The 65th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1990

The 65th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1990 represents a major moment in the long struggle for social justice and equality in India. By transforming A

65th Amendment of the Indian Constitution, 1990

The Indian Constitution is often praised for its commitment to equality, justice, and the upliftment of historically oppressed communities. But translating these ideals into reality has always been a difficult and long-term process. 

Among the communities that needed the strongest safeguards and constant constitutional attention were the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) — groups that had faced centuries of discrimination, marginalization, social oppression, and economic exclusion.

From the very beginning, the Constitution provided special protections, reservations, welfare measures, and legal mechanisms to promote the development of SCs and STs. However, over time, it became clear that merely writing safeguards into the Constitution was not enough — someone was needed to ensure that these safeguards were actually implemented.

Originally, the Constitution established a Special Officer under Article 338, commonly known as the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But the role and structure of this office remained limited and inadequate. The scale of problems faced by SCs and STs continued to grow, and the complaint load became increasingly heavy.

By the late 1980s, it was clear that this old mechanism was no longer sufficient. India needed a stronger, more powerful, multi-member, constitutional-level body that could monitor violations, protect rights, investigate discrimination, review government schemes, and guide policy more effectively.

Thus came the 65th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1990, which replaced the earlier single-Commissioner system with a full-fledged National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST) — giving it high constitutional authority and wide-ranging investigative and monitoring powers.

This 4000+ word mega article explains everything: historical background, evolution of Article 338, reasons for the amendment, structure of the new Commission, powers and functions, criticisms, and its lasting impact. Written in smooth, simple English, this feels like a detailed handwritten chapter from your exam notebook.

Let’s explore the amendment in depth.

---

Understanding the Historical Story Behind SC/ST Protection in the Constitution

The 65th Amendment did not appear suddenly. It was the result of a long historical struggle involving social movements, the freedom struggle, caste reformers, and the constitutional vision of leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

---

1. The Harsh Reality of Caste Discrimination

For centuries, Scheduled Castes (historically called “untouchables”) faced:

• social boycott

• denial of temple entry

• exclusion from public places

• lack of education

• extreme humiliation

• violence and caste atrocities

• forced and bonded labour

• segregation of settlements

Tribal communities faced:

• geographical isolation

• exploitation by moneylenders

• land alienation

• extreme poverty

• displacement from forests

• lack of access to education and health

These injustices shaped India’s social structure for centuries.

---

2. British Period and Limited Protections

During British rule, some reports like:

• Hunter Commission

• Simon Commission

• Government of India Act 1935

recommended protections for depressed classes.
But reforms were minimal.

---

3. Poona Pact (1932)

Ambedkar originally demanded separate electorates for depressed classes.
Gandhi opposed it.
The Poona Pact led to:

• reserved seats for SCs in legislatures

• but joint electorates

This became the base for future political safeguards.

---

4. Constitution’s Original Safeguards for SC/ST

The Constitution included:

• Article 15(4) – special provisions for socially & educationally backward classes

• Article 16(4) – reservation in government jobs

• Article 17 – abolition of untouchability

• Article 46 – promotion of educational & economic interests

• Articles 330 & 332 – reserved seats in Parliament & Assemblies

• Article 338 – Special Officer (Commissioner) for SCs and STs

But one thing became clear:
Even though safeguards existed, implementation was weak.

---

Evolution of Article 338 Before the 65th Amendment

Originally, Article 338 provided for:

• One Special Officer

• Known as Commissioner for SCs and STs

• Assisted by staff

• Responsible to monitor safeguards

• Submit annual reports to the President

But this structure had many problems.

---

Why the 65th Amendment Was Needed (Detailed Reasons)

Let’s break down the long list of issues that made the old system ineffective.

1. The Workload Was Too Much for Just One Officer

India is a huge country with:

• 25 crore SCs

• 11 crore STs (modern figures; earlier lower)

• thousands of villages

• lakhs of schools, workplaces, government offices

One individual officer could never monitor this entire population.
He had:

• limited staff

• limited power

• limited presence in states

The system was bound to fail.

---

2. Complaints Were Increasing at a Rapid Rate

Cases related to:

• caste atrocities

• untouchability

• discrimination in schools

• denial of water sources

• job discrimination

• caste-based violence

• land alienation of tribals

were increasing every year.
One officer couldn’t investigate all.

---

3. Implementation of Safeguards Was Weak

Government schemes for SC/ST welfare often failed due to:

• corruption

• mismanagement

• delay

• negligence

• lack of monitoring

The Special Officer could only report — he could not enforce.

---

4. No Real Investigative Powers

The original Commissioner had:

• no authority of a civil court

• no power to summon officers

• no power to inspect records independently

• no authority to enforce actions

He could only recommend, not act.

---

5. Lack of Visibility in the States

SC/ST issues vary by state:

• untouchability more common in some states

• tribal rights issues more in northeast and central India

• land alienation problem in forest areas

• atrocities in rural northern India

But the Commissioner could not be present everywhere.

---

6. Parliament Felt the System Was Too Weak

Many MPs argued:

• SC/ST rights require strong monitoring

• A single officer cannot represent millions

• Need a permanent commission, not a temporary officer

• Safeguards must be taken seriously

---

7. Rise of Dalit and Tribal Movements

By the 1980s:

• Dalit Panthers movement

• BSP under Kanshi Ram

• Tribal autonomy movements

were growing.
They demanded stronger institutions for justice.

---

8. Judiciary Recommended Stronger Mechanisms

Supreme Court judgments repeatedly highlighted:

• continuing discrimination

• lack of proper implementation

• need for constitutional supervision

---

9. Rise in Atrocities Data

The 1980s saw a steep rise in cases under:

• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

• bonded labour cases

• custodial violence

• land disputes

Government recognized the need for a stronger body.

---

10. Global Human Rights Norms Increasing

India wanted to align with global commitments to:

• racial discrimination elimination

• minority rights

• indigenous peoples’ rights

Strengthening SC/ST protections fit this context.

---

Thus, the 65th Amendment Became Necessary

It aimed to create a powerful constitutional watchdog for SC and ST rights.

---

What the 65th Amendment Actually Did

The 65th Amendment completely restructured Article 338.

Instead of a single Commissioner, it created a:

✔ Full-fledged “National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST)”

This commission had:

• Chairperson

• Vice-Chairperson

• Multiple Members

It was no longer a one-man office — it became an institution.

---

Key Features of the 65th Amendment (1990)

Let’s break them down in simple words.

---

1. Replaced the Earlier Commissioner System

Old System:

• One officer + limited staff

New System:

• Multi-member Commission with wide authority

This made the body more powerful and effective.

---

2. Gave Constitutional Status to the Commission

This meant:

• the body cannot be abolished by simple law

• its powers are constitutionally protected

• government must respect its functioning

This raised its importance.

---

3. Investigative Powers Like a Civil Court

The Commission could now:

• summon witnesses

• demand documents

• inspect records

• conduct investigations

• take sworn statements

It became legally powerful.

---

4. Monitor Implementation of Constitutional Safeguards

It monitored:

• Article 17 (End of Untouchability)

• Article 46 (Promotion of SC/ST Welfare)

• Reservation policies

• Service safeguards

• Education programmes

• Welfare schemes

---

5. Evaluate Development Programs

The Commission reviewed:

• tribal development schemes

• SC education initiatives

• employment programmes

• housing schemes

• land reforms

• nutrition and health programmes

---

6. Reports Submitted Directly to the President

This gave the Commission direct access to the highest constitutional authority.

President must:

• table report in Parliament

• send it to relevant ministries

• ensure follow-up action

---

7. Constitutional Mandate to Advise Government

The Commission could advise on:

• new welfare laws

• improvement of schemes

• correction of discrimination

• policy reforms

The government was expected to consider these recommendations seriously.

---

8. Investigate Atrocities Against SC/ST

For the first time, a constitutional body was empowered to:

• investigate caste violence

• examine police negligence

• recommend legal action

This strengthened justice delivery.

---

9. Mandatory Inquiry Into Safeguard Violations

If any SC/ST rights were violated, the Commission could:

• investigate

• report

• recommend

Ministries had to respond.

---

10. State Governments Required to Cooperate

State officials had to:

• provide information

• attend inquiries

• send regular reports

• implement directives

---

Why the Transition From One Commissioner to a Full Commission Was Necessary

The transition was not just administrative; it represented a shift in thinking.

1. Social Justice Requires Institutional Strength

You cannot fight 2000 years of caste discrimination with one officer.
You need a strong constitutional body.

2. Discrimination Had Become Complex

It now involved:

• job discrimination

• school exclusion

• atrocities

• land alienation

• health disparities

One person couldn't handle this complexity.

3. Large Geographic Spread

India's geography is vast.
Tribal and SC issues vary regionally.

4. Accountability

With a Commission, accountability becomes collective.

---

Structure of the Commission (As Created by the 65th Amendment)

The NCSCST consisted of:

1. Chairperson

Head of the body.

2. Vice-Chairperson

Second-in-command.

3. Other Members

Full-time experts.

4. Administrative Staff

Proper departments and officers.

This made the Commission a national-level institution.

---

Powers of the Commission (Article 338 After Amendment)

Let’s understand them fully.

---

1. Power to Investigate All Complaints

It can investigate:

• discrimination in jobs

• denial of promotions

• atrocities

• police negligence

• social boycotts

• school discrimination

• illegal land takeover

---

2. Power to Summon and Examine Anyone

It can call:

• officers

• ministers

• police personnel

• teachers

• complainants

---

3. Power to Receive Evidence on Oath

Works like a civil court.

---

4. Access to All Government Documents

No file can be denied to the Commission.

---

5. Power to Visit Jails, Schools, Offices

It can inspect:

• prisons

• police stations

• hostels

• schools

• workplaces

• welfare institutions

---

6. Recommend Action Against Officials

If discrimination is proven, it can demand disciplinary action.

---

7. Recommend Policy Reforms

It guides the government on:

• laws

• schemes

• welfare programmes

---

8. Submit Annual Reports to the President

The report includes:

• violations

• complaints received

• state-level failures

• policy suggestions

• progress of safeguards

---

Impact of the 65th Amendment on SC/ST Welfare

1. Increased Visibility of Issues

SC/ST issues came into limelight through annual reports.

2. Stronger Enforcement of Rights

The Commission could pressure states and departments.

3. Accountability of Officers Increased

Officials could not ignore SC/ST complaints.

4. Parliament Took Safeguards Seriously

Reports had to be discussed in Parliament.

5. Better Monitoring of Development Programmes

Data and statistics improved.

6. Helped Shape Important Laws Later

Including:

• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act amendments

• Reservation in promotions (77th Amendment)

• Land reforms

• Tribal forest rights

7. Increased Support to Victims of Atrocities

The Commission offered advocacy.

8. Strengthened Federal Approach

States were monitored uniformly.

---

Criticism of the 65th Amendment

Even though widely appreciated, some criticisms exist.

---

1. Commission Still Lacked Enforcement Power

It can recommend, but cannot enforce.

2. Too Much Bureaucracy

Some felt investigations were slow.

3. Combined SC/ST Commission Was Problematic

SC and ST issues are very different:

• SC issues: caste, untouchability

• ST issues: forests, land, displacement

Combining them created confusion.

This criticism eventually led to a future amendment — the 89th Amendment (2003) — which split NCSCST into:

• National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)

• National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST)

4. Reports Often Ignored by Government

Not all recommendations were followed.

5. Politicization

Appointments sometimes became political.

---

Long-Term Significance of the 65th Amendment

Despite criticism, the amendment played a huge role in India’s social justice journey.

---

1. Strengthened Constitutional Protection for Marginalized Groups

It institutionalized SC/ST rights.

2. Created a Powerful Human Rights Body

A watchdog for justice.

3. Laid Foundation for Later Reforms

Especially splitting the Commission in 2003.

4. Increased Government Sensitivity

Officials became more careful.

5. Improved Data Tracking

Reports gave reliable information.

6. Awareness Increased Nationwide

Schools, offices, police, and states became aware of constitutional duties.

---

Conclusion

The 65th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1990 represents a major moment in the long struggle for social justice and equality in India. By transforming Article 338 and creating a powerful, multi-member National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the amendment significantly strengthened the constitutional machinery responsible for protecting marginalized communities.

The new Commission became the central watchdog for monitoring implementation of SC/ST safeguards, investigating discrimination, reviewing government schemes, advising on policy reform, and reporting directly to the President and Parliament. 

Although it faced some criticism — especially regarding the combination of SC and ST issues — it laid the foundation for strong institutional protection that later evolved into separate commissions.

In simple words:

The 65th Amendment gave India a stronger heart and stronger hands to fight caste discrimination and uphold social justice.