“No inquiry is permissible and no evidence can be led for establishing that a particular caste or part or group within a caste or tribe is included in the Presidential Order, if it is not expressly included therein.”
The Bench also noted that where a caste has another recognized name, that fact is already reflected in the official schedules typically shown in brackets within the Presidential list.
Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on earlier Supreme Court precedents, the Court found the reliance to be misconceived. It clarified that Davinder Singh addressed sub-classification of castes already included in the Presidential Order, not the addition of new groups or variants.
The Court also criticized the petitioner’s dependence on the 2005 State Government notification, pointing out that the petitioner failed to disclose that the notification had been withdrawn by the State in 2007.
Relying on the settled legal position from Milind, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s communities Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind are already recognized as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under the Uttar Pradesh law of 1994.
Therefore, they cannot be merged into the Scheduled Castes category through judicial interpretation by treating them as sub-castes, synonyms, or generics of “Majhwar.”
Summarising its view, the Court held,
“The castes Kahar, Kashyap, Mallah, Nishad and Bind are recognized in the State of U.P. as Other Backward Classes and as such, cannot be included in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 along with the caste Majhwar by deeming them to be sub-castes, synonyms, or generics of the caste Majhwar except by a law made by Parliament.”
Finding the petition to be entirely without merit, the High Court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Chandra Shekhar Nishad Versus Union of India
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act