Examine the scope and limitations of the President of India's role in addressing grievances related to social justice.

Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form [1], yet victims of caste atrocities frequently petition the President for redress — as 32 Congress SC/ST MPs did in September 2026 over an alleged "purification" ritual at Haldwani, Uttarakhand [4]. The President's role here is largely constitutional-moral rather than executive.

Scope of the President's role

• Constitutional custodian: the oath under Article 60 to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" makes the President the symbolic guardian of equality rights under Articles 15, 16 and 17 [1].
• Institutional channel: the National Commission for SCs (Article 338) and NCST (Article 338A) investigate safeguards and complaints of denial of rights and report annually to the President, who lays them before Parliament with an action-taken memorandum [1][3].
• Appointment and direction powers: the President appoints the Commissions' members, may direct States on tribal welfare schemes (Article 339) and receives Governors' reports on Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule [1].
• Moral suasion: memoranda, addresses to Parliament and clemency under Article 72 give the office persuasive weight even without command authority [1].

Limitations

• Bound by aid and advice: Article 74 leaves the President without independent executive discretion; a memorandum can only be forwarded to the government [1].
• Federal division: police and public order are State subjects, so FIRs, investigation and trial under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — including its Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors — rest with State machinery [2].
• No binding force: Commission reports and presidential references carry recommendatory value only; implementation gaps persist [3].
• Risk of symbolism: petitioning the Rashtrapati Bhavan may substitute political signalling for statutory remedies before Commissions, courts or the police [4].

The President is therefore a moral amplifier of social-justice grievances, not their adjudicator. Strengthening Special Courts, ensuring time-bound action-taken reports on NCSC recommendations, and effective enforcement of Article 17 would convert that symbolic authority into substantive dignity for the marginalised.