Only Parliament Can Amend Scheduled Caste List; Courts Can't Declare Castes As 'Synonyms' Of Notified Entries: Allahabad High Court

"It is only Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342, and Clause (2) of the said Articles does not permit anyone to seek modification of the said Orders by leading evidence," Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, has ruled that neither State Governments nor Courts possess the authority to include any caste or community in the Scheduled Caste list by treating them as synonyms or generic names of already notified castes.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed that the power to modify the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 and Article 342 of the Constitution of India rests exclusively with the Parliament.

The petitioner, Chandra Shekhar Nishad, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to include the Mallah and Majhwar communities in the Scheduled Caste list of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner argued that castes such as Nishad, Kashyap, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind should be treated as synonyms or generic names of the 'Majhwar' caste, which is already recognized as a Scheduled Caste under Entry 51/53 of the Presidential Order.

The primary issue before the court was whether the judiciary could direct the inclusion of certain communities in the Scheduled Caste list by interpreting them as synonyms of an existing entry. The court was also called upon to determine if evidence could be led to establish that a particular community is part of a notified Scheduled Caste despite not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

Constitutional Scheme Of Articles 341 and 342

The Court emphasized that Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution provide a clear mechanism for the notification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Bench noted that while the President issues the initial notification after consultation with the Governor, any subsequent inclusion or exclusion can only be effected through a law enacted by Parliament. The language of these articles is plain and does not allow for any variation by subsequent notifications or judicial orders.

Parliament Alone Competent To Modify Lists

The Court observed that the objective of these constitutional provisions was to provide additional protection to socially and educationally backward classes while avoiding disputes regarding their status. By looking at the entries as they stand, the court must determine the status of a caste. The bench highlighted that if a caste has another name, it is typically mentioned in brackets within the Schedule itself, leaving no room for external interpretation by courts or state authorities.

"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."

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedents

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind (2001), the High Court reiterated that it is not permissible to hold an inquiry or let in evidence to decide if a tribe or community is included in a general name if it is not specifically mentioned. The Court noted that the Scheduled Castes Order must be read as it is, and it is not open to state governments or courts to modify, amend, or alter the list specified under the Presidential Order.

Distinction Between Synonymy And Sub-Classification

The petitioner had placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (2025) to argue that sub-classification is permissible. However, the High Court clarified that the Davinder Singh ruling pertains to the sub-classification of castes already notified in the Presidential Order for the purpose of reservation benefits. It does not authorize the recognition of new castes as Scheduled Castes if they are not already part of the notified list.

"The judgment in Davinder Singh pertains to a different issue regarding the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes already notified and not with respect to recognition of castes as Scheduled Castes not notified under the Order."

Concealment Of Facts Regarding Rescinded Notifications

The Court took a grim view of the petitioner’s conduct, noting that the writ petition was filed based on a 2005 State Government notification that had actually been rescinded in 2007. The Bench observed that the petitioner failed to disclose this rescission. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the communities in question—Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind—are currently recognized as Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the State of Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Act of 1994.

Concluding the matter, the Court held that since the Parliament has not included the requested castes as synonyms of 'Majhwar' in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Court affirmed that any attempt to amend the Presidential Order through judicial intervention would be futile and contrary to the constitutional mandate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

The High Court reaffirmed the principle of legislative exclusivity in determining the composition of Scheduled Caste lists. It clarified that judicial review cannot extend to modifying the Presidential Orders under Article 341, ensuring that the constitutional scheme of reservation remains protected from unauthorized expansions or interpretations.

Date of Decision: 22 June 2026