The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2020 is one such powerful example of how India continues to reshape its democratic foundations to ensure fairn
104th Constitutional Amendment Act of India: A Complete Guide to Provisions, Impact, and Recent Case Laws
Introduction: Why This Amendment Matters
Imagine a Constitution that breathes and adapts with time. That is exactly what the Indian Constitution does. It is not a rigid document carved in stone but a living, evolving framework that changes with society's needs. The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2020 is one such powerful example of how India continues to reshape its democratic foundations to ensure fairness and representation for all communities.
Passed by Parliament in December 2019 and coming into force on January 25, 2020, this amendment made two historic changes that shook India's political landscape. It extended the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for another ten years, pushing the deadline to January 25, 2030. At the same time, it did something unprecedented since independence — it abolished the reserved seats for the Anglo-Indian community in Parliament and state assemblies.
This blog post dives deep into every aspect of the 104th Amendment. We will explore the exact constitutional provisions, understand why these changes were made, examine the controversies, and look at recent court cases that continue to shape how we understand this amendment today. Whether you are a law student, a competitive exam aspirant, or simply a curious citizen wanting to understand your Constitution better, this guide is written in simple, human language that anyone can follow.
The Story Behind the 104th Amendment
Understanding the Original Constitutional Framework
To truly grasp what the 104th Amendment did, we need to travel back to 1950 when the Constitution of India came into effect. The founding fathers of our nation were deeply committed to social justice. They knew that centuries of caste-based discrimination and marginalization had left certain communities — particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes — at the very bottom of India's social and economic pyramid.
To ensure these communities had a voice in the highest decision-making bodies, the Constitution created a system of reserved seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. This was not about giving them separate electorates where only SC/ST voters could vote. Instead, it worked differently and perhaps more inclusively — reserved constituencies were created where only candidates from SC or ST communities could contest, but all voters in that constituency could vote for them. This meant that the entire electorate, regardless of caste, participated in choosing their representative.
Alongside this, the Constitution also made special provisions for the Anglo-Indian community. This small community, with its mixed European and Indian heritage, had played a unique role in India's history. To ensure they were not lost in the vast democratic process, the Constitution allowed the President of India to nominate two Anglo-Indian members to the Lok Sabha, and Governors to nominate one member to state legislative assemblies, if the community was not adequately represented through regular elections.
All of this was originally meant to be temporary. The framers believed that within ten years, by 1960, the social conditions would have improved enough that these special measures would no longer be needed. This time limit was enshrined in Article 334 of the Constitution, which stated that the provisions relating to reservation of seats for SCs/STs and representation of Anglo-Indians would cease to have effect after ten years from the commencement of the Constitution.
The Journey of Extensions: From 1960 to 2020
But here is where reality met idealism. As decades passed, it became painfully clear that the deep-rooted social and economic disadvantages faced by SCs and STs were not going to disappear in ten years, or even seventy. The Constitution was amended multiple times to extend these reservations:
- The 8th Amendment (1959) extended reservations until 1970
- The 23rd Amendment (1969) pushed it to 1980
- The 45th Amendment (1980) extended it to 1990
- The 62nd Amendment (1989) took it to 2000
- The 79th Amendment (1999) extended it to 2010
- The 95th Amendment (2009) pushed the deadline to 2020
Each time, the Anglo-Indian nomination was also extended alongside the SC/ST reservations. It became a routine exercise every ten years — Parliament would pass an amendment, the President would give assent, and the clock would reset for another decade.
However, by 2019, as the 95th Amendment's deadline of January 25, 2020 approached, the government faced a critical decision. Should this pattern continue unchanged? Or was it time to rethink certain aspects?
The 104th Amendment: Exact Provisions and Changes
What the Amendment Actually Says
The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 (it is called 2019 because it was passed by Parliament in that year, though it came into force in 2020) made precise, targeted changes to Article 334 of the Constitution. Let us break down exactly what changed.
Article 334 originally stated that the provisions relating to:
- (a) Reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies
- (b) Representation of the Anglo-Indian community by nomination in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies
...would cease to have effect on the expiration of seventy years from the commencement of the Constitution (which would be January 25, 2020).
The 104th Amendment substituted the words "seventy years" with the words "eighty years in respect of clause (a) and seventy years in respect of clause (b)".
This seemingly small change had massive implications:
- For SCs and STs: The reservation of seats was extended by another ten years, now expiring on January 25, 2030
- For Anglo-Indians: The nomination provision was not extended and expired as originally scheduled on January 25, 2020
The amendment also changed the marginal heading of Article 334 from "Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after seventy years" to "Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after certain period."
Key Features of the 104th Amendment
Let us summarize the major features in simple bullet points:
- Extension of SC/ST Reservation: The reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies was extended for another ten years, until January 25, 2030. This ensures that these marginalized communities continue to have guaranteed political representation at the national and state levels.
- Abolition of Anglo-Indian Nomination: For the first time since 1950, the provision for nominating Anglo-Indian members to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies was discontinued. The President can no longer nominate two Anglo-Indians to the Lok Sabha, and Governors can no longer nominate one member to state assemblies.
- Amendment to Article 334: The core constitutional provision that sets the time limit was modified to reflect the different treatment of SC/ST reservations versus Anglo-Indian representation.
- No Change to Other Reservations: Importantly, this amendment only deals with political reservations in legislatures. It does not affect reservations in government jobs or educational institutions, which are governed by other constitutional provisions (Articles 15 and 16) and have no time limit.
- No State Ratification Required: Because this amendment did not affect the federal structure or state powers, it did not require ratification by state legislatures. It was passed by Parliament with a special majority and received Presidential assent.
How SC/ST Reservation in Legislatures Works
You might wonder — how exactly does this reservation system work in practice? Let me explain in simple terms.
In the Lok Sabha (India's lower house of Parliament), there are 543 elected seats. Based on the 2009 Delimitation Commission Report, 84 seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and 47 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. These reserved seats are distributed across states based on the proportion of SC/ST population in each state.
For example, states with larger SC populations like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal have more reserved seats, while states with smaller SC populations have fewer. Similarly, ST reserved seats are concentrated in states with significant tribal populations like Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and the northeastern states.
In State Legislative Assemblies, the same principle applies. Each state has a certain number of seats reserved for SCs and STs based on their population share within that state.
Crucially, this reservation applies to candidates, not voters. In a reserved constituency, only candidates belonging to the SC or ST community can contest the election. However, all registered voters in that constituency — regardless of their caste — can vote. This is different from the pre-independence system of separate electorates, where only certain communities could vote for their representatives.
Also, members of SC or ST communities are not barred from contesting general (unreserved) seats. Many prominent politicians from these communities have won from general constituencies, demonstrating their broad appeal across caste lines.
Why Was the Anglo-Indian Reservation Removed?
Who Are Anglo-Indians?
Before understanding why their reservation was removed, let us understand who this community is. According to Article 366(2) of the Constitution, an Anglo-Indian is defined as a person whose father or any male ancestor in the male line is or was of European descent, who is domiciled in India, and who is born in India to parents who have made India their permanent home.
This community has a unique and fascinating history. Their origins trace back to the British East India Company era, when European settlers married Indian women. Over centuries, they developed a distinct cultural identity — blending British and Indian traditions, often speaking English as their first language, and practicing Christianity while maintaining Indian roots.
The Constitution's framers recognized that this small community might struggle to get elected in India's massive democratic system. With their small numbers spread across the country, they could easily be drowned out in constituency-based elections. Hence, the nomination system was created as a protective measure.
The Government's Rationale for Removal
When the 104th Amendment was introduced in Parliament by then Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, the government gave several reasons for discontinuing Anglo-Indian nomination:
- Declining Population: The most cited reason was the dramatically reduced population of Anglo-Indians in India. According to the 2011 Census, only 296 people identified themselves as Anglo-Indians. While community leaders disputed this figure, arguing that many more Anglo-Indians existed but did not identify themselves as such in census forms, the official numbers were undeniably small.
- Democratic Principle: The government argued that nomination rather than election was fundamentally undemocratic. In a system based on universal adult franchise, having nominated members (even if well-intentioned) created a category of legislators who did not face electoral accountability.
- Adequate Alternative Representation: The government contended that Anglo-Indians, like any other citizens, could contest and win elections from general constituencies. If the community had genuine concerns, they could elect their own representatives through the normal democratic process.
- Changing Social Realities: The original rationale for special representation — that Anglo-Indians were a vulnerable minority needing protection — was argued to no longer apply in the same way after seventy years of independence and democratic functioning.
Criticism and Controversy
Not everyone agreed with this decision. Critics raised several powerful objections:
- Loss of Guaranteed Voice: Removing the nomination meant the Anglo-Indian community lost its only guaranteed platform in Parliament and state assemblies. Even if they could contest elections, their small, dispersed population made winning seats extremely difficult.
- Minority Rights Erosion: Some saw this as a dangerous precedent. If the government could remove constitutional protections for one minority community, what stopped them from doing the same for others? The move was viewed by some as undermining India's commitment to protecting all minorities, not just the largest ones.
- Lack of Consultation: Critics argued that the decision was taken without adequate consultation with the Anglo-Indian community itself. A constitutional safeguard that had existed for seventy years was removed without, in the view of many, sufficient dialogue with those affected.
- Inconsistent Justification: The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the amendment explained in detail why SC/ST reservations needed extension but provided no specific justification for why Anglo-Indian nomination was being discontinued. This lack of reasoned explanation became a focal point of legal challenges.
The Legal Challenge: Federation of Anglo-Indian Associations v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court Case
The removal of Anglo-Indian representation did not go unchallenged. In May 2022, the Federation of Anglo-Indian Associations in India filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the 104th Amendment to the extent it removed Anglo-Indian safeguards.
The petition, heard by a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla, made several serious arguments:
- The petitioners argued that the 104th Amendment was ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Constitution because it removed constitutional safeguards under Articles 331, 333, and 334 that protected the Anglo-Indian community.
- They contended that this removal violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 29 (Protection of Interests of Minorities).
- They sought to have the amendment declared violative of the basic structure doctrine — the principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered even by constitutional amendment.
- The plea specifically asked the court to restore the representation of the Anglo-Indian community through nomination in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
During the hearing, the petitioners emphasized that the original provision for Anglo-Indian representation was introduced to assure community members that they would be protected and heard if they chose to stay in India after independence. It was a solemn promise made by the Constituent Assembly.
The court, however, orally observed that seventy to eighty years after independence, the original objective of this protection had been achieved. The court also asked the government to justify the rationale behind reserving two seats in the Lok Sabha for Anglo-Indians.
The matter was listed for further hearing in November 2022, and the court issued notice to the Centre, directing it to file a response. This case remains a significant legal challenge to the 104th Amendment's treatment of the Anglo-Indian community.
The Supreme Court Challenge: In Re Article 334 of the Constitution
Background of the Case
While the Anglo-Indian community challenged the removal of their representation, another major legal battle was brewing — this time concerning the extension of SC/ST reservations itself.
On September 2, 2003, a division bench of the Supreme Court had referred a batch of petitions to a five-judge Constitution Bench. These petitions challenged the validity of the 79th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1999, which had extended SC/ST reservations (and Anglo-Indian nomination) from 2000 to 2010.
The core argument was simple but profound: the Constitution originally intended these reservations to last only ten years (until 1960). By repeatedly extending them every decade, was Parliament violating the basic structure of the Constitution? Was the original "temporary" nature of these reservations being rendered meaningless?
The case languished for years. In 2009, the 95th Amendment extended reservations to 2020. In January 2020, the 104th Amendment extended them again to 2030 and removed the Anglo-Indian provision.
On August 24, 2022, the Supreme Court finally listed the matter for hearing, along with 24 other pending Constitution Bench cases. A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha was constituted.
The Supreme Court's Framing of Issues
On September 20, 2023, the Constitution Bench led by CJI Chandrachud formally decided to hear the petitions. The bench renamed the case as "In Re: Article 334 of the Constitution" and clarified its scope:
- The court would examine the validity of the 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 as it applies to SCs and STs
- The court would not go into the validity of earlier extensions (8th, 23rd, 45th, 62nd, 79th, and 95th Amendments)
- The court would not test the validity of the amendment insofar as it abolished the Anglo-Indian quota, since that reservation had already expired after seventy years
The bench, which also included Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, framed the key constitutional questions:
- Whether the Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2019 is unconstitutional?
- Whether the exercise of constituent powers to extend the period prescribed for the expiration of reservations under Article 334 is constitutionally valid?
Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, formulated seven detailed questions for the court's consideration, including:
- Whether the proposition that SC/ST reservations will cease after a certain period can be "constitutionally final" (meaning it cannot be amended)
- Whether the right to stand as a candidate or vote for a candidate in direct elections is part of the basic structure of the Constitution
- Whether amendments extending the reservation period beyond the original Constitution's prescription, without judicial review, are valid
- Whether objective and quantifiable data was present for such extensions to save them from being manifestly arbitrary
- Whether the distribution of reserved seats without rotation violates Article 14
Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued that the key umbrella issue was whether the constitutional amendments extending reservation periods violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
The court accepted this framing and scheduled the case for hearing on November 21, 2023. The parties were directed to file common compilations by October 17, 2023, and written submissions by November 7, 2023.
This case remains pending before the Supreme Court as of the latest available information. The outcome could have profound implications for the future of political reservations in India. If the court holds that the repeated extensions violate the basic structure, it could fundamentally alter how reservations in legislatures operate. If it upholds the amendments, it would validate Parliament's continued authority to extend these protective measures.
Related Recent Case Law: The Davinder Singh Judgment and Reservation Jurisprudence
While the direct challenge to the 104th Amendment remains pending, the Supreme Court has delivered other landmark judgments that shape the broader landscape of reservation law in India. The most significant of these is the State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh case.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)
On August 1, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment that fundamentally changed how we understand reservations for SCs and STs. In a 6:1 majority verdict, the Court held that states have the power to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of reservation in public employment and education.
This judgment overruled the Court's own 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held that SCs and STs form a homogeneous group that cannot be subdivided for reservation benefits.
The Majority View
The majority, led by former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, reasoned that:
- The Constitution promotes "substantive equality" rather than just formal equality. This means treating differently situated people differently to achieve true fairness.
- Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group. Historical and empirical evidence shows that different castes within the SC list face varying degrees of discrimination and backwardness.
- Sub-classification is one of the means to achieve substantive equality and ensure that reservation benefits actually reach the most disadvantaged sections within these communities.
- The power to sub-classify comes from Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which are enabling provisions for the state to create special measures for backward classes.
- This is different from the President's power under Article 341, which is limited to identifying which castes are included in the SC list. Once identified, states can apportion reservation benefits among those castes.
However, the Court imposed strict safeguards:
- Any sub-classification must be justified by quantifiable and empirical data showing the relative backwardness of a subgroup and its inadequate representation in public service
- States cannot reserve 100% of SC seats for a sub-group to the exclusion of others in the list
- The decision is subject to judicial review — courts can examine whether the state's classification is rational and based on evidence
The Dissent
Justice Bela M. Trivedi delivered the sole dissenting opinion. She argued that:
- The Presidential List under Article 341 assumes finality once notified. Only Parliament can include or exclude castes from the Scheduled Castes list.
- States lack legislative competence to sub-classify castes enumerated in the Presidential List.
- Scheduled Castes form a homogeneous class for the purposes of the Constitution, despite their different origins.
- Any state sub-classification would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List, which violates constitutional provisions.
Significance for the 104th Amendment Context
While the Davinder Singh case directly deals with sub-classification in employment and education (not legislative reservations), it has important implications for the broader reservation framework that the 104th Amendment operates within:
- The judgment's emphasis on empirical data and quantifiable evidence for reservation policies could influence how the Supreme Court evaluates the repeated extensions of SC/ST legislative reservations under Article 334.
- The Court's willingness to overturn a 20-year-old precedent (E.V. Chinnaiah) shows that the judiciary is actively re-examining reservation jurisprudence in light of contemporary social realities.
- The focus on substantive equality and ensuring benefits reach the most disadvantaged aligns with the original purpose of Article 334 — to provide genuine representation for the most marginalized.
Understanding the Constitutional Provisions in Detail
Article 330: Reservation in the Lok Sabha
Article 330 of the Constitution mandates the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The number of seats reserved for SCs and STs in each state is roughly in proportion to their population in that state. The actual allocation is determined by the Delimitation Commission.
Key points:
- Out of 543 elected seats in the Lok Sabha, 84 are reserved for SCs and 47 for STs (based on the 2009 delimitation)
- Only candidates belonging to SC or ST communities can contest from these reserved constituencies
- All voters in the constituency participate in the election
- SC/ST members can also contest from general (unreserved) seats
Article 331: Nomination of Anglo-Indians to Lok Sabha
Article 331 originally empowered the President of India to nominate not more than two members of the Anglo-Indian community to the Lok Sabha if, in his opinion, the community was not adequately represented. This provision was operative for seventy years from the commencement of the Constitution (until January 25, 2020) and has now ceased to have effect due to the 104th Amendment.
Article 332: Reservation in State Legislative Assemblies
Article 332 provides for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Legislative Assemblies of every State. Like Article 330, the allocation is based on population proportion, and the constituencies are determined by the Delimitation Commission.
Key points:
- Each state has a specific number of reserved seats based on its SC/ST population
- The same principles apply as for Lok Sabha reservations
- This provision does not apply to the autonomous regions of Assam for STs, which have special arrangements under the Sixth Schedule
Article 333: Nomination of Anglo-Indians to State Assemblies
Article 333 originally empowered the Governor of a State to nominate one member of the Anglo-Indian community to the State Legislative Assembly if, in his opinion, the community was not adequately represented. Like Article 331, this provision ceased to have effect on January 25, 2020.
Article 334: The Time Limit Provision
Article 334 is the heart of the 104th Amendment. It provides that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of Part XVI, the provisions of the Constitution relating to:
- (a) Reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies
- (b) Representation of the Anglo-Indian community by nomination in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies
...shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of eighty years in respect of clause (a) and seventy years in respect of clause (b) from the commencement of the Constitution.
The amendment also includes a saving clause: "Provided that nothing in this article shall affect any representation in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State until the dissolution of the then existing House or Assembly, as the case may be."
This means that if the amendment takes effect during the term of a sitting Lok Sabha or state assembly, the existing members continue until the house is dissolved.
The Debate: Temporary Measure or Permanent Feature?
The Original Vision vs. Reality
The Constituent Assembly's decision to make reservations temporary was deliberate. Leaders like B.R. Ambedkar believed that these special measures were necessary to lift marginalized communities to a level where they could compete equally. However, they also hoped that within a reasonable time, the need for such measures would diminish.
Dr. Ambedkar himself famously said during the Constituent Assembly debates that reservation should not be extended indefinitely. He believed that if reservations continued for too long, they would create a vested interest in remaining "backward" and would not serve their intended purpose of integration.
However, the reality has been starkly different. Seventy years after the Constitution came into effect:
- Social discrimination against SCs and STs persists in many forms, despite legal prohibitions
- Economic disparities remain significant, with these communities over-represented among the poor and under-represented in wealth and higher education
- Political empowerment through reserved seats has created a layer of SC/ST leadership, but the broader communities still face systemic barriers
- Caste-based violence and atrocities continue to be reported regularly across India
Given this reality, most political parties have supported the decadal extensions as a necessary measure to ensure continued representation. The 104th Amendment passed the Lok Sabha with 355 votes in favor and 0 against, and the Rajya Sabha with 163 votes in favor and 0 against — demonstrating near-universal political consensus.
Arguments for Continued Extension
Proponents of extending SC/ST reservations argue:
- Persistent Backwardness: Despite progress, SCs and STs continue to face social stigma, economic deprivation, and educational disadvantages that justify continued protective measures
- Political Voice: Reserved seats ensure that these communities have a direct voice in law-making, which is essential for policies addressing their concerns
- Democratic Inclusion: Without reservations, the "first-past-the-post" electoral system might result in very few SC/ST members being elected, given the continued influence of caste in voting behavior
- Constitutional Promise: The Preamble promises equality of status and opportunity — reservations are seen as a means to achieve this substantive equality, not violate it
Arguments Against Perpetual Extension
Critics, including the petitioners in the Supreme Court challenge, raise important concerns:
- Basic Structure Violation: The original Constitution set a ten-year limit. By extending it eight times to eighty years, Parliament is arguably altering the Constitution's basic structure without justification
- Right to Equality: General category candidates argue that perpetual reservation violates their right to equality and right to contest elections from any constituency
- Lack of Data: Extensions have been passed without empirical data showing that the conditions justifying reservations still exist. Is there quantifiable evidence that SCs and STs remain politically under-represented?
- Democratic Principle: In a true democracy, all seats should be open to all candidates. Voters should decide who represents them, not constitutional mandates
- Rotation Concerns: Reserved constituencies often remain the same across decades. Should there be rotation to spread the "burden" of reservation among general category candidates?
The Procedure: How the 104th Amendment Was Passed
Understanding how constitutional amendments are passed helps appreciate the significance of the 104th Amendment.
The Amendment Process
Article 368 of the Constitution provides the procedure for amendment:
- Introduction: A bill for constitutional amendment can be introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha)
- Special Majority: The bill must be passed by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting
- Presidential Assent: After passing both Houses, the bill is presented to the President for assent. The President must give assent — unlike ordinary bills where the President has discretionary powers
- Ratification by States (if required): If the amendment affects the federal structure (e.g., changing the powers of states, the judiciary, or the election process), it must be ratified by not less than one-half of the states before the President's assent
The 104th Amendment's Journey
The Constitution (One Hundred and Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Ravi Shankar Prasad, then Minister of Law and Justice, on December 9, 2019.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the bill stated:
"Although the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have made considerable progress in the last 70 years, the reasons which weighed with the Constituent Assembly in making provisions with regard to the aforesaid reservation of seats have not yet ceased to exist. Therefore, with a view to retaining the inclusive character as envisioned by the founding fathers of the Constitution, it is proposed to continue the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for another ten years i.e. up to 25th January, 2030."
The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 10, 2019, with 355 votes in favor and 0 against.
It was then introduced in the Rajya Sabha and passed on December 12, 2019, with 163 votes in favor and 0 against.
The bill received Presidential assent on January 21, 2020, and was published in the Gazette of India on January 22, 2020. It came into force on January 25, 2020 — the day before the previous extension was set to expire.
Notably, because this amendment did not affect the federal structure or powers of states, it did not require ratification by state legislatures.
Impact and Implications of the 104th Amendment
For SCs and STs
The 104th Amendment ensures that:
- Political representation continues for the next decade. SC and ST communities can elect their representatives to Parliament and state assemblies through 2030
- Legislative advocacy for community-specific issues remains strong. Issues like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, land rights, education, and employment continue to get focused attention
- Democratic participation is encouraged. The reservation system has created a pipeline of political leadership from these communities
However, the amendment also perpetuates a system where these communities are dependent on constitutional safeguards rather than achieving full integration into the general political process.
For Anglo-Indians
The impact on the Anglo-Indian community has been more direct and challenging:
- Loss of guaranteed representation: The community no longer has any assured seats in Parliament or state assemblies
- Need for electoral strategy: Anglo-Indians must now contest general elections or rely on mainstream political parties to field their candidates
- Cultural preservation concerns: Some community leaders fear that without political representation, their unique cultural heritage and concerns may receive less attention
- Legal recourse: The ongoing case in the Delhi High Court represents the community's effort to challenge what they see as an unfair removal of constitutional protection
For Indian Democracy
The 104th Amendment raises broader questions about Indian democracy:
- Temporary vs. permanent measures: At what point do "temporary" reservations become permanent features? Is eighty years still "temporary"?
- Judicial review of amendments: The pending Supreme Court case will test the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Can the Court strike down a constitutional amendment for violating the basic structure?
- Minority rights: Does removing protection for one small community set a precedent for others? How does India balance majority rule with minority protection?
- Data-driven policy: Should future extensions require empirical evidence of continued backwardness, rather than being routine political decisions?
Looking Ahead: What Happens in 2030?
The 104th Amendment extends SC/ST reservations until January 25, 2030. What happens then?
Possible Scenarios
- Further Extension: Parliament could pass another amendment extending reservations for another ten years. Given the historical pattern and continued social realities, this is the most likely scenario
- Permanent Reservation: Parliament could amend the Constitution to make SC/ST reservations permanent, removing the ten-year extension cycle entirely. This would require a more fundamental change to Article 334
- Judicial Intervention: If the Supreme Court's pending challenge results in a ruling that repeated extensions violate the basic structure, the Court could limit or strike down future extensions
- Modified System: A new system could emerge — perhaps with rotating reserved constituencies, time-bound reservations for specific sub-groups, or a review mechanism requiring periodic data collection
The Role of the Supreme Court
The pending "In Re: Article 334" case before the five-judge Constitution Bench could be decisive. If the Court rules that:
- The 104th Amendment is valid: Parliament retains the power to continue extending reservations, and the status quo continues
- The extension violates basic structure: The Court could declare that Article 334's original ten-year limit was a fundamental feature that cannot be extended indefinitely. This would be a landmark ruling that fundamentally changes reservation policy
Given the Court's recent willingness to re-examine long-standing precedents (as seen in the Davinder Singh case), the outcome remains uncertain and eagerly awaited.
Conclusion
The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2020 is far more than a routine extension of reservation policies. It represents a critical crossroads in India's constitutional journey — a moment where the nation had to choose between continuing protective measures for historically marginalized communities and rethinking the temporary nature of those measures.
By extending SC/ST reservations to 2030 while abolishing Anglo-Indian representation, the amendment reflects both continuity and change. It acknowledges that the social and economic disadvantages facing Scheduled Castes and Tribes remain significant enough to warrant continued political protection. At the same time, it makes a bold statement about the Anglo-Indian community's place in modern India — arguing that after seventy years, their special constitutional status is no longer necessary.
The legal challenges pending before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court will continue to test the boundaries of Parliament's amending power and the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional values. The Davinder Singh judgment has already shown that the Court is willing to fundamentally rethink reservation jurisprudence in the name of substantive equality.
As we approach 2030, India will once again face the same question: has enough progress been made to end these temporary measures? Or are they still essential for achieving the constitutional promise of equality? The answer will depend not just on legal interpretation, but on the lived realities of millions of Indians who continue to face the lingering shadows of caste and social exclusion.
The 104th Amendment, in all its complexity, reminds us that the Constitution is not just a document — it is a living conversation between our past, our present, and our future. And that conversation is far from over.
COMMENTS