Parliament Alone Can Amend Scheduled Castes List; Courts Cannot Declare Castes As Synonyms: Allahabad High Court
The Bench noted that Presidential Orders under Article 341 must be read as they stand; Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind cannot be deemed Scheduled Castes under the guise of being synonyms of 'Majhwar'.
Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Justice Alok Mathur, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has dismissed a writ petition seeking to include the Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind communities within the Scheduled Castes (SC) list. held that neither State Governments nor courts possess the jurisdiction to alter, modify, or interpret entries in the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, Chandra Shekhar Nishad, had approached the Court seeking a mandamus to include these traditional boatmen communities in the SC list, arguing that they are synonyms or generic sub-castes of the 'Majhwar' caste, which is already recognized as an SC at Entry No. 53 in Uttar Pradesh.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed, “…Parliament alone is competent, by law, to include in or exclude a caste or tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in the notifications issued under clause (1) of the said Articles”.
“It is only Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. …Thus, it cannot be said that the State Governments or any other authority, court or tribunal are vested with any power to modify or vary the said Orders. 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. Since any exercise or attempt to amend the Presidential Order, except as provided in clause (2) of Articles 341 and 342, is futile, it is neither permissible nor useful to hold any inquiry or lead any evidence in that regard”, the Bench further noted.
Senior Advocate Anurag Shukla appeared for the petitioner and Akhilesh Srivastava, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.
“…As such, the claim of the petitioner to include such castes as Scheduled Castes by considering them to be sub-caste synonyms or generic of the caste Majhwar is impermissible. If there had been any intention to include such castes along with the caste Majhwar in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, then such castes would also have been mentioned along with the caste Majhwar at Entry No.52 or at some other appropriate place.
Rejecting this submission, the Court relied heavily on the landmark Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Others 2001 (1) SCC 4. The Bench reiterated that the Scheduled Castes Order must be read exactly as it stands. It is impermissible to hold any inquiry or accept evidence to establish that a caste not specifically mentioned in the Presidential Order is a synonym or part of a notified caste.
“It can be seen from the entries in the Schedules pertaining to each State that whenever a caste or tribe has another name, the same is mentioned in brackets after it in the Schedules. In this view, it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a particular caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of the Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential Orders. 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 Bench noted.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that the communities in question are explicitly recognized and categorized as Other Backward Classes (OBC) under Schedule I of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
The Court also rebuked the petitioner for approaching the court on the basis of a 2005 State Notification that allowed SC benefits to these groups, while actively concealing the fact that the State Government had rescinded that very notification back in July 2007. Finding the petition entirely devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed the plea.
“It is unfortunate that the instant writ petition was filed in the year 2012 on the strength of the notification dated 10.10.2005 without disclosing the fact that the said notification had been rescinded vide notification dated 04.07.2007 and such conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated”, the Bench observed.
Cause Title: Chandra Shekhar Nishad v. Union of India Through Cabinet Secy.Central Sectt. New Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:41629-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: J.R. Nishad, Anurag Shukla, Senior Advocate, Surendra Mohan Gandhi, Advocates.
Respondent: Akhilesh Srivastava, Standing Counsel, Varun Pandey, Advocate.
Click here to read/download the Judgment