Part XVI of the Indian Constitution deals with reservations and special provisions for certain classes. Comprising Articles 330 to 342A, it is one of the most crucial parts that guarantees reservation for the upliftment of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes. It also notes various provisions for the safeguarding of the Anglo-Indian community. 

 

Part XVI worked on the philosophy of substantive equality. While Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides equality to all, it does not take care of historical wrongs perpetrated due to the discriminatory caste system. To ensure true equality, which would be only gained if all the citizens of the nation are on an equal footing, Part XVI was introduced. The Part provides reservation as an affirmative action to the marginalised community to bridge the gap prevalent in society.  Part XVI is inextricably linked to the Poona Pact of 1932 between Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar. The British Government had provided separate electorates to “Depressed Classes” as a communal award. Mahatma Gandhi felt that this communal award would significantly weaken the freedom struggle by dividing the society. As a result, a pact was made between Ambedkar, who was the leader of the Depressed Classes, and Gandhi, who convinced him to leave the separate electorates. In exchange for this, the Depressed Classes were promised a higher number of reserved seats in Joint electorates. Part XVI, providing political reservation, works on the foundation led by the Poona Pact. 

 

The President and the Governor are empowered to make the list of castes which can be specified as SC, ST or OBC. The objective criterion for this, however, was made by recommendations of the Lokur Committee, which was appointed in 1965. For SCs, the major objective criteria are untouchability and backwardness, which have resulted in social and economic backwardness. For the STs, the criteria are indication of primitive traits, distinctiveness of culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact and backwardness. 

 

For the Backward classes, the Kaka Kalekar Committee was formed, which, in its report, identified caste as the only objective criterion for categorising backward classes. It categorised around 2400 castes as backward classes based on caste hierarchy in the Hindu social order. However, this criterion by the Chairman of the Committee was identified as weak due to a caste-based approach, which would threaten the national integrity. Thus, for a long time, the list of backward classes was solely made at the state's discretion. 

 

Mandal Commission(1979), in its report, identified the objective criteria based on which backward classes could be categorised. The criteria were social, like early marriage age, social stigma and manual labour dependence, educational, like high dropout rate and low matriculation number and economic, like low asset value, mud house and lack of access to drinking water. Based on these, the Commission suggested a reservation of 27% for the OBCs. 

 

Article 330: Article 330 of Part XVI guarantees reservation for the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People or Lok Sabha. Article 330 is derived from Draft Article 292. The initial article stated that seats in the Lok Sabha should be reserved for the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribes, Muslims, and Indian Christians of Madras and Bombay. However, in the discussion held on 23 and 24 August 1949 in the assembly, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed an amendment to this article.  The proposed amendment removed Muslims and Indian Christians from being eligible for the reservations under this Part. The removal of Muslims and Indian Christians from the special provisions was a consequence of Partition. The Advisory Committee, headed by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, to consider the question of separate electorates in its report, stated that reservations to religious minorities would result in separatism.  Earlier, Scheduled Tribes belonging to any state were eligible for the reservation. Through this amendment, the Scheduled Tribes from the autonomous districts of the state of Assam were made ineligible for the reservation. Clause 2 of this article states that seats for the mentioned communities should be reserved in proportion to their population in the state. 

 

The article garnered widespread support from the members of the Constituent Assembly. A few amendments, however, were moved regarding the required population for seats to be reserved in a constituency and barring the STs in Assam from contesting elections in general seats. However, all these amendments were negatived, and only the one proposed by B.R. Ambedkar was adopted. Amendments were made to this article at different times to define provisions for various new UTs and define the population criteria. The present Article 330 takes into account the last census to decide the seats to be reserved for the eligible communities.  

 

Article 331: Article 331 of the Indian Constitution, discussed as Draft Article 293, empowers the president to nominate two members of the Anglo-Indian Community in the Lok Sabha if they find that they are not adequately represented, irrespective of anything written in Article 81 (Draft Article 67). Article 81 deals with the composition of the House of People, i.e. Lok Sabha. Amendments were moved by some members to expand the scope of the article and include all the minorities to get nominated for those that are not adequately represented. The amendment, however, was opposed, arguing that the Anglo-Indian community is an exception as their population is very minute and thus requires safeguards. The Article was adopted without any amendments. However, the Article was abolished through the 105th Amendment in 2019. 

 

Article 332:  Article 332 traces itself to Article 294 of the Draft Constitution of 1948 and notes the provisions for reservation in State Legislatures for special communities. The draft article stated that seats in State Legislative Assemblies should be reserved for SCs, STs, Muslims and Indian Christians in Madras and Bombay, except the STs of the autonomous district of Assam. However, representation of these communities should be ensured in Assam’s State Legislature through reservation. The constituency should not lie outside that particular autonomous district. The seats were to be reserved in proportion to the population of the respective community in the state. In the case of an autonomous district, reserved seats should be in proportion to the population of that district with respect to the total population of the state, and only a person who is an ST of the autonomous district could contest for the election from such constituencies.   

 

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed an amendment that excluded the religious minorities from this Article. Another member objected to the reservation being given to the SCs, arguing that they form a considerable majority of the state and their situation can be improved by cultural, economic and educational upliftment rather than reservation in the legislature. The other member replied that reservation is a way to fill the gap caused by the historical wrongs of the caste system. The article was adopted with the proposed amendment of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. With the subsequent addition of various North-Eastern states, various amendments were made to guarantee reservation to SCs and STs of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura. 

 

Article 333:  Article 331 of the Indian Constitution, discussed as Draft Article 295, empowers the Governor of the state to nominate members of the Anglo-Indian Community in the State Legislature if they find that they are not adequately represented, irrespective of anything written in Article 170 (Draft Article 149). Article 170 of the Indian Constitution deals with the composition of the State Legislative Assembly. The article was adopted without any debate in the assembly. 

 

Article  334: Article 334 is crucial in the Indian Constitution, as it sets the time duration after which the reservation would cease to exist. Discussed as Draft Article 295A, the article was moved during the second reading of the constitution in 1949. It states that all the reservations should be only valid for 10 years after the promulgation of the constitution. Various members in the assembly proposed not to have a particular time limit for the reservation, as they felt that there is no certainty of upliftment within these 10 years. Some of them argued that making the upliftment of SCs/STs to the normal level a mandatory requirement for the abolition of reservations. Another debate was regarding the power to change the time limit. Various members felt that such power should be with the Parliament. B.R. Ambedkar, however, argued that the abolition of extension should be done only by a Constitutional Amendment rather than the arbitrary power of Parliament. 

 

The assembly adopted two significant amendments proposed by Naziruddin Ahmed. The First Amendment brought Anglo-Indians within the ambit of this article. The Second Amendment stated that this article would not affect the ongoing legislature and would come into effect after the dissolution of the present legislature.

 

Article 335: Article  335 of the Indian Constitution is a significant article that makes the provision of reservation of seats for SCs and STs in government services. This article was designated as Article 296 in the Draft Constitution of 1948. The Draft article stated that the state should consider the representation of all minority communities for government services without affecting the efficiency of the administration. For this purpose, affirmative actions should be taken to ensure that those who are at the lower rungs of society can be uplifted. During the discussion, B.R. Ambedkar moved an amendment to substitute the term 'minority communities' with 'SCs and STs'. However, a few members opposed this amendment, stating that no explanation had been provided to remove all minorities from the scope of this article. The  Article was again taken up for discussion on 14 October 1949. Here too, various members rose in opposition and moved amendments to nullify the amendment moved by the Chairman and include safeguards for minority communities as well. Another member proposed an amendment to make appointments in the public services totally based on the personal eligibility of an individual rather than their background. The member also suggested that the President, based on the report received from Parliament, can make some special appointments of members of SC and ST communities in the services. 

 

Only the amendment proposed by B.R. Ambedkar was accepted, and others were negatived.

 

Article 336: Article 336 lists the provisions of reservations for the Anglo-Indian community. The article states that posts should be reserved for Anglo Indian members in the postal, telegraph, railways and customs departments of the government. Additionally, after every two years, the reserved seats would decrease by 10 per cent and after 10 years of promulgation of the Constitution, these provisions should cease to exist. The article also stated that these memes can be appointed to higher posts if they qualify by merit. The article was passed without any discussion. 

 

Article 337: Article 337 states the provisions regarding educational grants for the Anglo-Indian community. The Article traces itself to the Draft Article 298. The article states that in the first three financial years, educational grants that are being given to the Anglo- Indian Community should be continued as they are. After three years, the grant should decrease by 10% every three years until it ceases to exist 10 years after the promulgation of the constitution. It also states that any educational institution with 40% of non-Anglo-Indian admissions annually should not be entitled to such grants. While one of the members raised concerns that such provisions would widen the gap between the communities, the article was adopted as is. 

 

Article 338: Article 338 of the Constitution makes the provision regarding the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. Tracing itself to 299 of the Draft Constitution, it initially included a Special Officer for minorities. The members, however, suggested that the article should be discussed in later stages when the clarity regarding minorities is attained. It was later discussed on 26 August 1949 and 14 October 1949. The Draft Article stated that a special officer for minorities shall be appointed in both the Union and each state by the President and the Governor, respectively. These Special Officers should investigate the matter regarding the safeguards of minorities in the Union and State. They should report their findings to the President and the Governor whenever the President or the Governor directs. All these reports should be laid before the Parliament and the State Legislature. 

 

When the Article was taken for discussion, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed that, rather than having a Special Officer in every state, there should be only one Special Officer at the Union level. The Chairman thought that having too many officers would result in making the mechanism complicated. Another amendment was proposed by the Drafting Committee that substituted minorities with the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes. The Constituent Assembly, by now, had decided that the safeguards should only be given to Socio-Economic minorities rather than religious ones. The Special Officer shall only be appointed at the Union level by the President to investigate and provide a report regarding the safeguards of SCs and STs. The amendment also sought to add the backward classes and Anglo-Indians into the ambit of this article. 

 

Various members expressed their dissent regarding these amendments. While some of them wanted to keep the article as it was in the Draft Constitution, others were against the inclusion of backward classes. The members argued that the ‘backward classes’ is a very vague term. Other sets of amendments moved were regarding the functions and role of the Parliament. Various members argued that the function of Parliament, once the report has been presented on the floor, should be specified. While objection to the backward classes was not addressed, regarding the role of Parliament, it was stated that the Parliament would function according to the general power accorded to it. During the discussion, the article was adopted with the Amendments made by the Drafting Committee. After the commencement of the Constitution, the article was significantly amended by the 65th Amendment (1990), the 89th Amendment (2003), and 102 Amendment (2018). 

 

The 65th Amendment Act, 1990, resulted in replacing a one-member special officer system with a multi-member national commission comprising the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and three members. These members are to be appointed by the President, and they should investigate matters related to the safeguards of SCs and STs. The Commission should also participate in the planning of policies regarding the socio-economic well-being of the concerned communities. The commission is also empowered to perform like a civil court regarding the investigation of any matter related to SCs and STs. These functions include summoning people, asking for the production of any specific document or receiving any evidence on affidavit. The Union and State Governments are also obliged to discuss with the commission regarding the policies affecting the SCs and STs.

 

The 89th Amendment and 102nd Amendment resulted in reducing the scope of the Commission. Through the 89th Amendment, ‘Scheduled Tribes’ was omitted from Article 338, thus the article only focuses upon the Scheduled Castes and backward classes.  By the 102nd Amendment, the scope of the article was further reduced by omitting backward classes from Article 338, making the commission solely deal with the issues of the Scheduled Castes. 

 

Article 338A: Article 338A was not part of the Constitution but was later added through the 89th Amendment of the Constitution. Titled as the Constitution ( Eighty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2003, the amendment resulted in the formation of a separate commission for the Scheduled Tribes by bifurcation of Article 338. 

The article states that a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes should be appointed by the President. The Commission should comprise 5 members with one Chairperson and one Vice-Chairperson. Their tenure and condition of service have to be decided by the President through the suggestion made by the Parliament. The Commission should function to investigate matters related to the safeguard of the STs, inquire into any complaint regarding their exploitation or deprivation of their rights and make suggestions regarding their socio-economic development to the Union and State governments. The commission is also empowered to perform like a civil court regarding the investigation of any matter related to STs. These functions include summoning people, asking for the production of any specific document, requesting public records, issuing commissions for the examination of a witness and receiving any evidence on affidavit. The Union and State Governments are also obliged to discuss with the commission regarding the policies affecting the STs.

 

Article 338B: Article 338B in the Indian Constitution was added through The Constitution (One Hundred Two Amendment) Act of 2018. The amendment removing backward classes from Article 338 made a separate National Commission for socially and economically backward classes. The article states that a National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) should be appointed by the President. The Commission should comprise 5 members with one Chairperson and one Vice-Chairperson. Their tenure and condition of service have to be decided by the President through the suggestion made by the Parliament. The Commission should function to investigate matters related to the safeguard of the Backward Classes, inquire into any complaint regarding their exploitation or deprivation of their rights and make suggestions regarding their socio-economic development to the Union and State governments. The commission is also empowered to perform like a civil court regarding the investigation of any matter related to the Backward Classes. These functions include summoning people, asking for the production of any specific document, requesting public records, issuing commissions for the examination of a witness and receiving any evidence on affidavit. The Union and State Governments are also obliged to discuss with the commission regarding the policies affecting the Backward Classes.

 

Article 339: Article 339 of Part XVI traces itself to Draft Article 330.  The article states that after 10 years of the commencement of the constitution, a commission shall be formed to review the administration of the Scheduled Areas and the Scheduled Tribes in the state. The initial draft included states listed in Part I of the first schedule, i.e. states which are under direct control of the Government. However, when the article was taken for the discussion, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee moved an amendment to add Part III, i.e. Princely States, to the ambit of this article. The Article in the Constitution of 1950 used words Part A and Part B for the states as they were finally classified in this wording. In 1956, the seventh amendment was proposed, which resulted in the omission of the words ‘Part A and Part B’ and made it universally applicable to all the states. 

 

Article 340: Article 340 of the Indian Constitution states that a commission shall be made for investigating the conditions of economically and socially backward classes. The article was discussed as Draft Article 301. The Commission should be appointed to investigate the conditions of socio-economic backward classes and make recommendations for their safeguard and upliftment. The report given to the President should be presented in the Parliament. The discussion in the assembly took place regarding the vagueness of the term ‘backward classes’. However, no significant amendment was proposed, and the article was passed as it was. 

 

Article 341: Article 341 of the Constitution, debated as Article 300A, states that the President is empowered to specify castes, races and tribes which shall be deemed as ‘Scheduled Castes’. The second clause of this article empowers Parliament to either exclude or include caste, races and tribes from the list of Scheduled Castes. An amendment was moved that sought to make the list unchanged for 10 years after the commencement of the Constitution. However, no amendment was adopted, and the article was passed as it was presented. 

 

Article 342: Article 342 of the Constitution, debated as Article 300B, states that the President is empowered to specify tribes/tribal communities or groups within tribes/tribal communities which shall be deemed as ‘Scheduled Tribes’. The second clause of this article empowers Parliament to either exclude or include tribes from the list of Scheduled Tribes. An amendment was moved that sought to make the list unchanged for 10 years after the commencement of the Constitution. Another amendment was moved, which proposed to give the State Legislature, by the approval of Parliament, the power of exclusion or inclusion in the list. However, no amendment was adopted, and the article was passed as it was presented. 

 

Article 342A: Article 342A was not part of the Indian Constitution of 1950, but was added by the 102nd Amendment. The article states that the President can specify classes which shall be deemed as socially and educationally backward classes in the Central List, which is under the Union Government.  The Parliament is empowered to exclude or include classes in the Central List of socially and educationally backward classes. The State Legislature is empowered to maintain a State List of socially and educationally backward classes, which can be different from the Central List. Exclusion and inclusion in this List depend on the State Legislature. 

 

Some landmark judicial cases have invoked the constitutional provisions of Part XVI. 

 

Indira Swahney versus Union of India (1992) is a landmark case that challenged the validity of OBC reservation after the Mandal Commission recommendations were implemented in 1990. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation being given to OBCs. The court, in its judgment, held the reservation valid. At the same time, it introduced the concept of a creamy layer. According to this, advanced members of OBC should be excluded from getting reservation benefits. 

 

M Nagaraj versus Union of India (2003) is a landmark case that dealt with the constitutional validity of various amendments that provided promotions to SCs and STs. Amendments that provided promotions to the SCs and STs were challenged by the petitioner. The Court held that these amendments were constitutionally valid. At the same time, the Court stated that such promotions should be upheld on the criteria of backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and administrative functioning backed by quantifiable data. 

EV Chinniah versus State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) dealt with the issue of the homogeneity of SC and ST lists. The central question was regarding the state's power to subdivide the SC list and thus provide different reservations to different castes. The Supreme Court, in its Judgement, held that the SCs are a homogeneous class as stated by the President’s notification, and thus the State cannot make any changes to it. However, in 2024, this judgment was overruled, where the Supreme Court held that the State Government is empowered to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes. 

 

K Krishnamurthy versus Union of India (2010) invoked 243T, which provides reservation of seats for some categories. The Petitioner in this case challenged the reservation being given to Other Backwards Castes in Panchayats and Municipalities. The Court, in its Judgement, held that political backwardness is different from social and economic backwardness used for jobs and education. Thus, it validated the reservation being given to OBCs and other categories. However, it limited the reservation to a maximum of 50 %. 

 

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil versus Chief Minister of Maharashtra (2021), also known as the Maratha Reservation Case, dealt with the limit of reservation. Maharashtra’s SEBC Act (2018) resulted in a total of 68% of reservation. The validated limit for reservation, however, is 50%. The Court held that the Act breached the 50% limit as ascribed in the Constitution, with the state government not proving any “extraordinary circumstances”.  The Court also held that the power to list the category of OBC is only with the President, and thus, the state cannot exercise any such power. This, however, was ruled out by the 105th Amendment, which restored the power to the State to make the list of castes that can be categorised as OBC. 

 

Whereas the initial "sunset clause" was to last for 10 years in accordance with the provisions of Article 334, the reservation system has now become a semi-permanent constitutional provision as it is a necessary tool for political survival itself. Through the arrangement of extending the SC/ST reservations every decade, most recently until the year 2030 through the 104th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, the Indian government guarantees that no major political opposition takes the chance of offending the enormous SC/ST vote bank, which represents one-fourth of the entire electoral force. These "clockwork extensions" offer the best of two political assurances: they give marginalised groups the "seat at the table" while also functioning as an expedient for major parties to produce leaders from such groups in the name of winning the entire electoral force's representation. The latest move to end Anglo-Indian nominations in favour of SC/ST reservation extensions is the best testament to such pragmatism in politics.