Judicial Review
The doctrine of “Judicial Review” traces its origin to the United States, where it was firmly established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court articulated, for the first time, the judiciary’s authority to review and strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution — a principle that has since become a cornerstone of constitutional governance.
In essence, “Judicial Review” refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive, whether at the central or state level. If any such law or action is found to be contrary to the Constitution — commonly termed “ultra vires” — the courts have the authority to declare it null and void. Once declared unconstitutional, such provisions become unenforceable.
In India, although the term “Judicial Review” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the power is firmly embedded within its structure. A wide array of Articles such as 13, 32, 131–136, 143, 226, 227, 245, 246, 251, 254, and 372 collectively empower the Supreme Court and the High Courts to exercise this function. Notably, Article 13 expressly states that any law inconsistent with or infringing upon the Fundamental Rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed that Judicial Review is not just a procedural tool but a “basic feature of the Constitution,” forming an essential part of its unalterable core. It serves as a vital check on the abuse of power and a safeguard for constitutional rights, ensuring that all organs of the state remain accountable to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Articles 341 & 342 – Recognising Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Articles 341 and 342 of the Indian Constitution empower the President of India to officially declare which communities are recognised as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in different states, after consulting the state’s Governor.
Once declared, these communities become eligible for special protections and benefits such as reservations in education, jobs, and legislatures to help correct historical injustices and ensure equal opportunities.
However, only Parliament has the power to add or remove any caste or tribe from these official lists by passing a law. This ensures that the process remains transparent and consistent.
Identity of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Under Indian Constitution
Scheduled Castes: Article 366(24) of the Constitution of India defines Scheduled Castes as those castes, races, or tribes designated under Article 341 of the Constitution.
Scheduled Tribes: Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India defines Scheduled Tribes as those tribes, tribal communities, or groups within such tribes or tribal communities designated under Article 342 of the Constitution.
The Constitution and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: A Path Towards Equality
The Indian Constitution recognises Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) as communities that have historically faced deep-rooted social, economic, and political exclusion. Once referred to as the “Depressed Classes” under British rule, these groups have long endured systemic discrimination, lack of access to education, and social ostracism.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution and a tireless advocate for social justice, brought national attention to the plight of these communities. He preferred the term “Dalit” for Scheduled Castes — a term that reflects resilience and struggle — although the Indian government now discourages its official usage. Scheduled Tribes, often referred to as Adivasis or Vanvasis, are indigenous communities known for their close relationship with forests and nature, and their distinct cultural identities.
Recognizing centuries of injustice, the framers of the Constitution sought to empower SCs and STs through protective and affirmative measures. These include reservations in education, public employment, and legislatures, as well as special development initiatives aimed at bridging the socio-economic gap.
Constitutional Provisions for SCs and STs
Several articles of the Constitution provide a legal foundation for advancing the rights and welfare of SCs and STs:
- Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs.
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability and declares its practice in any form as a punishable offense.
- Articles 330, 332, and 334 provide for reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
- Article 335 ensures that while giving preference in employment to SCs and STs, administrative efficiency is also maintained.
- Articles 338 and 338A establish the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes respectively, tasked with monitoring and safeguarding the rights of these communities.
To strengthen legal protection, laws like the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 — later renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 — and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were enacted to deter violence, discrimination, and exploitation against these communities. However, enforcement remains a challenge, and instances of social discrimination and caste-based violence continue in many parts of the country.
Judicial Reviewability of Article 341 and 342 of the Indian Constitution
Under Article 341(2) and Article 342(2), any inclusion or exclusion of the SCs and STs from these lists can be made only by Parliament through a law. The notifications issued by the President under clauses (1) of both articles are considered final and conclusive, unless modified by such legislation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the scope of judicial review in matters related to Articles 341 and 342 is very limited. Courts do not have the authority to question the validity of the castes or tribes included or excluded in the Presidential Orders. They also cannot examine evidence to decide whether a particular group ought to be included in the list, as this would amount to encroaching upon the exclusive domain of Parliament.
Furthermore, the courts are not empowered to amend, interpret, or expand the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes through judicial orders. Any such attempt would be outside the constitutional framework and contrary to the express provisions of Articles 341(2) and 342(2).
However, Judicial Review is permitted to ensure that procedural requirements such as the President’s consultation with the Governor of the concerned state have been duly followed. The judiciary may also intervene in cases involving fraudulent claims, misuse of caste certificates, or violations of Fundamental Rights, but not to reassess or alter the lists themselves.
Landmark Judgments
Pankaj Kumar Salia v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur (AIR 1996 SC 1728)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined a case wherein the caste certificate was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to produce the Presidential Notification published under Article 341(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that the castes included in such an order are not subjected to judicial review, and the Court is not competent to go into the question of the synonymous nature of the caste.
While deciding the case, reliance was placed upon the earlier judgment in Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar (AIR 1996 SC 2306). The Court observed that Parliament holds the authority to amend laws and schedules, including the inclusion or exclusion of tribes or tribal communities from the Schedule. This declaration by Parliament is final and conclusive. Courts lack the power to equate any other group with those specified in the Order or to amend the Schedule.
It was clarified that the definition of “Scheduled Tribes” under Article 366(25) and the Second Schedule is conclusive. While evidence may be considered to ascertain if a community claiming Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status was included in the relevant Schedule, courts cannot alter or substitute these designations.
V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Others (2005 SCC 1 394, Supreme Court of India, 2004)
The main contention revolved around the legislative competence of the State in enacting legislation related to subdividing or subgrouping the castes listed in the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes. The appellants argued that such subgrouping violated Article 341(2) of the Constitution, which stipulates that only Parliament can bifurcate the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes.
The Court held that Article 341 prohibits any executive or legislative action at the State level that disturbs or rearranges the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes. It emphasized that the castes identified by the President under Article 341 form a distinct class, and any division within this class would be unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the State did not possess the legislative competence to subdivide the Scheduled Castes, as it could only be done by Parliament under Article 341(2).
Vijay Prakash v. State of U.P. and Others (Allahabad High Court, 2005)
This case emphasizes that the courts cannot subject the castes included in the Presidential Order to judicial review and are not competent to delve into questions regarding the synonymous nature of castes.
Mahendra Kamprai and Another v. State of Assam and Another (Gauhati High Court, 2008)
This case involved a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examining the scope of the power of the President under Article 341 and the limitations on such power, including judicial bodies. The judgment emphasizes the similarities in the scope of power between Articles 341 and 342, indicating the constraints on judicial review in matters related to these Articles.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 65
A Constitution Bench took a different stand and held that the judgment in Chinnaiah (supra) requires to be revisited by a larger Bench of seven Judges because it failed to consider significant aspects bearing on the issue.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024 SCC Online SC 1860)
The Court overturned Chinnaiah (supra) and held that subclassification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List.
- The State can subclassify based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste or group is because of its backwardness.
- The State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the services of the State.
- The State cannot act on its whims or political expediency, and its decision is amenable to judicial review.
- The State is not entitled to reserve 100% of the seats available for Scheduled Castes in favour of a group to the exclusion of other castes in the President’s List.
- Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341(1) of the Constitution are heterogeneous groups of castes, races, or tribes with varying degrees of backwardness.
- Four of the seven judges on the Bench separately opined that the government should extend the “creamy layer principle” to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Recent Amendment
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Orders (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on February 5, 2024, and was later passed by Parliament. The Bill amends the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 to modify the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Odisha.
The Bill adds the following communities to the list of Scheduled Tribes in Odisha:
- Muka Dora, Mooka Dora, Nuka Dora, Nooka Dora (for districts of Koraput, Nowrangapur, Rayagada, and Malkangiri)
- Konda Reddy, Konda Reddi
The Bill removes Tamadia and Tamudia communities from the list of Scheduled Castes in Odisha and instead adds them to the list of Scheduled Tribes.
Conclusion
The judicial review of Articles 341 and 342 is purposefully narrow, reflecting the Constitution’s clear intent to vest the power of identification and modification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes exclusively in the hands of Parliament. While the President’s notification is conclusive, judicial intervention is permitted only in limited circumstances such as procedural lapses, fraudulent claims, or violations of constitutional rights.
Judicial pronouncements have consistently respected this boundary, reinforcing that courts cannot question the validity or logic of inclusion or exclusion from the SC/ST lists. However, recent developments like the Davinder Singh judgment and the 2024 amendment show that the legal landscape is gradually evolving, especially regarding sub-classification and equitable distribution of benefits within SC/ST groups.
In essence, judicial review in this domain serves not to reshape the lists, but to ensure fairness, legality, and constitutional compliance in how these provisions are implemented.
