Constitution of India
Article 342: Scheduled Tribes
Part XVI — Special Provisions Relating to Certain Classes
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: The President may, with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor, by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities (or parts/groups within them) deemed to be Scheduled Tribes for that State or UT. WHAT IT MEANS: Only the President can initially designate which communities qualify as Scheduled Tribes — and the list is State/UT-specific, not all-India. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Presidential Finality — the Presidential notification under Clause (1) is conclusive; no court, executive body, or tribunal may add to, subtract from, or modify the list.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the Scheduled Tribes list any tribe or group, but otherwise the Presidential notification under Clause (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification. WHAT IT MEANS: After the initial notification, ONLY Parliament (not the President, not state governments, not courts) can amend the ST list. This creates a two-step process: (1) initial Presidential notification, then (2) Parliamentary legislation for any changes. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Exclusivity — no authority other than Parliament can alter the ST list once notified; any inquiry into whether an unlisted group 'really' belongs to a notified tribe is unconstitutional.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 26 and 297 Original provision: The 1935 Act introduced the concept of 'backward tribes' and provided for their representation in provincial legislatures; the Governor-General could specify such tribes. What India kept: The mechanism of executive specification of tribal communities by the head of state, carried forward as Presidential notification under Article 342. 2. Census of India, 1931 Original provision: Classified certain communities as 'backward tribes' based on primitive traits, geographical isolation, and distinct culture. What India kept: The 1931 Census categories formed the initial basis for the Presidential notification of 1950 under Article 342. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Presidential notification replaces Governor-General's order — adapted to republican democratic framework with consultation requirement. 2. Parliamentary exclusivity for amendments (Clause 2) — safeguard against political manipulation of ST lists by executive action alone. 3. State/UT-specific listing — recognises India's regional diversity; same tribe may be ST in one State but not in another, reflecting area-specific backwardness. 4. No religious restriction (unlike Article 341 for SCs) — tribal identity is linked to culture, geography, and primitive traits, not religion. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: Articles 341-342 are substantially original Indian contributions. While the colonial 1935 Act provided the seed concept of 'scheduling' communities, the two-tier mechanism (Presidential notification + Parliamentary amendment) was devised by the Constituent Assembly to prevent executive overreach and ensure democratic accountability.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 17 September 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Introduced Draft Article 300B (became Art. 342) to avoid burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled Tribes; proposed Presidential notification with Governor consultation. 2. One unnamed member — Proposed amendment that the first Presidential notification should remain unchanged for 10 years to protect communities from arbitrary removal. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Duration of protection — A member wanted a 10-year lock-in on the initial ST list to prevent political interference; Ambedkar and the Assembly rejected this in favour of Parliamentary flexibility. 2. Whether to include lists in the Constitution body — Ambedkar argued strongly against embedding tribe lists directly in the Constitution text, preferring the notification mechanism. FINAL OUTCOME: Both amendments were rejected; Draft Article 300B was adopted on the same day with only minor semantic changes, becoming Article 342. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "The object of these two articles was to eliminate the necessity of burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes." (CAD Vol. IX, 17 September 1949)
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) — A person recognised as ST in one State cannot claim that status in another State unless the tribe is notified there under Article 342. 2. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) — Laid down detailed guidelines for issuing and verifying caste/tribe certificates; Presidential notifications under Article 342 are conclusive and fraud vitiates ST status claims. 3. State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) — Five-Judge Bench held that neither the judiciary nor executive can include or exclude any community from the ST list; only Parliament can amend the Presidential Order; synonyms or sub-tribes not explicitly listed cannot be treated as STs. 4. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) — Seven-Judge Bench allowed sub-classification within SCs/STs for more equitable distribution of reservation benefits, overruling E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) on the homogeneity of the Presidential list. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Justice Bela Trivedi in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) — Dissented, holding that sub-classification amounts to tinkering with the Presidential list under Articles 341/342, which only Parliament can modify. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 342 creates a conclusive and exclusive mechanism for ST identification; the notification is a constitutional act, not a mere administrative order. 2. M.P. Jain — The twin requirements of Presidential notification (Clause 1) and Parliamentary amendment (Clause 2) reflect the framers' concern to balance executive efficiency with legislative accountability in tribal welfare.