While the Constitution of India provides for equality under Articles 14-18, with Article 14 providing equality before law and equal protection of laws. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and Article 16 provides for equality in opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 17 abolishes untouchability and Article 18 abolishes titles. However, articles 15(4) and 16(4) talk about special provisions for the backward classes.
In the case of Champakam Dorairajan v State of Madras, the Supreme Court struck down the communal GO, which made reservations based on caste, leading to the first amendment of the Constitution.
Article 15(4) states that "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 or educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes"
Article 16(4) states that: "nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State"
In the case of Balaji v State of Mysore, the Supreme Court observed that reservation cannot be greater than 50%. The classification between backward and more backward was held to be invalid. Further, it was observed that caste cannot be the only criteria for reservation as caste us not synonymous with class and other factors including economic backwardness should also be taken into consideration.
In Devdasan v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the carry forward rule is unconstitutional.
In State of Kerala v NM Thomas, the Supreme Court held that a 2 year relaxation for SC/ST for passing a test for promotion was valid as they were ultimately required to pass the test.
In State of MP v Nivedita Jain, the Supreme Court held that the relaxation of qualifying marks for SC/ST for admission is valid.
In Indira Sawney v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that reservation cannot be more than 50%, the classification between backward class and more backward class is valid, carry forward rule is invalid. It further held that the creamy later should be excluded. It further held that reservation in promotion is invalid which was nullified by the 77th amendment.
The provision of reservation is not in contravention of the equality provisions but rather a means of providing social justice and bringing the backward classes at par with the forward classes.
In the case of Champakam Dorairajan v State of Madras, the Supreme Court struck down the communal GO, which made reservations based on caste, leading to the first amendment of the Constitution.
Article 15(4) states that "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 or educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes"
Article 16(4) states that: "nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State"
In the case of Balaji v State of Mysore, the Supreme Court observed that reservation cannot be greater than 50%. The classification between backward and more backward was held to be invalid. Further, it was observed that caste cannot be the only criteria for reservation as caste us not synonymous with class and other factors including economic backwardness should also be taken into consideration.
In Devdasan v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the carry forward rule is unconstitutional.
In State of Kerala v NM Thomas, the Supreme Court held that a 2 year relaxation for SC/ST for passing a test for promotion was valid as they were ultimately required to pass the test.
In State of MP v Nivedita Jain, the Supreme Court held that the relaxation of qualifying marks for SC/ST for admission is valid.
In Indira Sawney v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that reservation cannot be more than 50%, the classification between backward class and more backward class is valid, carry forward rule is invalid. It further held that the creamy later should be excluded. It further held that reservation in promotion is invalid which was nullified by the 77th amendment.
The provision of reservation is not in contravention of the equality provisions but rather a means of providing social justice and bringing the backward classes at par with the forward classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment