Can the decades-old constitutional dispute over Lambadas’ Scheduled Tribe status in Telangana be resolved?

The long-standing controversy over whether the Lambada (also known as Sugali or Banjara) community should be treated as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in Telangana has once again reached the Supreme Court, reopening a debate that has simmered for nearly five decades.

The immediate trigger is a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Tellam Venkata Rao and others, challenging the inclusion of the Lambada community in the Scheduled Tribes list for Telangana. The petition assails a judgment of the Telangana High Court dated December 17, 2024, which dismissed a writ petition seeking the deletion of Lambadas, Sugalis and Banjaras from the ST list in the state.

The Telangana government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the SLP, arguing that Parliament’s determination under Article 342 of the Constitution is final and immune from judicial review on historical, sociological or anthropological grounds.

Historical background and demographic shift

The Lambada community was included in the Scheduled Tribes list for the Telangana region through the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. According to the 1981 Census, the Lambada population in Andhra Pradesh stood at 1.16 million. The total ST population in the undivided state was 3.18 million in 1981, reflecting an increase of 1.52 million (91.67 per cent) over the 1971 Census.

This sharp rise has been largely attributed to the inclusion of the Lambada, Yerukula and Yanadi communities, which were recognised as Scheduled Tribes from 1956 onwards in the Andhra region and, from 1977, across the entire state of Andhra Pradesh, including the Telangana region.

However, several Adivasi groups in the Telangana region have been demanding the de-scheduling of the Lambada community from the list of Scheduled Tribes in the state. This has remained a contested issue, particularly in the context of competition over reservation benefits.

The petitioners before the Supreme Court contend that Lambadas, Sugalis and Banjaras were never recognised as Scheduled Tribes in the Telangana region under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and that in the erstwhile Hyderabad State they were classified as Backward Classes. They argue that the extension of ST status to the community across the state through the 1976 and 2002 amendment Acts was undertaken without any recommendation from the governor or a proper socio-anthropological study.

According to the petitioners, this inclusion was unconstitutional and has adversely affected the “original” Scheduled Tribes of the Telangana region by diluting reservation benefits.

Telangana state’s response

Opposing the challenge, the Telangana government has maintained that the grounds raised by the petitioners are constitutionally irrelevant and legally untenable. In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the state has asserted that once Parliament amends a Presidential Order under Article 342(2), its validity cannot be tested on the basis of historical classifications, regional distinctions or sociological narratives.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as B Basavalingappa vs D Munichinnappa (1965) and State of Maharashtra vs Milind (2001), the government has argued that courts are barred from examining anthropological or ethnographic evidence to modify or question Scheduled Tribe lists.

The state has also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners, stating that they do not belong to the Lambada community and have failed to demonstrate any direct legal injury. Their grievance, it has argued, is general and policy-oriented rather than a legally cognisable wrong.

Highlighting the delay in approaching the court, the affidavit points out that the inclusion of the Lambada community dates back to 1976 — nearly five decades ago. Since then, multiple generations have benefited through education, employment and political representation. Reopening the issue at this stage, the government has argued, would lead to serious administrative and constitutional instability.

Tracing the historical record, the state has noted that census reports from 1901 to 1951 during the Nizam’s rule recorded Lambadas and Banjaras as nomadic tribes with distinct cultural traits. Both the Hyderabad and Madras governments had recommended their inclusion in the draft Scheduled Tribes Order of 1949-50. Their temporary exclusion, the affidavit states, was linked to their earlier classification under the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which was repealed in 1952.

The government has further pointed to expert bodies such as the Dhebar Commission (1961), the Lokur Committee (1965) and the Joint Parliamentary Committee (1967–69), which identified anomalies arising from the confinement of ST recognition to the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions after 1956.

Acting on these findings, Parliament enacted the 1976 Amendment Act to remove area restrictions, and reiterated the position in 2002 by explicitly including “Banjara”. Following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Lambada community was listed at Serial No. 29 for Telangana under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act.

A question beyond the courts?

According to official estimates, Lambadas now constitute over 2.04 million people — around 64.32 per cent of Telangana’s total Scheduled Tribe population of 3.18 million. The issue has periodically generated social and political tensions among tribal groups in the state.

While the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the finality of Article 342 will be central to the legal outcome, the case also underscores a deeper policy dilemma: whether constitutional closure necessarily resolves long-standing social contestations within the framework of affirmative action.

Palla Trinadha Rao is a practicing lawyer and tribal rights activist. Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.