Only Parliament Can Modify SC List: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea To Treat Nishad, Kevat As Synonyms Of 'Majhwar' Caste

A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai clarified that neither State Governments nor courts have the power to alter, vary, or identify 'synonyms' for existing Scheduled Caste entries.

Referring to Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the Court ruled that the Parliament alone is competent by law to include or exclude a caste or tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes.

The bench thus dismissed a 14-year-old writ petition filed by Chandra Shekhar Nishad, which essentially prayed that the castes [Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind] are synonyms of the caste Majhwar, as they belong to the same community and are boatmen engaged in the same profession.

It was thus pleaded that these 5 communities be treated as "synonyms or generic names" of the 'Majhwar' caste, which is included as Entry 52 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, issued on August 10, 1950, in Schedule Part VIII – Uttar Pradesh.

To support this claim, the petitioner even cited the 1961 Census Manual for Uttar Pradesh and the Aadarsh Hindi Shabdkosh, which explicitly defines a "Manjhi" as a boatman, Mallah, or Kewat.

The State Government, on the other hand, submitted that, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs Milind and Others, no inquiry can be conducted to identify synonyms or sub-castes if they are not explicitly named in the Presidential Order.

It was specifically submitted that it was impermissible to say that any caste, sub-caste, part of, or group of any caste or community is synonymous with the one mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as such terms cannot be modified.

High Court's order

The division bench agreed with the State's stance, referring to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, and noted that a particular caste is deemed to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe only if it is included by Presidential Orders issued under these provisions.

Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, writing for the Bench, clarified the same in these explicit terms

"Whether a particular caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 is to be determined by looking at the entries as they stand. Clause (2) of the said Articles does not permit anyone to seek modification of the said Orders by leading evidence to establish that a caste or tribe other than the one mentioned in the Order should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. It is only Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342".

In view of this, the bench added that it serves no purpose to consult gazetteers or glossaries to establish 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.

"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 clarified.

The Court added that if these castes were considered as subcastes of Majhwar or its synonyms or generics, then certainly their names would have also mentioned at Entry No.52/51 along with the caste Majhwar, which wasn't the case.

Furthermore, the bench also addressed the petitioner's contention, which relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538, which permitted sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes. It was argued that if sub-classification is legal, these synonyms should also be recognized.

The High Court, however, found the argument to be "completely misconceived" and irrelevant to the present case. It remarked thus:

"…Davinder Singh (supra) pertains to a different issue regarding the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes already notified under the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution and not with respect to recognition of castes as Scheduled Castes not notified under Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950".

Interestingly, the Court also found a glaring issue with the present petition, noting that the petitioner had built their case on a 2005 Uttar Pradesh State Government notification that had temporarily held these castes entitled to SC benefits.

However, the bench observed that the State Government had formally rescinded and cancelled that notification two years later, on July 4, 2007.

Noting that the petitioner filed the case in 2012, completely hiding the development which took place in 2007, the Bench expressed deep disapproval of this conduct:

"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."

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the castes Kahar, Kashyap, Mallah, Nishad, and Bind are officially recognised in the State of U.P. as Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) under the UP Act of 1994, and cannot be included in the Scheduled Castes Order by deeming them to be synonyms except by a law made by Parliament.

With these observations, the petition was dismissed.

Case title - Chandra Shekhar Nishad vs Union of India Through Cabinet Secy.Central Sectt.New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 330

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment