DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
Article 15
Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth:
SUBJECT
Constitutional Law-1

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Proff. Nageswara Rao

Name of the Candidate

Kranthi Kiran. T
Roll no. 18LLB127
Semester III

1
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………….3

Abstract…………………………………………………………………….5-8

Introduction………………………………………………………………..8-9

Chapter 1:

Prohibition of Discrimination

1.1 Article 15(1)………………………………………………………………………….9-12

1.2 Article 15(2)…………………………………………………………………………12-15

Chapter 2:

Exceptions for Rule of Non Discrimination……………………………15-16

Chapter 3:

Special provisions for women and children Art 15(3)………………..16-20

Chapter 4:

Special provisions for advancement of OBC, SC&ST Art 15(4)

……………………………………………………………………….20-21

4.1 Aspects of Article 15(4)……………………………………………………………22-28

Chapter 5: Special provisions related to educational institutions for OBC’s,

ST’s & SC’s………………………………………………………………28-30

2
5.1 Reservation of Higher education Institutions; Constitutional…………………..30-32

Chapter 6:

Reservation for economically weaker sections Art 15(6)…………………..33

6.1 Highlights of the Act…………………………………………………………………34

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………35

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………36

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3
I heart fully express my special thanks to my subject teacher Proff. Nageswar Rao Sir for
giving me the opportunity to do the project on the topic “Article 15”.It helped me to know
many things and gain knowledge. I also thank him for guiding me throughout the project and
responding for my doubts regarding the project.

I would also like to thank my University ‘Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University’
for providing me with all the required materials for the completion of my project and I also
came to know many new things.

ABSTRACT

Project: ARTICLE 15

4
Fundamental Rights are guaranteed to all persons by the constitution of India without any
discrimination of caste, religion, sex etc. These rights entitle an individual to live the life with
dignity. Fundamental Rights are meant for promoting the idea of democracy.

Originally the constitution provided 7 Fundamental Rights but as of now there are just 6
Fundamental Rights in force. Article 15 includes in one among those fundamental Rights i.e.

Rights to equality (Article 14-18).

Art 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,

sex or place of birth.

Article 15 (1) and (2) proscribe the nation from discriminating any citizen on the basis of
any one or many of the aspects such as religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth and others.

Art 15(2) makes sure that there will not be any restriction whatsoever to any person on the
above grounds in order to access and make use of the public facilities and amenities like
shops hotels, restaurants, places of entertainment, and others. No person in India can be
denied the use of tanks, wells, bathing ghats, roads and sites of public resort that are created
and managed fully or in part from the state funds or have been dedicated for the use of
general public.

Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc vs Union of India AndOrs. Etc on 22 June, 1984

This case explains Article 15 , clauses (1) and (2) i.e. discrimination on grounds not only of
religion, race, caste ... invalidating such residence requirement because these clauses prohibit
discrimination on ground of residence and, as pointed out by this Court

(3)Starting from article 15(3), the constitution of India attempts to deal with protective
discrimination, For instance, Article 15(3) makes it possible for the state to create special
provisions for protecting the interests of women and children.

For example Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971,The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and The Commission of
Sati (Prevention) Act 1987Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1986etc. are some important legal
provisions which protects women and protecting children from child labour, child abuse and
child maltreatment etc are also being implemented.

5
SandhyaManojWankhade v. ManojBhimraoWankhade, (2011) 3 SCC 650

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This case states that special
provisions for the protection of women are being implemented.

(4)Article 15(4) was introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, so as to
enable the State to make any special provisions for the advancement of ST’s and SC’s and
backward classes of citizens.

Art 29(2) prohibits the state to deny any citizen admission to an educational institution
maintained by state or receiving aid out of state funds only on the grounds of religion, race,
caste, language or any of them.

Under Art 15(4), the Government can establish and run educational institutions specially for
backward classes of citizens (like special schools for SC,STs). But, it would violate Art
29(2), as it denies admission on the basis of caste, so, the exception was provided.

Also, under Art 15(4), Government can reserve seats or provide fee concessions for backward
classes of citizens in State run institutions or institutions receiving aid from the State. It
doesn't give the State the right to make reservations in private institutions. At present, the
number of seats available in aided or State maintained institutions, particularly in respect of
professional education, is limited in comparison to those in private unaided institutions.

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)

It is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India. This judgment led to the First
Amendment of the Constitution of India. It was the first major judgment regarding
reservations in Republic of India. In its ruling the Supreme Court upheld the Madras High
Court judgment, which in turn had struck down the Government Order (G.O) passed in 1927
in the Madras Presidency. The G.O had provided caste based reservation in government jobs
and college seats.

M.R. Balaji and Ors.v. State of Mysore [1963] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 439

In this case, in the State of Karnataka, reservations were in force since a few decades prior to
the advent of the Constitution and were being continued even thereafter. The State of Mysore
issued an order under Article 15(4) of the Constitution declaring all the communities except
the Brahmin community as socially and educationally backward and reserving a total of 75

6
per cent seats in Educational Institutions in favor of SEBCs and SCs/STs.For the purpose of
Article 15(4), backwardness must be both social and educational. The reservation made under
Article 15(4) should be reasonable. It should not be such as to defeat or nullify the main Rule
of equality contained in Clause (1). While it is not possible to predicate the exact permissible
percentage of reservations, it can be stated in a general and broad way that they should be less
than 50 per cent.

(5)Art 15(5) was introduced by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, so as
to bring private unaided institutions into the ambit of reservations.

Art 19(1)(g) says all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession. But, to practice
technical professions, you need to have the required educational qualifications. By reserving
seats in private educational institutions as well, under Art 15(5), the State has reduced the
chances of an individual to get an admission into those courses that would allow him to
practice the profession of his will. So, Art 19(1) (g) is exempted to have any bearing on Art
15(5).

1. Art 15(5) is only limited to providing reservations in educational institutions, whereas Art
15(4) has a wider scope.

2. Art 15(5) requires the State to make a law to achieve these objectives, whereas for Art
15(4), the executive can take required measures without making any law. That is why the
Parliament enacted the Central Educational Institutions(Reservation in Admission) Act,2006,
to give effect to Art 15(5).

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India &Ors. [(2008) 6 SCC 1]

The Constitution Bench held in the aforesaid case that clause (5) of Article 15 is valid and
does not violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution so far as it relates to the State-
maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. In the aforesaid case, however, the
Constitution Bench left open the question whether clause (5) of Article 15 was
constitutionally valid or not so far as “private unaided” educational institutions are
concerned, as such “private unaided” educational institutions were not before the Court. This
batch of writ petitions has been filed by private unaided educational institutions and we are
called upon to decide whether clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution so far as it relates to

7
“private unaided” educational institutions is valid and does not violate the basic structure of
the Constitution.

Article 15 (6) is added to provide reservations to economically weaker sections for admission
to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided
by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of
Article 30. The amendment aims to provide reservation to those who do not fall in 15 (5) and
15(4) (effectively, SCs, STs and OBCs).

Reason behind introducing this provision in India

These powers have been given to the State so that it can create such provision which can help
these sections rise up and become equals to the other sections of the society. It can be said
that these provisions are meant for the upliftment of those sections of the society which have
been downtrodden/poor state for many years.

Introduction:

1
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution bars discrimination on the basis of a person’s caste,
race, religion, sex or place of birth. As per this article neither the State nor its citizens can
discriminate based on the aforementioned five factors as this is essential for building a better
society where people enjoy equal rights. Practicing discrimination based on these five factors
is a punishable offence under the Indian law. Many organizations and institutions in the
country have laws that discourage people from practicing such discrimination.

Article 15 also allows the State to create some special provisions that uplift the position of
women, children, and people belonging to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and socially
and economically backward classes. India is a democratic country. Thus, people have the
right to express their opinion and question the authority in a lawful manner; however, they
need to abide by the set constitutional law until the case is closed in their favor.

1
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 88, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

8
Article 15 consists of 6 clauses; they will be explained in the following with related case
laws.

The first clause of Article 15 directs the state not to discriminate against a citizen on grounds
of only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth or any of them. The second clause
prohibits citizens as well as the states from making such discrimination with regard to access
to shops, hotels, etc. and all places of public entertainment, or public wells tanks, roads, etc.
The first clause of Article 15 mentions the prohibited grounds mentioned in any matter which
is exclusively within the control of the State. The second clause prohibits both the State and
the private individual, whosoever is in the control of the above mentioned places The third
clause empowers the State to make special provisions for the protection of women and
children The fourth clause which was added by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951,
enables the State to make special provisions for the protection of the interests of the
Backward Classes of citizens and is Therefore, an exception to Articles 15 and 29 (2) of the
Constitution. Clause 5 of Article 15 moves a step ahead and empowers the country to make
reservations with regard to admissions into educational institutions both privately run and
those that are aided or not aided by the government. From this rule only the minority run
institutions such as the Madarsas are exempted. Clause 6 of article 15 is added to provide
reservations to economically weaker sections for admission to educational institutions
including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than
the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30. The amendment
aims to provide reservation to those who do not fall in 15 (5) and 15(4) (effectively, SCs, STs
and OBCs). And article 15(6) is recently inserted for economically weaker sections in upper
castes.

Prohibition of Discrimination: Article 15(1)

By clause (1) of Article 15 the state is prohibited to discriminate between citizens on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The word ‘discrimination’
means to make an adverse distinction or to distinguish unfavourable from others. If a law
makes discrimination on any of the above grounds it can be declared invalid.

2
In Nainsukhdas v. State of U.P

2
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 136 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

9
A law which provided for elections on the basis of separate electorates for members of
different religious communities was held to be unconstitutional.

The petitioners are three residents of Etah in Uttar Pradesh. They complain that at the by
election to the Municipal Board of Etah held on November 2, 1951, December 8, 1951, and
March 17, 1952, at which respondents 4, 11 and 12 were respectively elected, the Petitioners
were deprived of their rights to exercise their votes and to seek their election as candidates, as
those by-elections were held on communal lines on the basis of separate electorates contrary
to the provisions of the Constitution. They also allege that the nomination of respondent 3 as
a member of the Board by the Government was an illegal exercise of its powers, as the
interest which that respondent was nominated to represent in the Board was already
sufficiently represented.

The petitioners accordingly pray for the issue of writs of quo warranto, mandamus and other
appropriate writs or directions to respondents 3, 4, 11 and 12 to show under what authority
they are acting as members of the Board and to prevent them from acting as such members.
The petitioners also ask for writs on the District Magistrate and the Civil Judge of Etah,
respondents 2 and 13 respectively, directing them not to hold or permit the holding of any
meeting of the Board which is said to be illegally constituted.

Now, it cannot be seriously disputed that any law providing for elections on the basis of
separate electorates for members of different religious communities offends against article 15
(1) of the Constitution which runs thus 1186 "15 (1) The State shall not discriminate against
any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them." This
constitutional mandate to the State not to diis criminate against any citizen on the ground,
interalia, of religion clearly extends to political as well as to other rights, and any election
held after the Constitution in ,pursuance of such a law subject to clause (4) must be held void
as being repugnant to the Constitution

3
Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. pratap Singh

3
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 136 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava, 53rd Edn)

10
The Supreme Court invalidated a notification under the police Act of 1861 which declared
certain areas as disturbed and made the inhabitants of those areas to bear the cost of
additional police stationed there but exempted all harjans and muslims. The exemption was
given on the basis only of ‘caste or religion’. And hence was contrary to the word ‘only’ used
in Article 15(1) indicates that discrimination cannot be made merely on the ground that one
belongs to a particular caste, sex, etc. In other words, if other qualifications are equal, caste,
religion, sex, etc, should not be a ground for preference or disability. It follows from this that
discrimination on grounds other than religion; race, caste, sex, or place of birth is not
prohibited. It means that discrimination based on any of these grounds and also on other
grounds is not hit by Article 15(1).

4
D.P Joshi vs. State of Madhya Bharat

There was a medical college in Indore known as the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical
College, it was under the control of a private enterprise but later on it was taken over by the
Government of State of Madhya Bharat. When the Medical College was taken over by the
State Government, it brought a rule under which all students who were having domicile of the
State of Madhya Bharat i.e. were “Bonafide Residents of Madhya Bharat”, were exempted
from “capitation fees” and all other students who were not having domicile of Madhya Bharat
were charged capitation fees which was Rs. 1300 for nominees and Rs. 1500 for others.

For the purpose of rule a person was termed as a “Bonafide Resident” if (a) a citizen of India
whose original domicile is in Madhya Bharat, provided he has not acquired a domicile
elsewhere, or (b) a citizen of India, whose original domicile is not in Madhya Bharat but who
has acquired a domicile in Madhya Bharat and has resided there for not less than 5 years at
the date, on which he applies for admission, or (c)a person who migrated from Pakistan
before September 30, 1948 intends to reside in Madhya Bharat permanently, or (d) a person
or class of persons or citizens of an area or territory adjacent to Madhya-Bharat or to India in
respect of whom or which a Declaration of Eligibility has been made by the Madhya Bharat
Government” claiming that the rule was violative of the right to equality enshrined under the
Constitution of India. It was held by the Court in majority that the above mentioned rule was
4
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 88, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

11
not violative of the Fundamental rights enshrined under article 15(1). The court held by
majority that “Place of Birth” and “Place of Residence” are two different and distinct things
both in facts and law and the imposition of capitation fees was based on “Place of Residence”
rather than “Place of birth” and article 15(1) deals with discrimination based on “Place of
birth” and it can’t be read as “Place of residence”. The court further held that the rule was
also not violative of Article 14 because the classification was just and reasonable because it
was based on a ground which was a primary duty of state i.e. to encourage education within
its geographical boundaries.

But a dissenting judgement was given by Justice Jagannadhas, who held that though “place of
birth” and “place of domicile” were two different things but there is no such place for
regional domicile in Indian law and under the given circumstances the phrase original
domicile in Madhya Bharat is meant to convey the “Place of Birth” and thus this rule
primarily offends Article 15(1) of the Constitution and such distinction can also be not
termed reasonable under article 14 of the constitution.

Article 14. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination
on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”

Thus by majority the writ was dismissed and it was held by majority that the rule of the
Madhya Bharat government was not in contravention with the constitutional norms.

5
Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc vs Union of India & Ors. 1984

This case explains Article 15 , clauses (1) and (2) i.e. discrimination on grounds not only of
religion, race, caste ... invalidating such residence requirement because these clauses prohibit
discrimination on ground of residence and, as pointed out by this Court

This group of Writ Petitions raises question of great national importance affecting admissions
to medical colleges, both at the under-graduate and at the post graduate levels. The question
is, whether, consistently with the constitutional values, admissions to a medical college or

5
Manupatra, (October 23rd, 2019, 2:30 pm) roundup.manupatra.in › checkdoc.

12
any other institution of higher learning situate in a state can be confined to those who have
their 'domicile' within the State or who are resident within the State for a specified number or
years or can any reservation in admissions be made for them so as to give them precedence
over those who do not possess 'domicile' or residential qualification within the State,
irrespective of merit. This question has assumed considerable significance in the present day
context, because we find that today the integrity of the nation is threatened by the divisive
forces or regionalism, linguism and communalism and regional linguistic and commercial
loyalties are gaining ascendancy in national life and seeking to tear apart and destroy national
integrity. We tend to forget that India is one nation and we are all Indians first and Indians
last. It is time we remind ourselves what the great visionary and builder of Modern India,

Article 15(2)
6
Article 15 (2) is a specific application of the general prohibition contained in Article 15(1).
Article 15(2) declares that no citizen shall be subjected to any disability, restriction or
condition on grounds only of religion, race, caste, place of birth, or any of them with regard
to

(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, or
(b) The use of wells, tanks, baths, roads, and place of public resort, maintained wholly or
partly out of state funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. A ‘place of
public resort’ means places which are frequented by the public like a public park, a
public road, a public bus, ferry, public urinal or railway, a hospital, etc.

It is to be noted that while clause (!) of Article 15 prohibits discrimination by the state, clause
(2) prohibits both the state and private individuals from making any discrimination. The objet
of Article 15(2) is to eradicate the abuse of the Hindu Social System and to herald a united
nation. The Madras Removal of Civil Disabilities Act punishes social disabilities. No law,
custom or usage could authorize any person to prevent any harijans, depressed classes or the
like from having access to the public places mentioned in the act.

Indian young Lawyers association vs state of Kerala & Ors

6
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 89, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

13
The Sabarimala temple is one of Kerala’s most famous temples and it is dedicated to the
worship of Lord Ayyappa, who is also referred to as ‘Dharmashastha’ or Lord of Dharma and
is worshipped as a ‘Naishtika Bramhachari’ or a celibate for life. Therefore, as per a
notification by the Devaswom Board that manages the temple, women belonging to the
menstruating age are not permitted to enter the temple. The Sabarimala temple is managed by
the Travancore Devaswom Board. The centuries-old restriction that restricts women of
menstruating age from temple entry had been challenged now and then. In response to
a PIL filed in 1991, the Kerala High Court had judged that the restriction of entry of women ages
10-50 to the temple was in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial, and it
directed the Devaswom Board to uphold the customary traditions of the temple.

However, on 28 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India overturned the restriction on the

entry of women, declaring it unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Supreme Court had ruled
that women, of all age groups, can enter Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The apex court in a 4:1
majority said that the temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women and that banning entry
of women to shrine is gender discrimination.

7
Lakshmidar misra vs Rangalal

The Privy Council held that there could not be a dedication only to a limited section of public
like the inhabitants of the village, though such a right could be claimed on the basis of
custom.

On grounds ‘only’; Attention should be drawn to the word “only” in clauses (1) and (2) of
article 15, the state shall not discriminate against any person on the grounds only of religion,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The prohibited ground should not be the only or sole
consideration for discriminatory treatment. If sex, religion, etc. is not the only ground for the
differentiation, the law will be valid, irrespective of its operation. On the view the courts must
consider the scope and object of the impugned law so as to determine the grounds on which
such law is based. If the only basis of law is discrimination on one or more grounds specified
in article 15, then the law is bad; but if the true basis of the law is something different, the
law is not invalid because one of its effects could be such discrimination.
7
Manupatra, (October 24rd, 2019, 3:30 pm) roundup.manupatra.in › checkdoc.

14
8
Danial Laftifi vs UOI

Held that the provisions of Muslim women protection of rights on divorce Act 1986 is not
obtained article 15. judging the validity of section 118 succession act 1925, which applies
only to Christians and not to others Court held that you did not violate article 15(1) because
article 15(1) grants right to an individual season and not to class of citizens A statute it
observed which restricts a right of a class of citizens in the matter of testamentary disposition
who may belong to particular religion would therefore not attract the wrath of clause (1) of
article 15 of the constitution of India. Te courts reasoning is unconvincing because every
individual is a member of a group in some capacity and his argument in this case would be
that if it is only because of his religion that he is placed in a particular group which results in
disadvantage to him as individual in comparison to another individual placed in another
group. Existence of different personal laws is justifiable under article 15(1) because religion
is not the only basis and such difference does not result in discrimination prohibited by that
article.

9
Exceptions for rule of discrimination:

There are three exceptions to this general rule of non discrimination; Articles 15(3) and
Article 15(4) are exceptions of Article 15.

a. The state is permitted to make any special provisions to women and children.
Example: Reservation of seats for women in the local bodies and provision of free education
to children.

b. The state is free to make special arrangements for socially and economically backward
peoples or for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.
Example: reservation of seats or fee concession in the public educational institutes.

8
Manupatra, (October 24rd, 2019, 4:30 pm) roundup.manupatra.in › checkdoc.

9
Ebc-India.com,(October 25th, 2019, 3:00 pm) https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/94v3a2.htm

15
c. State can make special provisions for the betterment of the socially and economically
backward sections of the society or for the SCs and STs.

Example: Provisions regarding admission in the educational institutions in the private

institutes, whether aided or unaided by the state.
So this was explanation of the article 15 of the Indian constitution. We hope that article 15
will entitle a dignified life to the citizens of all economically and socially backward classes
and STs, SCs community of the country.

10
Special provision for women and Children... Article 15(3)

Article 15 (3) is one of the two exceptions to the general rule laid down in clauses (1) and (2)
of Article 15. It says that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any
special ' provision for women and children. Women and children require special treatment on
account of their very nature. Article 15 (3) empowers the State to make special provisions for
them. The reason is that “women’s physical structure and the performance of maternal
functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence and her physical well
being becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor
of the race. Thus, under Article 42, women workers can be given special maternity relief and
a law to this effect will not infringe Article 15 (1). Again, it wont“not be violation of Article
15 if educational institutions are established by the State exclusively for women. The
reservation of seats for women in a college does not offend against Article 15 (1).

Permjit Singh v. State of Punjab,

The petitioner was elected as Panch for reserved seat of Scheduled Castes (women). The
petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.5 as Sarpanch on the ground that she was
not eligible to contest election of Sarpanch which is reserved for Scheduled Castes and not
Scheduled Caste (women) because respondent was elected as Panch for Gram Panchayat only
against reserved seat for Scheduled Castes (women). The Court, however, upheld her

10
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 137 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

16
election. The Court said that if the seat of Sarpanch of a village is reserved for Scheduled
Castes then both men and women belonging to Scheduled Castes category can contest the
election for the said post because the eligibility is only being a Scheduled Castes Panch and
not the nature of the constituency they represent as Panches. She cannot be prohibited from
contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch against the seat meant for Scheduled Castes
category merely on the ground that she was elected as Panch from the reserved seat of
Scheduled Castes (women). Such a position would be violation of Article 15 of the
Constitution of India which prohibits discrimination of sex. Thus the plea that a member of
Scheduled Castes can only contest the election of the office of Sarpanch against the reserved
seat for ‘women’ belonging to Scheduled Castes, and not reserved for Scheduled Castes is
violative of Article 15 of the Constitution. The respondent was though elected as Panch
against the reserved category of Scheduled Castes (women) was fully eligible to contest
election for the post of Sarpanch which was reserved for Scheduled Castes category being a
women belonging to schedule castes

11
Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay

The Bombay High Court was asked to invalidate section 497, IPC on the ground that it
punished only man for adultery while left the woman unpunished who could be equally guilty
as willing participant in the crime of adultery. The High Court declined to interfere because
section 497 did not discriminate on the ground of sex alone. The exemption in favour of
woman was based on other reasons also, such as early marriage, and existence of polygamy.
On appeal, the supreme court sustained the provision not on the ground that the
discrimination fell outside the prohibition of clause(!), but on the ground that it was
discovered by clause (3) of article 15. The provision complained of is a special provision and
it is made for women.

Salil Bali v. Union of India,

The Supreme Court regarding the provisions of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000fixing 18 years as upper age limit for treating persons as Juveniles held it
to be constitutionally valid. Constitution enables the State Government to make special
provisions for children. The basis of fixation of this age is Article 1 of the Convention of the
11
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 138( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

17
Rights of the Child, 1989. It was four years after the adoption of the Bejing Rules that the
United Nations adopted this convention which came into force on 2nd September, 1990.
India is not only a signatory to this convention but has also ratified on 11th December, 1992.
The essence of the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules made there under is restorative not
retributive. The age has been fixed on account of the understanding of experts of child
psychology and behavioral patterns that till such an age. the children in conflict with law
could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened
criminals in future.

12
Anjali Roy vs State of West Bengal

The petitioner, who was a student of the Hooghly Mohsin College in Intermediate in Arts
Classes, passed the Intermediate examination in Arts of the University of Calcutta and was
placed in the Second Division. The petitioner's case is that on 9-7-1951 the petitioner put in
an application for admission to the said college in the 3rd year (B. A.) class with Honors in
Economics. On 10-7-1951 the petitioner was told by the Principal of the college that by
reason of an order issued by the Director of Public Instruction barring the admission of girls
passing in the 2nd Division, the petitioner could not be admitted into the Hooghly Mohsin
College and the petitioner was asked to get herself admitted in the newly established women's
college in Chinsurah. It is alleged in the petition that this women's college which was started
about three years ago as a Government-aided college has no affiliation for Honors and
Science subjects and the educational facilities in the said college were also not very
satisfactory and further that the result in the University examination of the students in the said
college was poor and unsatisfactory. It appears that the petitioner and some of her friends
approached the officials of the women's college for admission but were told that the college
had no affiliation for Honors’ course in any subject and the petitioner was furnished with a
certificate to that effect by the authorities of the women's college. On 12-7-1951 the
petitioner saw the Principal of the Hooghly Mohsin College with the said certificate and
requested him to admit her in the Mohsin College as there was no scope for study in the
Women'

12
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 138 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

18
It was however held, that Article 15(3) provides for only special provisions for the benefits of
women and children and does not require that absolutely identical treatment as those enjoyed
by males in similar matters must be afforded to them.

13
Dattatraya vs state

This is a petition by a resident of Jalgaon who is a tax payer of the Jalgaon Municipality and
a voter in one of the wards, challenging certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal
Boroughs Act, 1925, which reserves seats for women in the election to the Jalgaon
Municipality. The relevant provision of the Act is Section 10 (1) (c), which provides that the
State Government shall, from time to time, generally or specially for each Municipality, make
rules consistent with this Act (and we are quoting the relevant part of the Sub-section)
prescribing the number and extent of the wards to be constituted in each municipal borough,
the number of councilors to be elected by each ward and the number of seats, if any, to be
reserved for the representation of women; and pursuant to this Sub-section Government have
made rules reserving four seats for women out of the 35 elected seats for the Jalgaon
Municipality, and the contention of the petitioner is that this reservation offends against Arts.
14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the provision with regard to reservation of
seats for women is 'ultra vires'.

Women workers can be given special maternity relief and a law to this effect will not infringe
Article 15(1). Again, it would not be violation of Article 15 if educational institutions are
established by the state exclusively for women. The reservation of seats for women in a
college does not offend against article 15 (1).

14
Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade moved in with Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and his mother and
sister following their marriage in 2005. About a year later, she began experiencing abuses
from the three of them, for which she filed complaints under several articles of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).

13
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 138 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

14
Lawyers club.com (October 24rth, 2019, 2019), https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/

19
There were back-and-forth applications and petitions for appeals from both sides, and a
central question arose: is it lawful for a woman to lodge complaints against female relatives
of her husband under the PWDVA? The language of the law was unclear.

The high court ruled in favor of the husband’s female relatives, thus blocking them from
certain charges outlined in the PWDVA. The issue went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in
Sandhya Manoj Wankhade’s favor saying that it is in fact permissible to hold female relatives
as respondents under the act.

15
Special Provision for advancement of Backward Classes and
advancement of SC’s and ST’s. Article 15(4)

Article 15(4) is another exception to clauses (l) and (2) of Article 15, which was added by the
Constitution (lst Amendment) Act, 1951, due to decision in

Article 15(4) says: “Nothing in this article or in clause 2 of article 29 shall prevent the state
from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

In that case, the Madras Government had by a G.O reserved ‘seats in State medical and
Engineering Colleges for different Communities in certain proportions on the basis of
religion, race and caste. The Government defended it for promoting social justice for all
sections of people as required by Article 46. The Supreme Court held the G.O void because it
classified students on the basis of caste and religion irrespective of merit. The Directive
Principles of State Policy could not override the fundamental rights.

15
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 93, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

20
Jagwant Kaur vs State of Bombay

In this case an order requisitioning land for the construction of a Harijan Colony was held to
be void under Article 15(1).To modify the effect of these two decisions, Article 15 was
amended by the Constitution (lst Amendment) Act. 1951 and clause (4) was inserted. Under
this clause, the State is empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of any
socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and
scheduled tribes.

The provisions made in clause (4) of Article 15 are only an enabling provision and does not
impose any obligation on the State to take any special action under it. It merely confers
discretion to act if necessary by way of making special provision for backward classes.A writ
cannot be issued to the State to make reservation. The principle behind Article 15 (4) is that a
preferential treatment can be given validly where socially and educationally backward classes
need it. Article 15 (4) is not an exception but only makes a special application of the principle
of reasonable classification.

The class contemplated under the clause must be both socially and educationally backward

Thus, under clause 15(4), two things are to be determined

(1) Socially and educationally backward classes;

(2) The limit of reservation

‘Backward Classes’ is not defined in the Constitution. Article 340, however. empowers the
President to appoint a Commission to investigate conditions of socially and educationally
backward classes. On the basis of the report of the Commission, the President may specify as
whom to be are considered as backward classes.

‘Backward’ and ’more backward’ classification not bad

21
16
In Indra Sawhney v. UOI well known as Mandal Commission case,

The Supreme Court by 6 : 3 majority held the sub-classification of backward classes into
more backward and backward classes for the purpose of Article 16(4) can be done but as a
result of sub-classification the reservation cannot exceed more than 50 per cent. The
distinction should be on the basis of degrees of social backwardness. In fact, such a
classification would be necessary to help the more backward classes otherwise those of the
backward classes who are little more advanced than the more backward classes might take
away all the seats. This interpretation is equally applicable to Article 15(4), as the words
‘backward classes of citizen’ in Article 16(4) are wider and includes the SCs and STs and
other socially and educationally and In State of AP vs Balram and KC. Vasanth Kumar v.
State of Karnataka have been followed by the Court. As regards the limit of reservation, the
majority has held that the total reservation shall not exceed 50%. This general rule can be
relaxed in extraordinary situations for population living in far flung areas of the country as it
may be desirable to treat them differently.

In A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court held that classification of backward classes on basis of castes is well
within the purview of Article 15(4) provided those castes are shown to be socially and
educationally backward. But the Court advised that the Government should not proceed on
the basis that once a class is considered as backward, it should continue as backward class for
all the times. Such an approach would defeat the very purpose of the reservation. The
Government should always keep under review the question of reservation of seats and only
the classes which are really, socially y and educationally backward should be allowed to have
the benefit of reservation. Reservation of seats should not be allowed to become vested
interest. The Government decision in this regard is open to judicial review

In State of AP. vs U.S.V. Balaram,

16
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 94, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

22
The Supreme Court reiterated the same view and held that caste o a person cannot . the sole
test for ascertaining whether a peculiar class or community is backward class or not. yet if an
entire caste is, as a fact, found to be socially and educationally backward their inclusion in the
list of backward classes by their name is not violative of Article 15(4). A caste is also a class
of citizens which may, as such, be socially and educationally backward. It does not mean that
once a caste is considered backward class it will continue to be backward for all the time. If a
situation arises wherein the candidates belonging to the groups included in the list of
backward classes are able to obtain more seats on the basis of their own merit, it is the duty of
the Government to review the question of further reservation of seats for such groups. If once
a class appears to have reached a stage of progress, from which it could be safely inferred that
no further protection is necessary the State will do well to review such instances and suitably
y revise the list of backward classes. The decision of the Government in this regard is a
justifiable issue.

17
K.S jayasree v. State of Kerala 

The State of Kerala appointed a Commission to inquire into and to report as to what sections
of the people in Kerala should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes. On
the basis of the report of the Commission, the Government directed that candidates belonging
to families whose annual income was Rs. 10,000/or above would not be eligible for seats
reserved for backward classes in Medical Colleges. The Supreme Court upheld the
Government's direction and held-Neither caste by itself nor poverty by itself is determining
factor of social backwardness. Though poverty is not the sole test of backwardness yet it is
relevant factor in the context of social backwardness. Thus, both caste and poverty are
relevant in determining the backwardness of citizens.

18
In State a U.P. v. Pradeep Tandon

17
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 141 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

18
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 141, ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

23
The Uttar Pradesh Government made reservation of seats for admission to Medical colleges
in the State in favor of candidates coming from rural areas, Hill and Uttarakhand areas. The
Supreme Court held-The reservation in favor of candidates coming from rural areas is
unconstitutional but the reservation in favour of candidates coming from Hill and
Uttarakhand areas is valid. The hill and Uttarakhand areas are instances of socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens. Backwardness is judged by the economic basis
that each region has its own measurable possibilities for the maintenance of human members’
standards of living and fixed property. From an economic point of view, the classes of
citizens are backward when they do not make effective use of resources. When large areas of
land remain spares, disorderly and illiterate population whose property is small and
negligible, the element of social backwardness is present. When effective territorial
specialization is not possible  the absence of means of communication and the technical
processes as in hill and Uttarakhand areas, the people are socially backward classes of
citizens. People in the hill and Uttarakhand areas are also the educationally backward classes
of citizen, because lack of educational facilities keeps them stagnant and they have neither
means and values nor awareness for education. Where people have traditional apathy for
education on account of social and environmental conditions or occupational handicaps, it is
an illustration of educational backwardness. The Hill and Uttarakhand areas are inaccessible.
There is lack of educational institutions and educational aids. The reservation for rural areas
cannot be sustained on the ground that the rural areas represent socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens. The reservation made for the majority population of the State
that is 80 per cent, of the population of the State in ‘rural areas’ cannot be homogeneous class
by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is different. Their standards are
different. Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. The
special need for medical men in rural areas will not make the people in the rural areas
socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Poverty in the rural areas cannot also
be the basis of classification to support reservation for rural areas. Poverty is found in all
parts of India.

In Arti v. State of J. and K.,

The Supreme Court held that the classification made for rectification of regional imbalance
without identifying the areas suffering from imbalance was vague and arbitrary and therefore

24
violative of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The J. and K. Government had earmarked 25
per cent of seats out of the total number of 50 seats for admission to the MBBS course in the
Government Medical College for rectification of regional imbalance in different parts bf the
States. By a notification certain villages were identified as socially and educationally
backward for applying the above principle of rectification of imbalance. It was held that there
was no material before the Government affording a basis for classifying these villages as
socially and educationally backward areas and hence the classification was arbitrary and
unconstitutional.

Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana 

The Court held that the reservation of seats for admission to M.B.B.S and B.D.S. course for
students who received education from class I to VIII in common rural schools in preference
to students educated in urban schools was violative of Article 15(4) as the classification
between rural and urban educated students was wholly irrational and arbitrary.

19
Principal, Guntur Medical College v. Y. Roham Rao.

An important question arose before the Court as to whether a  person belonging to Christian
converts, who originally belonged to a Scheduled Castes, on reconversion to Hinduism could
claim the benefit of reservation of seats in a medical college under Article 15(4) of the
Constitution. The Court held that a person whose parents belonged to a Scheduled Castes
before their conversion to Christianity could, on reconversion to Hinduism be regarded as
member of me Scheduled Caste only if he was accepted as member of that caste by the other
members of the caste. On such acceptance, he would be eligible for the benefit of reservation
of seats for Scheduled Castes in the matter of admission to a medical college.

20
High caste girl marrying Scheduled Tribes-Not entitled to Reservation benefit-

19
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 142 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

20
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 143 ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

25
In Dr. Neelima v. Dean of P.G Studies AP. Agriculture University, Hyderabad,

It has been held that a high caste girl marrying a boy belonging to Schedule tribes is not
entitled to the benefit of reservation available to Scheduled Tribes. The appellant was born in
a Reddy caste which is a forward class and married to an Erukala Tribe boy one of the
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After marriage she sought admission to
M.Sc. course in the Agriculture University, Hyderabad under reservation quota for Scheduled
Tribes. The Court held that she was not entitled to get the benefit of reservation available to
the Scheduled Tribes.

Meera Kanwaria vs Sunita

It has been held that if a female of high caste Hindu marries a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste she is not entitled to take the benefit of reservation under article 15(4) and 16(4) of the
constitution. In this case, an upper caste Hindu girl is married a person belonging to SC. The
marriage was performed as per vedic rites. Her marriage had been accepted by her Biradari,
i.e; husband’s family only. She was not accepted by the community of her husband.
Therefore, it was held that she could not acquire the status of SC’s and could not contest
election on a seat reserved for SC’s. Mere acceptance of family of husband is not sufficient.
Strict proof of acceptance by community of husband is necessary.

Reservation more than 50 percent:

In general, the total reservation in India is 49.5%. Most states do not provide more than 50%
reservation. However, an exception is the state of Tamil Nadu, which has a whopping 69%
total reservation. It can be broken down as 50% for OBC, 18% for SC and 1% for ST. Tamil
Nadu crossed the 50 limit in 1980 after the then ADMK government decided to withdraw
"Creamy Layer" policy. There had been numerous cases filed against this system and after
years of argument and counter arguments, the central government decided to include the
Tamil Nadu Reservation System under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court later upheld the move and now Tamil Nadu is the only state in India that has legally
been able to provide more than 50% reservation for backward castes.

26
21
ln Balaji v. State of Mysore,

The Mysore Government issued an order under Article 15 (4) reserving seats in the Medical
and Engineering Colleges in the State as follows : Backward classes 28%. more Backward
classes 20%, Scheduled Castes and Tribes 18%. Thus 68% of the seats available in the
Colleges were reserved and only 32% seats were made available to the merit pool. Some of
the candidates had secured more marks than those admitted under the reservation order but
they failed to get admission only be reason of the Government order.

The Court held-The sub-classification made by the order between ‘backward classes’ and
‘more backward classes’ was not justified under Article 15(4). “Backwardness” as envisaged
by Article 15(4) must be both social and educational and not either social or educational.
Though caste may be a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole test for ascertaining whether a
particular class is a backward class or not. Poverty, occupation, place of habitation may all be
relevant factors to be taken into consideration. Article 15(4) does not speak of ‘castes’ but
only speaks ‘classes’ and ‘caste’ and ‘class’ are not Synonymous. The impugned order,
however, proceeds only on the basis of caste without regard to other relevant factors and that
is sufficient to render the order invalid. The State Was not justified in including in the list of
backward classes all those castes 0r communities whose average of student population per
thousand was slightly above or very near or just below the State average. Only those which
were well below the average can be regarded as backward. Thus the main defect of the
system adopted by the State was that under it 90% of the population of the State was
backward. This was inconsistent with Article 15(4). Reservation of 68% per cent of seats in
technical institutions, such as Engineering and Medical Colleges to the exclusion of all other
candidates if a single candidate from the Scheduled Tribes was available, would amount to
fraud upon the Constitution. Clause (4) of Article 15 only enables the State to make special
and not exclusive provision for the backward classes. The State would not be justified
ignoring altogether advancement of the rest of the society in its zeal to promote the welfare of
backward classes. National interest would suffer if qualified and competent students were
excluded from admission in institutions of higher education. Speaking generally, the special
21
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 103, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

27
provision should be less than 50% how much less than 50% would depend upon the relevant
prevailing circumstances in each case.

22
Relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for admission for SC’s and ST’s.

State of M.P vs Nivedita Jain

In M.P state more than 200 seats are reserved to SC’S and ST’s. Since no qualified people in
this category. The medical board reduced to 20 % qualification. Only 20 seats were filled and
again reduced 5 % still not filled. The board removed the minimum qualification marks. H.C
held hat removal is not valid. S.C held that it is valid.

Preethi Sangamitra vs State of M.P

In respect of super specialists in medical and engineering colleges, extension of reservation is

invalid as per Article 15(4). According to merit, it should be taken.

Article 15(5): special provisions related to their admissions to educational

institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or
unaided by the state.

Article 15(5)--By the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005, the Parliament inserted
clause (5) in Article 15 with effect from 20-1-2006 to nullify the effect of these judgments :

"Nothing in this Article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 shall prevent the State
from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled
Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions
including private educational institutions. whether aided or unaided by the State, other than
the minority educational institutions referred to in clause ( l) of Article 30."

22
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 145, ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

28
This Amendment enables the State to make provision for reservation for the above categories
of classes in admission to private educational institutions. The Amendment. However keeps
the minority educational institutions out of its purview. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on
the ground of religion.

23
In T.M.A. Pai foundation vs state of Karnataka

 The Supreme Court held that the State could not make reservation of seats in
admissions in privately run educational institutions.
 There, the admissions could be done on the basis of common admission test
conducted by the State or these institutions and on the basis of merit.

In Islamic Academy vs state of kerala,

The Court held that the State could fix quota for admissions to these educational institutions
but it could not tix fee and also admissions could be done on the basis of common admission
test and on the basis of merit.

In PA. Inamdar vs State of Maharastra

 however, the Court overruled the Islamic Academy ruling to the effect that the “State
could fix the quota for admissions to private professional educational institutions”
 Extension of reservations pertaining to states discretions. If it is necessary then it can
enable reservations.

 The minorities rights ; Art 29&30

 Unaided institutions can have reservations
 Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs UOI

The supreme court held clause (5) of article 15 of the constitution is not an exception or a
proviso overriding article 15 of the constitution but an enabling provision to make equality of

23
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 146, ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)

29
opportunity promised in the preamble in the constitution a reality. Clause (5) of article 15 in
so far as it treats unaided private educational institutions and aided private educational
institutions alike is not violative of article 14 of the constitution. Such law is not immune
from challenge under article 14 of the constitution, by excluding the minority institutions
referred to in clause (1) of article 30 of the constitution, the secular character of India is
maintained and not destroyed. They are separate class and there exclusion from article 15(5)
is not violative of constitution.

The Court negatived the contention that the special provision for admission of socially and
educationally backward classes. S.Cs. and S.Ts. in private educational institutions would
make it impossible to achieve excellence in education. It held the view of Bhandari .J in
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,  not to be correct that 93rd Amendment has
abrogated Article l9(l)(g), a basic feature of the Constitution by insetting clause (5) of Article
15.

O.B.C. Reservation in Higher Educational Institutions: Constitutional...

In Higher educational institutions reservation for O.B.C Students became constitutional, it is

explained in the following cases

24
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India.

A Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan held
the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2006 providing 27 percent reservation in admission
to OBC candidates in higher educational institutions like, llTs and “IIMs constitutional.
However, the Court left open the question of reservation to this category of citizens to private
educational Institutions. The amendment provided that without touching the present strength
of general category candidates, the OBC candidates can be given reservation. The Court.
24
V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, 107, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

30
however. held that the benefit of reservation could not be made available to creamy layer
candidates. The reservation must be reviewed in after every 5 years. The creamy layer
requirement would not apply to SCs/STs candidates who would be given reservation every
year.

In Puneet Gulati v. State of Kerala,

“A 100% reservation was made in admission in super-specialty medical courses to the

students who had completed M.B.B.S. or P.G courses from Medical Colleges in Kerala. The
doctors who had done rural services In Kerala were to be given preference for admission. The
students not from Kerala could get a chance for admission on the non-availability of students
from Kerala. The High Court of Kerala through a single Judge and then by the Division
Bench in appeal upheld the single Bench decision and struck down 100% reservation but did
not give any relief on the ground that the course had already commenced more than six
months before. The Supreme Court while upholding the decision of the High Court stated
that the appellant deserved to be accommodated in some way since he was denied admission
due to invalid policy. As the two seats had been kept vacant in terms of the order of the
Supreme Court. The direction was issued for his admission in the next year's course.

In Indian Medical Association v. Union of India,

The Supreme Court in a two Judge Bench decision held-Hundred percent reservation, by a
notification issued by the Govt. of N. C. T. Delhi, in the Army College of Medical Sciences
to the wards of Army personnel, ultra vires to the provisions of the Delhi Professional
Colleges or Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of
Non-Exploitative Fee and other Measures to Ensure Equality and Excellence) Act, 2007 and
also unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15(2), 19 ( 1) (g), 38 and 162. The Act
clearly sets out the policy for reservation for SCs and STs and in the democracy which has
been deemed to be a basic feature of the Constitution. The executive cannot claim the power
under Article 162 to set at naught the policy legislated by the State. The observation in P. A.
Inamdar case that education can be an occupation is not ratio of that case. Clause (6) of

31
Article 19 ( i ) (g) applies to non-minority and minority institutions both but the level of
regulation on non-minority institutions is greater. The source of admission for non-minority
institutions is the "general pool" as from this pool. the students have to be selected on the
basis of merit determined by marks secured in qualifying examinations but the minority
institutions are able to choose from the source which can be the minority to which the
minority educational institution claims to belong. The reservation to the wards of army
personnel is possible if they belong to the socially and educationally back ward class to be
determined by the law in accordance with constitutional jurisprudence, e.g. removal of
creamy layer. Reservation not to exceed certain levels etc. Minority and non-minority
institutions both cannot administer their institutions and the quality of education cannot be
affected by selecting arbitrarily from the sources they are entitled to select.

The provisions of clause (5) of Article 15 are not violative of Articles 32 and 226 as it does
not take away the power of judicial review and also not violative of basic structure of the
Constitution. The correct test to evaluate the provisions of Article 15 (5) as to whether they
permit evisceration of freedom to engage in one of the many occupations guaranteed by
Article 19 (l) (g) is not 'direct impact and effect' test but the “essence of right test".

Reservations for economically weaker sections:

Article 15(6)

25
This is very recently inserted on January 19,2019 based on economic criteria. It is inserted
in 103rd Amendment of Indian Constitution.

25
Mondaq.com, (October 25th, 2019, 4:50 pm),
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/773144/Constitutional+Administrative+Law/103rd+Constitutional+Amendm
ent+Act+2018.

32
15(6)- (a) Nothing in this article or article 19(1) (g) or article 29(2) shall prevent the state
from making

(a) Any special provision for advancement of any economically weaker sections of
citizens other than classes mentioned in clause (4) ,(5) of article 15.
(b) Any special provision for advancement of any economically waker sections of
citizens other than the classes mentioned in (4)& (5) in so far as such special
provisions relates to educational institutions including private educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided by the state other than the minority educational institutions
referred in article 30 which in case of reservation would be in addition to the existing
reservation and subject to a maximum of 10% of total seats in each category.

The One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India officially known as

the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, introduces 10%
reservation for economically weaker sections of society for admission to Central
Government-run educational institutions and private educational institutions (except for
minority educational institutions), and for employment in Central Government jobs. [1] The
Amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run
educational institutions or State Government jobs. However, some states have chosen to
implement the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections

Currently, the quota can be availed by persons with an annual gross household income of up
to ₹8 lakh (US$12,000). Families that own over 5 acres of agricultural land, a house over
1,000 square feet, a plot of over 100-yards in a notified municipal area or over a 200-yards
plot in a non-notified municipal area cannot avail the reservation. [3] Persons belonging to
communities that already have reservations such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
the "creamy layer" of Other Backward Classes are also not eligible for reservation under this
quota.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ACT

 The Constitutional (103rd Amendment) Act got the assent of President of India on
13th January, 2018. The bill was passed in Lok Sabha by 323 members voting in
favour and 3 members against the bill. It was subsequently passed by Rajya Sabha
with 165 members in the favor and only 7 members against the bill.

33
  It provides reservation of jobs in central government jobs as well as government
educational institutions. It is also applicable on admissions to private higher
educational institutions.
 It applies to citizens belonging to the economically weaker sections from the upper
castes.
 This reservation is "in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum
of ten per cent of the total seats in each category".
 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill states that people from
economically weaker sections of the society have largely remained excluded from
attending the higher educational institutions and public employment on account of
their financial incapacity to compete with the persons who are economically more
privileged.
 The bill states that it is drafted with a will to mandate Article 46 of the Constitution of
India, a Directive Principle that urges the government to protect the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of society. While socially disadvantaged
sections have enjoyed participation in the employment in the services of the state, no
such benefit was provided to the economically weaker sections.

Conclusion:

The inclusion of this article in the Indian Constitution was necessary because a lot of
discrimination was going on in the country in the name of caste, religion, race, sex and place
of birth since centuries. Caste system was one of the major social evils prevalent in our
society. The way one was treated was mainly based on the caste he belonged to. For instance,
the Brahmins were considered upper class people. They were respected by everyone. They
got the best jobs in the society and enjoyed a good lifestyle.

On the other hand, the Shudhras were considered inferior so much so that they were called
the untouchables. People from the other castes looked down upon them. They were not
allowed to enter temples, restaurants and other public places. They were involved in menial
tasks such as cleaning and sweeping. Similarly, the condition of women in the society was
very low in the pre-independence era. They were mostly confined to the household tasks and
not allowed to go out and work. Girls were not even sent to school. Discrimination was also

34
done based on other mentioned factors, that is, the place of birth, religion and race. It was
important to stop such discrimination. Article 15 also allows for special provisions for the
weaker section of the society in order to strengthen their position in the society.

Thus, the inclusion of Article 15 was important so as to give a fair chance to everyone so that
they can grow and develop the right way.  Article hopes to completely eliminate caste, gender
and origin based discrimination one day, and making India a country where all citizens are
treated equally in terms of opportunities and fundamental rights.

Bibliography

1. V.N Shuklas, Constitution of India, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edn)

2. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, ( Surendra Sahai Srivastava,53rd Edn)
3. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th Edn)
4. A.V.Dicey, Law of the Constitution,( 10th Edn)
5. Ebc-India.com, https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/94v3a2.htm
6. Manupatra, roundup.manupatra.in › checkdoc.

7. Lawyers club.com , https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/

35
36