Article 332 of the Costitution of India with Case law
📜 Article 332 of the Constitution of India
Title: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States
✅ Full Text (Simplified):
Article 332(1):
Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Legislative Assemblies of every State in proportion to their population in that State.
Key Highlights:
The number of reserved seats is based on the population of SCs/STs in each state, as per the latest census.
Reservation is only for State Legislative Assemblies, not for Legislative Councils or Parliament (which is covered under Articles 330 & 331).
STs in autonomous districts (especially in states like Assam) get special representation.
Delimitation Commission is responsible for allocating and adjusting reserved constituencies.
🔍 Purpose of Article 332:
Ensure adequate political representation for SCs and STs in law-making bodies at the state level.
Promote inclusive governance by giving voice to historically marginalized communities.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 332:
1. K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010)
Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 202
Facts: Concerned reservation of seats in local bodies and whether the same rationale applies to legislative assemblies.
Held:
Article 332 is distinct from provisions for local bodies.
Political reservations under Article 332 are meant for representation, not for proportionate empowerment like in local governance.
Upheld the validity of SC/ST reservations in legislative assemblies as affirmative action under Article 332.
2. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1994)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 858
Facts: Challenge regarding seat reservations in Sikkim’s legislature, including provisions for Bhutia-Lepcha and Scheduled Tribes.
Held:
Article 332 permits flexibility in representation based on special local conditions.
The Court upheld special provisions as valid under Article 332, acknowledging the unique demographic and political needs of regions like Sikkim.
3. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 68
Held:
Clarified that delimitation and allocation of reserved seats under Article 332 is non-justiciable (i.e., courts cannot interfere).
Emphasized the finality of the Delimitation Commission's decisions in fixing seat distribution.
🧠 Important Points:
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Applies To | State Legislative Assemblies |
| Beneficiaries | Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes |
| Basis for Reservation | Proportion to population (latest census) |
| Responsible Body | Delimitation Commission |
| Judicial Review | Limited (in matters of number/delimitation) |
| Expiration | Initially for 10 years (Article 334) – extended repeatedly by constitutional amendments |
🔁 Related Articles:
| Article | Subject |
|---|---|
| 330 | Reservation of seats for SCs/STs in the Lok Sabha |
| 331 | Representation of the Anglo-Indian community in the Lok Sabha (now repealed) |
| 334 | Originally limited SC/ST reservation to 10 years – now extended until 2030 via the 104th Amendment |
| 338 & 338A | National Commissions for SCs and STs respectively |
📚 Summary Table:
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 332 |
| Subject | SC/ST Reservation in State Legislative Assemblies |
| Constitutional Basis | Affirmative Action for Political Representation |
| Implemented Through | Delimitation based on Census |
| Key Cases | K. Krishna Murthy (2010), R.C. Poudyal (1994), State of Karnataka (1977) |
| Reservation End Date? | Extended periodically via constitutional amendments |
RELATED Blog
0 comments