Part XVI of the Indian Constitution – Articles 330 to 342

Article 341 – Scheduled Castes

• What it says: President can specify SCs for each state/UT via notification.
• Change Process: Parliament can include/exclude communities via law (states cannot do this independently).

Article 342 – Scheduled Tribes

• What it says: Similar to Article 341, but for STs.
• Interesting Fact: The criteria include primitive traits, geographical isolation, and social backwardness.

Interesting Facts Summary

 Landmark Judgments Interpreting Articles 330–342

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

• Issue: Challenge to caste-based reservations in educational institutions.
• Verdict: The Supreme Court held that caste-based reservations violated Article 29(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination in public institutions.
• Impact: This judgment led to the First Amendment of the Constitution, introducing Article 15(4) to allow special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

• Issue: Validity of 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs.
• Verdict: The Supreme Court upheld the reservation but introduced the concept of the “creamy layer,” excluding the more affluent among OBCs from reservation benefits. It also set a cap of 50% on total reservations.
• Impact: This case clarified the application of Articles 16(4) and 340, emphasizing that reservations should not exceed 50% and introducing the “creamy layer” concept to ensure that only the truly disadvantaged benefit.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

• Issue: Constitutionality of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs.
• Verdict: The Court upheld the constitutional amendments allowing reservations in promotions but mandated that the state must collect quantifiable data showing backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and the impact on administrative efficiency.
• Impact: This judgment linked Articles 16(4), 16(4A), and 335, emphasizing that reservations in promotions must not compromise administrative efficiency.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

• Issue: Reconsideration of the M. Nagaraj judgment, specifically the requirement of collecting quantifiable data for SCs and STs.
• Verdict: The Court held that the requirement to collect quantifiable data on backwardness for SCs and STs was not necessary, as they are presumed to be backward. However, data on inadequacy of representation and impact on efficiency is still required.
• Impact: This judgment eased the process for providing reservations in promotions for SCs and STs, modifying the M. Nagaraj requirements.

V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005)

• Issue: Validity of sub-classification among SCs for reservation benefits.
• Verdict: The Supreme Court held that sub-classification among SCs is not permissible, as it would violate the constitutional mandate of treating all SCs equally.
• Impact: This judgment emphasized that any sub-classification within SCs must be done by Parliament, not by state legislatures.

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021)

• Issue: Constitutionality of the Maharashtra law granting reservations to the Maratha community.
• Verdict: The Supreme Court struck down the law, stating that the state exceeded its authority by identifying SEBCs after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, which vested this power solely with the President.
• Impact: This judgment clarified the roles of the state and central governments in identifying SEBCs under Articles 338B and 342A.

Summary of Key Constitutional Articles and Their Judicial Interpretations

Key Constitutional Amendments Affecting Articles 330–342

8th Amendment Act, 1959

• Purpose: Extended the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for another 10 years, up to 1970.

23rd Amendment Act, 1969

• Purpose: Further extended the reservation for SCs and STs up to 1980.

45th Amendment Act, 1980

• Purpose: Extended the reservation period for SCs and STs up to 1990.

62nd Amendment Act, 1989

• Purpose: Extended the reservation for SCs and STs up to 2000.

79th Amendment Act, 1999

• Purpose: Extended the reservation for SCs and STs up to 2010.

95th Amendment Act, 2009

• Purpose: Extended the reservation for SCs and STs up to 2020.

104th Amendment Act, 2019

• Purpose:
  • Extended the reservation for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies up to 2030.
  • Removed the provision for the nomination of Anglo-Indian members in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies by not extending it further.

89th Amendment Act, 2003

• Purpose: Bifurcated the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes into two separate bodies:
  • National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Article 338)
  • National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (Article 338A)

102nd Amendment Act, 2018

• Purpose:
  • Granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) by inserting Article 338B.
  • Introduced Article 342A, empowering the President to specify the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in consultation with the Governor of the concerned state.

105th Amendment Act, 2021

• Purpose: Clarified that states have the power to identify and notify SEBCs, restoring the authority that was perceived to be taken away by the 102nd Amendment.

106th Amendment Act, 2023

• Purpose:
  • Introduced Article 330A, providing for the reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha.
  • Introduced Article 332A, providing for the reservation of seats for women in the State Legislative Assemblies.
  • Introduced Article 334A, stipulating that the reservation for women will come into effect after the delimitation exercise based on the first census conducted after the commencement of this amendment and will be in force for 15 years.

Summary Table of Amendments