case study on article 15 of indian constitution

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Constitution
• Constitutional law

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

This article is written by Devansh Sharma , Nikunj Arora and has been updated by Naincy Mishra . This article deals with a detailed explanation of Article 15 of the Constitution, its various aspects, evolution and related judicial pronouncements. 

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Constitution of India guarantees various rights to its citizens, including no discrimination on account of religion, race, caste, or place of birth. Part III of the Indian Constitution establishes this right under the heading of Fundamental Rights. In India, religion and caste-based discrimination have existed for a very long time. In every part of India before independence, discrimination was evident, whether through untouchability or the division of upper and lower castes. Discrimination still exists today; however, the consequences of such discrimination are much more severe and punishable. 

According to the 8th Schedule of the Constitution, India recognises a total of 22 languages. But in reality, there are more than 1,500 languages spoken in India other than the official languages of Hindi and English. The Hindi language is spoken by roughly 44.63 percent of the Indian population. Diversity often leads to differences of opinion, and those differences of opinion sometimes lead to discrimination. A major source of discrimination in India is caste discrimination, which still occurs in some parts of the country. Traditionally, the general divide in society was between the lower castes and the upper castes. There had been untouchability for the lower castes. India has now outlawed this rule because it is so unacceptable. 

The stories of women being beaten up for drawing water from wells, people being harassed if their shadow falls on other men, devotees being stopped from entering the temple, and being beaten up for touching idols of gods have become a common affair in newspaper headlines whenever I go through one. It seemed to me like a nightmare that has compelled me to look into the provisions in force that prohibit such differentiation.

A number of cases involving discrimination are based on a variety of variables. Caste and religion have been the major causes of discrimination in India for most of its history. The practice of discriminating on the basis of gender is not new either. This includes discriminating against women as well as LGBTIQA+ individuals. Decriminalising Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , in 2018 marked the first step in recognising the LGBTIQA+ community. A discriminatory act causes emotional pain, mental distress, and social isolation. Article 15 of the Constitution has been widely needed and has existed ever since it came into force. There are five clauses in Article 15 that specify types of discrimination that are strictly prohibited.  

This article examines the provisions of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which protects its citizens from discrimination of any kind. Considering India has so many religions, beliefs, languages, cultures, etc., and has such a diverse population, there is no doubt that discrimination can occur in such a country. Thus, the purpose of Article 15 is to protect the rights and interests of citizens.  

Scope of the word ‘discrimination’

Discrimination occurs when you are distinguished or treated in a less favourable manner than another person under similar circumstances, or if you are disadvantaged by being placed on equal footing with another under different circumstances, for example, because you are disabled or pregnant. This action cannot be reasonably and objectively justified.

Article 15 restricts discrimination on the grounds of:

• Religion – It means that a state or any group cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of religion from accessing any public place or policy.
• Race – A person should not be discriminated against on the basis of his/her ethnic origin. For example, a citizen of Afghan origin should not be discriminated against by those of Indian origin.
• Caste – It prohibits the discrimination on the basis of caste. Generally, it is to prevent atrocities committed by the upper caste.
• Sex – No individual should be discriminated against on the basis of their gender. For example, discriminating against females, transgenders, etc.
• Place of birth – The place where an individual is born should not become a reason for discrimination.

Often, the word ‘Discrimination’ is perceived to be contrary to the principles of equality. Individuals tend to confuse discrimination with a breach of equality. Can something that is disadvantageous and against the general classification of the individual be taken as discrimination? The answer remains ‘NO’. The Supreme Court has observed in the following cases that every classification does not constitute discrimination in the first place. 

In the case of Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra (1952) , special courts under the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance 1949 were set up by the state of Saurashtra to adjudicate on the matters of Section 302 , Section 307 and S ection 392 read with S ection 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The contention brought before the court was that these provisions are discriminatory for the residents depending upon the territory.

The court stated that all kinds of legislative differentiation are not discriminatory. The legislation did not refer to certain individual cases but to offences of certain kinds committed in certain areas, and hence it is not discrimination.

In another significant case of John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003 ) , the petitioners were prevented from bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes by the Indian Succession Act 1925 . The petitioner contended it to be discriminatory against the testamentary dispositions by a Christian.

The Supreme Court stated that the Act was to prevent people from making injudicious death-bed bequests under religious influence but had a great impact on a person desiring to dispose of his property upon his death. Hence, the legislation is clearly discriminatory, as the properties of any Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain or Parsi were excluded from the provisions of the Act. Further, the respondents could not provide any acceptable reasoning as to show why the provision regulates religious and charitable bequests of Christians alone.

When the concept that a reasonable classification can never amount to discrimination is clear, we suddenly get stuck by the idea of reservation. Is it not discriminatory to differentiate between two candidates who are appearing for the same post or exam with the same qualifications? What allows provisions for such differentiation to be made?

Overview of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

In India, Article 15 protects citizens from racism, untouchability, and various forms of discrimination based on religion and gender. In India, caste discrimination is the type of discrimination that is most prevalent. Discrimination and untouchability are a result of caste division. Untouchability is now an offence in India; however, in some areas due to a lack of legal awareness and caste beliefs, people still face untouchability. It is assumed that those born in lower castes are considered lower than those born in higher castes, and this leads to discrimination against them. Such discrimination is described as an offence in Article 15 and those found guilty of the offence are punished. In order to facilitate the economic advancement of the socially and economically backward sections of India’s citizens, the Constitution of India provides reservations to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. 

Interestingly, in 2019, the Central Government introduced the 124th Constitution Amendment Bill (2019) in Parliament in order to provide reservations to economically weaker sections (EWS). The bill was intended to provide a 10% reservation in higher education and government employment to EWS. Consequently, the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed and thus, Article 15 was amended to include clause (6). This was done to provide equal opportunity to EWS, as they had been disadvantaged economically and socially due to pre-independence discrimination and difficulties. 

Besides discrimination on the basis of backwardness, Article 15 also addresses gender-based discrimination. For a long time, women have been fighting for their rights and opportunities, and slowly, these provisions are gaining recognition despite the fact they have existed since the 1950s. Thus, the scope of this article extends to women too, which provides them with special protection in order to achieve the aforementioned objective of equal rights. 

Clause 1 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

As stated in Article 15(1) , there shall be no discrimination against any citizen of India on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth.  Despite the fact that castes are divided into scheduled castes/tribes, backward classes, no one should be discriminated against. As a broad term, discrimination has many aspects, and it is unjust. People of lower castes, like Dalits have been the target of unjust treatment in numerous instances. Based on the survey by the Hindu, there has been an increase of 6% in unfavourable bias towards Dalits since 2009. 

There are laws to protect them, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , but still, cruelty occurs towards the SCs/STs in certain parts of the country. In some situations, the lower caste people face many troubles, such as women being raped and people being killed as a result of protests and caste-related conflicts. In September 2020, a gang rape case took place in Hathras, a district in Uttar Pradesh, in which a 19-year-old Dalit girl was raped ( Satayama Dubey & Ors v. Union of India, 2020 ). 

Additionally, Dalits are also often targeted for atrocities for no apparent reason. For example, there was a case where the houses of 18 Dalits were set on fire in April 2010. The incident occurred because of a dog barking at a higher-class man. Several laws have been passed over the years to protect the rights of people, but discrimination still exists. One of the major reasons for this can be a lack of appropriate punishments and an inability of people to adapt. Only when people agree completely with what is enacted in law will we be able to end discrimination against them.  

The scope of this clause is very wide. It is levelled against any State action in relation to the citizens’ rights, be it political, civil or otherwise. The prohibition of discrimination on grounds such as religion or caste identities does not deny the pluralism of Indian culture but rather preserves it.

Article 15(1) ensures that religion shall not be the ground for any disqualification or discrimination in any public matter. In State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh (1960) , an order under Section 15 of the Police Act 1861 was under question, which declared certain areas as ‘disturbed areas’ and made the inhabitants of those areas bear the cost of posting additional police. It was held that the provision violates Article 15(1) insofar as it exempts the ‘Harijan’ and ‘Muslim’ inhabitants of those areas from such liability, without assigning any reason for the exemption. 

In Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) , the Apex court upheld the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 , holding that the liability of the husband to provide “reasonable and fair provision and maintenance” under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act is not limited to the exact period. If it is permitted to be so limited, then the Act would violate Article 15 as it excludes the Muslim women alone on the basis of their religion from getting maintenance in reasonable provision from their divorced husband. 

Due to the vast geographical diversity in India from north to south and from east to west, certain regions of the country face discrimination based on their race or ethnicity. The first step towards abolishing racial discrimination was taken by the passing of the Criminal Law (Removal of Racial Discrimination) Act 1949 on the eve of the commencement of the Constitution. By this Act, the privileges which were enjoyed by the Europeans and Americans under the British regime, relating to matters of criminal law and procedure, were taken away. 

In Sanghar Umar Ramval v. State of Saurashtra (1952) , a law of Saurashtra was under consideration which restricted the movement of certain communities by insisting on their reporting to the police daily. It was held to be invalid because it was a discrimination based on race. 

The word ‘caste’ is not an indigenous Indian term. It comes from the Portuguese word ‘casta’ which has various meanings. In the Indian context, it may be taken to mean a ‘Jati’ i.e., a group having a common name, common origin, hereditary membership and which is linked to one or more traditional occupations. It imposes certain obligations and restrictions on its members in matters of social intercourse and demonstrates having a more or less determinate position in a hierarchical scale of ranks. In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) , it was held that ‘caste’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘class’ and it can be called one of the basic units in the social stratification. 

In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) , it was held that where the persons in whose favour a discrimination is made as to belonging to the backward classes under clause 4 of Article 15, the discrimination will be void if it is solely based on caste consideration and not on economic or social backwardness. Moreover, in Rajendran v. State of Madras (1968) , it was held that if the members of the caste as a whole were socially and educationally backward, then the reservation in favour of a caste under Article 15(4) would not be unconstitutional. 

Gender 

The Article guarantees that the State shall not discriminate between citizens only on the grounds of sex while simultaneously retaining an exception in Article 15(3) to enable the State to make ‘special provisions’ for women. It is important to note that neither a male nor a female can be discriminated against, as per the general law under Article 15(1). In the case of Rani Raj Rajeshwari v. State of UP (1954) , a provision under the UP Courts of Wards Act (1879) was under question wherein, a male proprietor could be declared incapable of managing the property on five grounds mentioned therein. Moreover, he was also given an opportunity of showing cause as to why such a declaration should not be made, while a female proprietor could be declared incapable of managing her property on any ground, and there was no opportunity to even show cause. This provision was held to be discriminatory.  

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018 ) , Justice DY Chandrachud noted that Article 15 prohibits discrimination, direct as well as indirect, which is founded on a stereotypical understanding of the role of sex. It was observed that the usage of the word ‘sex’ in Article 15(1) encapsulates stereotypes that are based on gender. It was observed that sexual orientation is also covered within the meaning of ‘sex’ in Article 15(1) because (i) non-heterosexual relationships question the male-female binary and gendered roles that are attached to them; and (ii) discrimination based on sexual orientation indirectly discriminates based on gender stereotypes, which are prohibited by Article 15. Therefore, a law that directly or indirectly discriminates against an individual based on sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. It was also pointed out that the common thread that runs through the grounds mentioned in Article 15 is that they impact the personal autonomy of an individual. 

Place of birth 

This ground in effect declares ‘provincialism’ to be unlawful. It says that in no public matter, there can be discrimination by any authority against a citizen of India on grounds of his birth in any particular part of India. In State v. Husein (1951) , Section 27(2A) of The Bombay Police Act (1951) was held to be violative of Article 15(1) and thus void on the ground that it discriminates between persons born in Greater Bombay and those born outside Greater Bombay.

Clause 2 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Under Article 15(2) , it is prohibited for an Indian citizen to discriminate against another Indian citizen on the grounds outlined in Clause (1). Article 15(2)(a) provides that citizens should not be prevented from accessing public places, such as shops, restaurants, hotels or any other place which is open to the general public solely because of their religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or any other similar basis. 

Article 15(2)(b) states that no individual can restrict another individual on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth from using septic tanks, wells, roads, or any other public facility maintained by the state funds or specifically designated for public use. This provision explains how discrimination should be prevented instead of being practiced. Any discrimination mentioned above shall be prohibited and unlawful. It is illegal and unjust to restrict or prevent access to a public place established by the state exclusively for public use.  

Clause (2) of the present Article is levelled not only against the State but also against the private individuals who may be in control of the public places mentioned in the clause. It is worth noting that Article 15(2) is not self-executing, i.e., the provision will remain nugatory unless legislation is made in order to make it operative. Importantly, the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 has made a violation of Article 15(2) punishable only if exclusion from such places by a private individual is committed on the ground of untouchability. Thus, it is unknown what will happen if a citizen is excluded on the grounds of his race, caste or sex from using a well dedicated to the public by another private person. Moreover, an action under Article 32 is also difficult to succeed because the Apex Court has held that remedy is only against State action and not against private individuals.  

Clause 3 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Article 15(3) provides that the state may continue to make laws that provide special provisions for women and children. In Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954) , an adultery charge was filed against the appellant under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this case, the main issue was to determine whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is in contradiction with Articles 14 and 15 or not. This case presented the argument that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dictates that adultery can only be committed by men and that women cannot even be punished as abettors. As a result of this argument, there was a contradiction with regard to whether this was in violation of Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on gender. However, it was further stated that Clause (3) of Article 15 clearly states that nothing contained in Article 15 limits the state’s ability to make special provisions for women and children.

Additionally, it was argued that Article 15(3) should not shield women from the threat or commission of crimes. Additionally, in this case, the appellant was not even a citizen of India. Thus, the appellant, in this case, could not invoke Articles 14 and 15 because the fundamental rights can only be granted to Indian citizens. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. 

Further, in Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) , the petitioner was elected as a Panch for a seat that was reserved exclusively for the women of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent number 5 as Sarpanch, on the grounds that she was not eligible to contest for the elections of Sarpanch which were reserved for the SCs and not SCs (women), because the respondent was elected as Panch for Gram Panchayat only against the reserved seat for SCs (women). It was ruled that, if the seat of the Sarpanch for a village was reserved for Scheduled Castes, then both men and women belonging to those categories could stand for election for the Sarpanch’s post because the eligibility was basically being a Scheduled Caste and representing the constituency as Panch. 

This clause is in the nature of an exception to clause (1) and provides that notwithstanding clause (1), it would be permissible for the State to make “special provision for women and children”. This exception is not confined to beneficial provisions only and any special provision that the State considers necessary in the interest of women, whatever its nature may be, would be valid under this clause. Thus, Article 15(3) can be considered a charter for affirmative action in favour of women and children. 

In Govt. of A.P. v. P.B. Vijaykumar (1995) , it was held that Article 15(3) also sustains reservation for women because it is a special provision to support women with a view of promoting equalisation of their status. In this case, a provision relating to the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rule, 1996 was under question which provided that in cases where women and men are equally suited, preference is to be given to the women, ‘other things being equal’ in order to select for direct recruitment to an extent of at least 30% of certain specified posts. 

In V ijay Lakshmi v. Punjab University (2003) , the reservation of posts for women in women’s colleges and hostels was held valid. 

National Commission for Women – By the National Commission for Women Act 1990 , the Indian Government has set up a Commission to examine and report on “all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws”, including suggestions for improving the existing safeguards. 

Special provision for Women and Children 

The thought of this legislation being carte blanche (complete freedom to act as one wishes) to impose differential benefits ostensibly to the advantage of women at the cost of burdening men may ponder in your mind. But it is justified as it compensates for the early injustice met by women and children at the hands of a male-dominated society. Right to free and compulsory education for children under the age of 14 years, Section 56 of the CPC 1908 , the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017 , etc. are some of the best examples of such provisions.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005 ) , the U.P. government made provision for providing a reservation BTC training programme as follows:

• 50% of the candidates to be selected shall be from the Science stream,
• 50% from the Arts stream,
• further 50% would be female candidates,
• And the other 50% would be male candidates.

This reservation format was contended to be arbitrary and violative of Article 15. The Apex Court held that the reservation format introduced was not warranted by the provisions of the Indian Constitution, being over and above the constitutional reservations in favour of backward classes.

Whereas in Union of India v. K.P. Prabhakaran (1997) , the railway administration took the decision to appoint enquiry cum reservation clerks in four metropolitan cities, i.e., Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Chennai. The decision stated that the post would be held by women only. The court rejected the contention of the government, urging that this provision is protected under Article 15(3) . It said that Article 15(3) cannot be read as a provision or as an exception to what is guaranteed under Article 16(1)(2) .

These cases clearly explain the applicability of the phrase ‘Special provisions for women and children’ in matters ranging from reservation to education and employability. But what if there are laws that differentiate or prefer women over men? Can it be called discrimination?  

In the case of Girdhar v. State (1953 ), the petitioner was convicted under Sections 342 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claimed that, as there are no provisions relating to assault against men with the intention to outrage his modesty, providing such laws for women is discriminatory. Section 354 is contrary to Article 15(1) . The petition was dismissed, stating that the law was in consonance with Article 15(3) .  

In Choki v. The State of Rajasthan (1957 ) , Mt. Choki and her husband conspired and murdered their child, the application for bail was presented on the plea that she was an imprisoned woman, with no one to look after her young son. The judge rejected the application saying that there were no extenuating circumstances and the Constitution has no provisions under which leniency could be shown to women on account of their sex. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court.

It was held that Article 15(3) talks about special provisions for women and children. And under the light of this provision, Mt. Choki was granted bail as she was a woman and there is a young child dependent on her; thus, it became necessary for the state to protect the rights of the child.

Women and sexual harassment under Clause 3 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Clause 3 of Article 15 also allows the government to frame special laws regarding the protection of women and the abolition of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of equality guaranteed under Article 14(2) and Article 15(3). The sexual harassment of women that had become a frequent story of everyday newspapers was dealt with by the Supreme court in the famous Vishaka & Ors v. State Of Rajasthan (1997) and this case led to the formulation of what we call as the Vishakha guidelines.

Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 or  Article 29(2) prevents the state from creating special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or the STs/SCs. There were two major instances that motivated the inclusion of such a clause in Article 15. First, in the State Of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951) , it was the government of Madras that issued an order setting out how seats would be allocated in medical and engineering colleges based on a student’s community and caste. Upon examination, it was determined that the order violated Clause (1) of Article 15 which stated that seats were allotted based on castes of students and not merit. The seven-judge bench then overturned this order that allotted seats based on caste and not merit. 

Secondly, in Jagwant Kaur v. State of Maharashtra (1952) , the construction of a colony solely for Harijans was considered to be violative of Article 15(1). Clause (4) under Article 15 was thus introduced for the purpose of helping the socially and educationally disadvantaged citizens without violating any other provisions. 

Furthermore, Article 29(2) [which is also mentioned under Article 15(4)] indicates that no citizen of India is discriminated against when applying for admission to a state-run educational institution or receiving financial aid out of state funds based on their religion, caste, race, or language. Therefore, Article 15(4) is not an exception but rather a special provision for socio-economically and educationally backward sections of society.  

It was held by the Supreme Court in A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1971) that classifying socially and educationally backward classes on the basis of caste was in violation of Article 15(4). According to the Court, it was, however, necessary for the conditions of such a class of people to change, as that was the main reason for providing them with a reservation. In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) , the Mysore Government issued an order and decided to provide 68% reservation for students belonging to backward classes for their admissions in medical and engineering colleges. The government left only 32% of reservations for students getting admission on merit. Because of this reservation, students with higher marks than those in the reserved category failed to obtain a seat. In the opinion of the Court, the categorisation of backward and even more backward classes was not justified under Article 15(4). In order to be considered ‘backward’, both socially and educationally backward can be included. Clause (4) of Article 15 does not talk about caste but class. Additionally, the Court stated that reserving 68% of seats in medical and engineering schools would constitute constitutional fraud, as Clause (4) of Article 15 prohibits exclusive provisions for backward classes. Therefore, reservations could not exceed 50%. 

The Supreme Court in State of AP v. USV Balaram (1972) held that caste should not be a determining factor in whether a person belongs to a backward class. The backward class shall be defined as an entire caste that is both socially and academically backward. Further, the Supreme Court stated that in the event a backward class improves educationally and socially to such an extent that it no longer requires special aid from the state, the list of backward classes will automatically be updated.

In the State of UP v. Pradeep Tandon (1974) , the Apex Court held that providing reserved seats to students who live in rural areas was unconstitutional. It cannot be justified under Clause (4) of Article 15. In this case, the state of Uttar Pradesh was providing reservations in medical colleges to students from rural areas, hilly regions, and students from Uttarakhand. According to the Supreme Court, reservations for students from hill regions and Uttarakhand were valid since the people from these areas are socially and educationally backwards due to a lack of awareness and inadequate facilities for education. The Court stated that the rural area does not represent a backward social or educational status, and poverty does not equate to backwardness in rural areas.   

Clause (4) provides for ‘special  provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes’. Article 15(4) was inserted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act in the year 1951. The amendment was introduced in order to enable the government to make special provisions for backward classes. The special provision may be by way of reservation of seats in public educational institutions. This amendment brings Article 15 and Article 29 in line with Articles 16(4) , 46 and 340 . 

This clause strengthens the concept of promoting the socio-economic empowerment of the disadvantaged. Social equality is realised through the facilities and opportunities given to them to live with dignity and equal status in society. Economic equality also gives empowerment as a measure to improve excellence in every walk of life. This being the objective, what is required to be kept in mind while adjudging the constitutionality of the scheme/rule of reservation is the equality and adequacy of representations as per the percentage prescribed by the rules or administrative instructions. 

Clause 5 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Article 15(5) states that nothing in Article 15 or Article 19(1)(g) prevents the government from making special legal provisions to improve the lives of socially and educationally backward citizens, as well as those from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In some cases, special provisions may apply to the admission of backward classes, SCs, and STs in educational institutions, either private or public, with or without state funding, except for those minorities identified in Article 30(1) . Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, every citizen of the country is free to follow any profession, trade, business, or occupation of their choice. There is a provision in Article 30 that expresses the right of every minority in India to establish and administer schools of their choice, regardless of whether the minority is religious or linguistic. The Supreme Court decided that Article 15, Clause 5, did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.  Indian citizens are guaranteed equality before the law and equal protection within the territory of the country under Article 14.

This clause was inserted by virtue of the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act 2005 . The constitutionality of this amendment was challenged in the Ashok Kumar Thakur case (supra), and the Apex Court upheld the amendment so far as it relates to the State maintained institution and aided educational institutions. It was further declared that backward classes falling under the “creamy layer” would not benefit under the amendment, and the state was directed to remove the “creamy layer” backward classes from the ambit of Article 15(5). 

It was also observed that the classification on the basis of caste in the long run has the tendency of inherently becoming pernicious, and hence the test of reasonableness has to be applied. It was held that when the object is the elimination of castes and a society free from discrimination based on caste, judicial review within permissible limits can’t be ruled out.   

Clause 6 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution 

In 2019, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act , which inserted Clause 6 in Article 15, enabling the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any economically weaker section of citizens, including reservations in educational institutions. It states that such reservations can be made in any educational institution, including both aided and unaided private institutions, except minority educational institutions covered under Article 30(1) . It further states that the upper limit of EWS reservations will be 10%.

In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) , the Supreme Court, with a 3-2 majority, upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing EWS reservation. With this, the Court extended the net of reservation benefits to include solely economic backwardness. 

Affirmative action 

“Affirmative Action” is a phrase that refers to attempts to bring members of underrepresented groups, usually groups that have suffered discrimination, into a higher degree of participation in some beneficial programme. Affirmative action includes some kind of preferential treatment. Another term often associated with affirmative action is “reverse discrimination” which means “a difference in treatment that reverses the pattern of earlier discrimination”. 

The principle of affirmative action, also called reverse discrimination, was established and general guidance is provided in Article 46 of the Indian Constitution under Chapter IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) . Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker section of the people with special care, in particular the SC and ST. Moreover, it directs the state to protect them from social injustice and all kinds of exploitation. 

The ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Champakam Dorairajan case (supra) as discussed above, was reversed by the Constitutional First Amendment of 1951. Regarding ‘affirmative action’, it was held in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) that, among others, the concept of equality before the law contemplates minimizing inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people, securing adequate means of livelihood for its citizens and ensuring the constitutional direction as given in Article 46. Thus, to bring about equality among the unequal, it is necessary to adopt positive measures to abolish inequality. The equalising measures will have to be the same tools by which inequality was introduced and perpetuated. Otherwise, equalisation will not be for the unequal. It was further held that the very concept of equality implies recourse to valid classification for preferences in favour of the disadvantaged classes of citizens to improve their condition, so as to enable them to raise themselves to positions of equality with the more fortunate classes of citizens.  

Reservation

On research, we find that Article 15 Clauses (3), (4), and (5) themselves stand as an exception to Article 15 Clauses (1) and (2). Article 15 Clauses (3), (4), and (5) state that the legislature is free to formulate special provisions:

• For women and children,
• For the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
• Make provision relating to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions.

Though being the exception to the legislation that forbids discrimination on grounds of sex and caste, this does not come under discrimination. Rather, the term ‘Protective Discrimination’ (also known as Positive Discrimination) is used by the legislators to justify reservation and is defined as the policy of providing an equal platform to the underprivileged and suppressed classes and to lift their status in the society. This system of reservation works on the principles of intelligible differentia (difference capable of being understood). 

You might think that, though this theory helps resolve problems of social inequality, what about the sensitive jobs requiring a greater skill set (the medical field, the army, etc.)? Should reservations be allowed in those sectors? Isn’t it wise to keep such fields outside the scope of reservation?

Reservation in Medical Colleges

The thought of not allowing reservations in certain sensitive areas of practice would cause the sector to be monopolized by the privileged classes. Reasoning doesn’t stand on the factor of skills, it stands on the factor of circumstances.

Let us take an example, imagine Ramu is a boy of the underprivileged class whose ancestors and parents have been deprived of education due to discrimination from the upper classes. Ramu has no one in the family to guide him, even then he appeared in medical exams; whereas another boy Vicky, belonging to the upper class, has parents who are well qualified and have been in elite professions. Vicky was constantly guided and mentored by his parents and he also appeared in the exam. Even in such a hypothetical story, our conscience explains that there must be some provisions to place Ramu on equal footing with Vicky to allow him to compete fairly. 

In Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar (2019) , the issue was raised regarding the permissibility of providing reservation under Article 15(4) in postgraduate medical courses. The contentions raised by the appellant were that Article 15(4) neither speaks nor permits reservation in educational institutions. While certain preferences and concessions can be given, reservation of seats is beyond the limits of clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The appeal was rejected by the court as special provisions also include reservation provisions and not just preferences and concessions.

On the basis of domicile

After we comprehend the above provisions, the concept of reservation might seem fairer but reservation on the basis of domicile still remains as a pricking concept. What allows the state to formulate laws that differentiate individuals on the basis of domicile, and what needful purpose does this kind of reservation serve?

As we find out, in India the preferential policy is of two types: 

• The first is to impart special benefits to the socially and educationally backward classes, scheduled classes and scheduled tribes.
• The second is to provide special benefits to the local ethical groups of the state against the migrants from the other states.

This provision does not count as discrimination under the purview of Article 15 as reservation on the basis of domicile is not one of the grounds of Article 15. Article 15 defines “place of birth” as a ground of discrimination but reservations based on domicile generally fall under “place of residence” which is outside the bounds of “place of birth”. The place of birth and place of residence can be different for a single individual.

Reservation within Reservation

The concept of reservation within the reservation is a condition where reservation is provided to a particular class which is already under a reservation category. For example, A man belonging to a particular community of Schedule castes is entitled to reservation for SCs but what if the community that he dwells from is more underprivileged as compared to the other communities of the SCs category?

Is it justified to make them stand on par with others? Thus the concept of reservation within reservation emerged to uplift those underprivileged communities of the reserved categories. Current examples of such reservations are the Maratha reservation in Maharashtra which already falls under the OBC reservation in Maharashtra, the Jat reservation demands in Haryana, and the 7% reservation of Madiga community under SCs reservation .

Area-wise reservation : Article 371

There are also some special provisions for specific states. There are certain articles in the Constitution of India which provide for special state provisions and allow for the formulation of the area-wise reservation to provide opportunities and facilities for the local people of the state in the matters of public employment and education, and different provisions might be for different parts of the state.

The following table mentions Articles of the Constitution which favour for ‘special provisions’ for different states:

Special provision for the advancement of backward class : Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution

Coming onto the next clause, i.e. Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. It allows the state to enact laws and provisions relating to the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

Is Article 15(4) a Fundamental Right

There is no doubt that Article 15(4) belongs to Part III of the Constitution, which contains fundamental rights. However, all of the provisions in Part III do not constitute a fundamental right. Some provisions are merely descriptive and the other provisions are concerned with the effects of fundamental rights on the existing or future laws. There are also provisions for enforcement and implementation of the fundamental rights, in addition to those that provide exceptions to the fundamental rights. It is because of this variety of provisions that the validity of Article 15(4) continues to be questioned. This article falls under the ‘Right to Equality’ which consists of five Articles, i.e., Articles 14 to 18. 

In Article 14, the state cannot deny equality to anyone or deny them equal protection of the law. On the other hand, all Indian citizens have equal access to public sector employment under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. Article 16(1) of the Constitution states that all citizens shall be given equal opportunity to be employed or appointed to any office under the state. It only applies to employment and offices held by the government. State officials may still determine the requirements for the recruitment of government employees. Under Article 17 , untouchability is outlawed and punitive measures are imposed. According to Article 18 , titles are abolished, and their conferral and acceptance by individuals are prohibited. 

On a plain reading of Article 15, one is almost certain to conclude that paragraph (4) constitutes an exception to all the other provisions of that article as well as to paragraph (2) of Article 29. As a result, Article 15(4) permits what Article 29(2) prohibits. As such, Article 15 pertains to the right to equality. This right, when viewed within the context of Article 14, is not the right to uniform or identical treatment. A person has the right to be treated equally with others.  In order to determine if such discriminatory practices are compatible with the right to equality, different tests have been devised and used from time to time, such as the reasonable classification, suspicious classification, or classification that lies between the two. It appears that they have not always been able to offer adequate explanations, particularly when it comes to affirmative action or positive discrimination. 

Ronald Dworkin has provided an all-inclusive and satisfactory test in this regard in his differentiation between the right to equal treatment and the right to be treated as equal. He believes that the latter right is a fundamental right, whereas the former is merely a derivative right. Equal treatment implies equal respect and concern, while equal treatment means essentially the same treatment for all. But a right to equal treatment is neither feasible nor compatible with identical treatment. An equal concern is therefore essential to the right to equality. Insofar as that concern exists, differences in treatment are appropriate and correspond to a right to equality.

There are some instances when different treatment is compatible with the right to equality. It is only the differences in treatment that are based on differences in concern that violate this right. So, for example, separate treatment on the basis of race, religion, or caste is not inherently unethical as long as respect or concern is shown to everyone regardless of race, religion, or caste. The only time it becomes bad is when it is based on disrespect, contempt or prejudice towards a race, religion or caste. Article 15 prohibits only these kinds of treatment and not every kind of difference of treatment based on the location of birth, race, or caste. Likewise, the article explicitly mentions ‘discriminate against’. Regardless of their religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, the state may treat them differently, but it may not discriminate against them in these ways. Discrimination is only committed when a person’s religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth is used as a basis for disrespect, contempt, or prejudice because of a difference in treatment. The difference between treatment on any of these grounds, if not based on disrespect, contempt, or discrimination, will not be discriminatory and, therefore, will not be prohibited by Article 15(1). This rule also applies to Article 29(2).

Therefore, Articles 15(1) and 29(2) prohibit discrimination, prejudicial or condescending treatment based on the grounds mentioned therein. There are special provisions in Article 15(4) of the Constitution regarding the advancement of socially and educationally backward groups or of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A provision intended to advance any socially and educationally backward class, or to advance SCs and STs, cannot be defined in terms of prejudice, contempt, or insult towards any forward-looking group. 

Therefore, Article 15(4) has a distinct scope and function from Articles 15(1) and 29(2). In no way does it overlap with them or diverge from them. Article 15(4), like Articles 15(1) and 29(2), is intended to ensure or promote equality. It is only the latter that prohibits the state from making discriminatory decisions, while the former requires the state to take appropriate steps to eliminate such discrimination. As a result, the Constitution-makers not only envision equity to be achieved by judicial interpretation, but they have also provided a way to achieve it by virtue of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 15(4) is equally recognised as a fundamental right. The interpretation of Article 15(4) in relation to Articles 15(1) and 29(2) emphasizes that one does not have to rely on the technicalities, including the non-obstante clause, to justify its existence.

The Amendment

The Mandal Commission Report allowed half of the seats in educational and service matters to Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and OBCs, who together constituted around 70% of the total Indian population. This was followed by the judgement given by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). As a result of this move, their status improved significantly. 

Consequently, it became incumbent upon the legislature to devise policies to improve the economic situation of those belonging to the ‘other category’. Due to this, the legislature passed the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 to give economic backward sections a 10% reservation (as discussed above) in educational and employment institutions in the general category. This amendment inserted Clause (6) to Article 15 and Clause (6) to Article 16 of the Constitution.

The Amendment Act was accused of violating the Indian Constitution’s basic structure. However, it should be noted that all Constitutional provisions are essential, but all of them do not hold the same value. A constitutional amendment may be made so long as it does not alter the basic structure and foundation of the Constitution. In 1973, the term basic structure was first used in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) , when it was stated as follows:

It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?

Only in 1973 was the concept incorporated in the text of the Supreme Court’s decision. Again, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) , Justice Sikri described the basics of the Constitution and its structure. Thereafter, several courts examined and worked out this issue in several cases including Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) , Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) , etc. 

All constitutional amendments since the Kesavananda Bharati case have been tested against this principle and those which adversely affect or destroy the wider principles of the Constitution such as democracy, secularism, equality, or republicanism or alter the Constitution’s identity were considered as bad. The M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) case established a twin test which included the width test and the identity test. These tests must be satisfied in order to determine whether an amendment is valid or not. Essentially, the width test sought to determine the impact an amendment would have on the Constitution and, indirectly, on its core principles. Accordingly, the scope of effect determined the legitimate scope/width of the amendment power, and it also contemplated all of the ramifications of the amendment process to determine if the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution was threatened. However, the identity test asked whether the Constitution’s identity would remain the same after the amendment.

The Government’s viewpoint

According to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the act was a landmark event in the history of the nation and a potent measure that ensures justice for all sections of society. Mr Arun Jaitley (Ex-Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs) explained the reasoning for the 10% quota and said that if two individuals have different backgrounds due to their birth or economic circumstances, they, therefore, could not be treated equally. Unequals cannot be treated equally, he claimed . Moreover, he stated that the Supreme Court’s reservation cap of 50% applied only to caste-based reservations, while the Economically Weaker Section reservation was not affected by it.

According to Thaawarchand Gehlot (Ex-Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister), similar state laws for the reservation of economically weaker sections of the community were quashed by the courts since the Constitution did not include the concept of economic reservation. Now that the law has been brought into the Constitution by making necessary provisions, the same could not be struck down by the Supreme Court if challenged.

• Socially and educationally backward classes

The phrase “socially and educationally backward classes” under Article 15(4)   refers to underprivileged classes of people who have faced discrimination and prejudice from the privileged class. This category includes the class of people who belong to backward classes in society but are not covered under SCs or STs. OBCs have been included under this phrase of socially and educationally backward classes as a category for reservation.

• The limit of reservation

The Supreme Court of India has put up a ceiling limit to the total percentage of  reservations that can be provided by the government in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1993) . In this case, 27% reservation for the ‘Other Backward Classes’ was introduced. The Supreme Court of India put up a limit of 50% as the total percentage of reservations as it was reasoned that allowing the limit to exceed would deprive others of their right to equality. The Apex Court also provided guidelines for exceeding the limit of reservation under extraordinary situations.

• Reservation of more than fifty per cent 

There is an upper limit of 50% on the total reservation, but as it was allowed to exceed under extraordinary circumstances. There are 4 states which have breached that limit of 50%:

• Tamil Nadu has 69% reservation with 50% reservation for OBCs;
• Maharashtra has 52%;
• Telangana has 62%;
• Haryana has 67%;

It is done under the extraordinary need for upliftment of certain backward classes.

Recent same-sex marriage judgement 

In the recent case of Supriyo@Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023) , t he petitioners sought that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , which provides for a civil marriage of couples who cannot marry under their personal laws, should be interpreted as gender-neutral so that the same-sex couples can be allowed to marry under it. They argued that the 1954 Act violated Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 by not allowing a marriage between the same-sex or LBGTQIA+ couples, and sought the words “husband” and “wife” as well as other gender-specific terms to be substituted by the word “party” or “spouse”. 

The case was heard by a constitutional bench wherein all the five judges accepted that the time has come to end discrimination against the same-sex couples, however, they could not reach a consensus for giving the queer couples the status of a legally recognised “civil union”. The majority of three judges held that any legal status for such a union can only be facilitated through a law enacted by the Legislature itself. 

Referring to the rights of LGBTQ+ persons, the rights unequivocally recognised by the Court are the right to gender identity, sexual orientation, the right to choose a partner, cohabit and to enjoy physical and mental intimacy. However, there is no unqualified right to marriage guaranteed by the Constitution, that qualifies it as a fundamental freedom.

Interestingly, CJI DY Chandrachud, while referring to Article 15 in this judgement pointed out that Article 15 identifies the grounds on the basis of which a person shall not be discriminated against, and those grounds are markers of an individual’s identity. He further said that these identities must be read in their historical as well as social context instead of reading them through the narrow lens of ascription. Nevertheless, the marriage rights of the queer persons could be consented upon by the judges.  

Interplay of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution

The three Articles together form part of the same constitutional guarantee of equality and thus, supplement each other. While Article 14 is available to all persons, Article 15 is available to citizens only. Moreover, Article 14 guarantees the general right of equality, while Article 15 and Article 16 are instances of the same right in favour of citizens in some special circumstances. 

Further, Article 15 is more general in terms than Article 16, the latter being confined to matters relating to employment or appointment to an office under the State. It is also worth noting that Article 16 mentions ‘descent’ and ‘residence’ as additional prohibited grounds of discrimination. 

Importantly, Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law would by itself, without any provision in the Constitution, be enough to validate equalising measures. However, to bring about equality among the unequal, it is necessary to adopt positive measures to abolish inequality. The Founders of the Constitution thought it advisable to incorporate other provisions to provide for the amelioration of all aspects of the problem. In Sourabh Choudri v. Union of India (2005) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 is the genus in the sense that Articles 15 and 16 provide for an exception to the equality clause.  

Article 15 has always hurdled its way in reaching out to the ones really in need. The condition of the downtrodden has greatly improved since its inception in 1949. It provides a base for each and everything that the legislature needs to formulate provisions to promote harmony in the society. There is an extreme decline in the number of cases of atrocities against the underprivileged classes.  Article 15 truly is the guardian of the downtrodden and a shield against discrimination, it has helped the Indian society to stand tall and proud despite such a huge diversity and all kinds of sexism, racism and rigid caste system and will continue to contribute to India’s unity and equality, forever.

It is important to note that Article 15 is very broad and states that there shall be no discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth in any case. The term discrimination encompasses a wide range of issues and people have been discriminated against in many different ways throughout history. This article is intended to provide equal opportunities for citizens for the protection of their rights. Article 15 primarily seeks to ensure the social, economic, and educational advancement of the economically, socially, and educationally backward classes. 

As a result of the existence of Article 15, the reservation has been the subject of the most significant disputes. There are a number of forms of reservation available to the weaker sections of society that cause distress to the general group of people. Reservations are not intended to divide the population into general and reserved categories, but rather to assist the disadvantaged populations of the country. Even during the colonial era and afterwards, untouchability and discrimination were very common in the early centuries preceding British colonialism. The introduction of laws intended to protect the disadvantaged class has, however, resulted in some reduction in inequality. While one cannot say that there has been a complete removal of discrimination, it is reduced. Equality is mentioned in India’s Constitution’s preamble. In Article 15, the term is to be implemented widely throughout the Indian subcontinent.

References:

• Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Volume 3, 9th ed. 
• https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/marriage-equality-case-conclusions-directions-of-supreme-court-judgments-240529  

Students of  Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Nawab khwaja muhammad khan vs. nawab husaini begum (1910), state of kerala & ors. vs. m/s mar appraem kuri company ltd. & anr. (2012), brijendra singh vs. state of m.p. and anr. (2008)   , leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

3-Day Bootcamp (LIVE only) on

How you can use labour law skills to go from HR manager to business leader

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution Explained

The Constitution of India consists of numerous fundamental rights available to citizens and some to non-citizens as well. One of them is the right to equality which is provided under Articles 14-18 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 contains the general principles of equality before the law. And Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18 include the detailed application of the general rules given under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

This law note discusses Article 15 of the Indian Constitution in detail. It is related to the prohibition of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, etc. The provisions under Article 15 is available only to the citizens and not to the non-citizens.

• Article 15(1)
• Article 15(2)
• Article 15(3)
• Article 15(4)
• Article 15(5)
• Article 15(6)

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India says that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of only religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth or any of them. Article 15(2) further provides that the citizens, as well as the states, should not make such discrimination concerning access to shops, hotels, etc. and also to all places of public entertainment, wells, tanks, and more.

Article 15(3) and 15(4) are the restrictions to the provisions given under Article 15(1) and (2) of the Indian Constitution. Article 15(5) and 15(6) provide provisions related to the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and weaker sections of the society as well.

Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution

Clause (1) of Article 15 prohibits the State from discriminating between the citizens of India on any of the following grounds: (a) religion, (b) race, (c) caste, (d) sex, (e) place of birth.

The word discrimination  here means to make an adverse or unfavourable distinction between the persons.

In Nain Sukh Das vs State of UP (1953) , the Court held unconstitutional a law that provided elections based on separate electorates for members of different religious communities.

Furthermore, the word only  in clause (1) of Article 15 indicates that the prohibition is imposed for the discrimination merely on the particular grounds that are caste, sex, religion, place of birth, race. In other words, discrimination on grounds other than given under Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution is not prohibited.

In DP Joshi vs State of Madhya Bharat (1955) , the Court has held valid a rule of the State Medical College whereby the non-Madhya Bharat students required a capitation fee for admission in the college. It was held in the case that a law that discriminates on the ground of residence does not violate Article 15(1).

Article 15(2) of the Indian Constitution

It states that citizens of India should not be subjected to any such discrimination explained above concerning access to shops, restaurants and hotels and places of public entertainment or the use of wells, roads, etc.

Clause (1) of Article 15 prohibits discrimination by the State, whereas clause (2) of Article 15 prohibits both the State and citizens from making such discrimination.

Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution

Clause (3) of Article 15 contains an exception to the rule given under clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15. It empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children. It states that nothing in Article 15 should prevent the State from formulating any special provision for women and children. As an example, the reservation of seats for women does not violate Article 15(1).

Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution

Clause (4) of Article 15 is another exception to clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15. It was inserted into the Indian Constitution by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951. It was the result of the judgment given in State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan (1951) .

In this case, the Madras Government had reserved seats in medical and engineering colleges through government order for different communities in certain proportions based on religion, race and caste. The Supreme Court held the government order void as it classified the students based on caste, religion and race irrespective of merits.

The Article declares that the State should not be prevented by anything in Article 15 as well as Article 29(2) from making any special or particular provision for the betterment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

The socially and educationally backward classes refer to underprivileged classes of people that have faced discrimination or bias from the privileged classes. This class may not necessarily fall under the category of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

Note : A writ cannot be issued to the State to make reservations.

Article 15(4) Case Law: Dr Neelima vs Dean of P.G. studies A.P. Agriculture University, Hyderabad (1993)

In this case, it was held that a girl of a high caste who married a boy belonging to Scheduled Tribes is not eligible for the privilege of reservation available to Schedules Tribes as the girl originally belonged to a high caste. Merely marrying a boy of Scheduled Tribes will not make her eligible for the benefits reserved for them.

Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution

Clause (5) was inserted in Article 15 by the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005. It facilitates the State to make provision for reservation of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in admission to private educational institutions.

Article 15(5) Case Law: Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008)

In this case, the Supreme Court has held that Article 15(5) is constitutional. It held that providing a 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admissions in higher educational institutions like IITs and IIMs is constitutional and not violative of Articles 14 and 15.

Article 15(6) of the Indian Constitution

Clause (6) of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution is related to economically weaker sections of the society. It was added in 2019 by the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act. This clause empowers the State to make special provisions for the betterment and development of the economically weaker sections of the society. And, this also includes reservations in educational institutes.

Read Next: 1 . Right to Information as a Fundamental Right 2 . Fundamental Duties Explained – Indian Constitution 3 . Important Articles of Constitution of India 4 . Why 42nd Amendment Is Called the “Mini Constitution of India”

• Latest Posts

• Understanding the Legislative Branch of the Indian Government - 6th May 2024
• Appointment, Oath, and Removal of Constitutional Posts in India - 28th April 2024
• Powers of Income Tax Authorities in India - 26th April 2024

How to Start Studying Law – For New, Existing, and Old Students

How to Study and Prepare for Judiciary Exams (13 tips)

11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024

How to Write the Best Answer in Judiciary Mains Exam

10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024

Best Books for Judiciary Exam Preparation in 2024

My name is Ankur . I am a law graduate. I was my college topper for five years. In March 2018, I started WritingLaw.com . The main motive was to make a modern law website that is clean and comfortable.

Everything is going well . This is because of law students, advocates, judges and professors like you, who give me satisfaction, hope and the motivation to keep working. Thank you for your love and support. I hope you have a fruitful time here.

Law Study Material

© 2018-2024 | About Us |  Contact Us | Privacy Policy | T&C | Disclaimer | Cookies | Sitemap

The State shall not discriminate against any citizen 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. For example, In Nainsukhdas vs State of U.P . a law which provided for elections on the basis of separate electorates for members of different religious communities was held to be unconstitutional.

 The word ‘ only ’ used in Article 15(1) indicates that discrimination cannot be made merely on the grounds that one belongs to a particular caste, sex, etc. 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). In D.P. Joshi vs State of M.B. , a rule of the State Medical College requiring a capitation fee from non-Madhya Bharat Students for admission in the college was held valid as the ground of exemption was residence and not place of birth. 

Inter-Relation of Articles 14 and 15

Articles 14 and 15 are all different facets of the concept of equality. These Articles guarantee equality of opportunity and of treatment to all the citizens in different forms, while specifically mandating that the State shall not discriminate against the citizens only on the grounds of religion, race, etc.However, while prohibiting discrimination against citizens, neither of these Articles, prohibit reasonable classification, an essential content of equality.

Thus, as in Article 14, as well in Article 15(1), if it is demonstrated that special treatment is meted out to a class of citizens, not only on the ground of religion, etc., but due to some special reasons and circumstances, the enquiry would be "does such a classification stand the test of reasonableness."

So, Gujarat High Court in Adam Chaki v. Government of India, upheld the pre-matric Scholarship Scheme, made by the Government for students of minority community as not violative of Article 15. The Scheme involved grant of scholarship to class of citizens found to be socially, educationally, and economically disadvantaged on account of their minority status.

The Court said that even if constitutionality of the Scheme could not be upheld on the anvil of Article 15(4), the same satisfied the test of reasonable classification.

 It is a specific application of the general prohibition contained in Clause (1). It says that no citizen shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth with regard to 

• Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment; and
• The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly by State funds or dedicated to the use of the public.

While clause (1) of Article 15 prohibits discrimination by the State but clause (2) prohibits both the State and private individuals from making any discrimination.

There are three exceptions to this general rule of non-discrimination which are discussed in the upcoming clauses.

 It says, ‘Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children’. For example, women workers can be given special maternity relief and free education for children .

 In Joseph Shine vs Union of India, 2018 case, the Supreme Court in a five Judge Bench held Section 497 of I.P.C. penalising the adultery violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and not a beneficial legislation covered by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. Adultery can be grounds for civil issues including dissolution of marriage , but it cannot be a criminal offence. The Bench had also held that Section 198 (2) of the CrPC, which gave the cuckolded husband the exclusive right to prosecute his wife’s lover, was manifestly Section 198 (2) of the CrPC arbitrary.

It says that ‘Nothing in this article or 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 the Scheduled Tribes . Article 15(4) is another exception to clauses (1), (2) of Article 15, which was inserted by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, due to the decision in State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 . 

Article 15(4) an enabling provision

 In M.R. Balaji vs State of Mysore, 1963 the Supreme Court held that the provisions made in clause (4) of Article 15 is only an enabling provision and does not impose any obligation on the State to take any special action under it. It merely confers a discretion to act if necessary, by way of making special provision for backward classes.

Article 15(4) and reservation

 In Gulson Prakash vs State of Haryana, 2010 , the Supreme Court held that 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. It 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 (4) of Article 15, two things are to be determined:

• Socially and educationally backward classes. 
• The limit of reservation

  Determining Socially and Educationally Backward class:

• P Rajendran vs State of Madras: Backwardness based on Caste solely.
• KC Vasanth Kumar vs State of Karnataka: Both caste and Poverty is a relevant criterion in determining the backwardness of citizens. Occupations and place of habitation may be counted.
• Indira Sawhney vs UOI : Caste can be important and sole factor in determining the backwardness.
• National legal service authority vs UOI: In case of Jat Reservation, The Division Bench of the Court strongly advised the Government to gradually discard "the caste-centric definition of backward" and evolve new practices, methods and yardsticks to discover and address emerging forms of backwardness.

Define the limit of reservation:

Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

• Barring the extraordinary circumstances, the maximum limit can’t be more than 50%.
• The classification of Backward Classes into "Backward" and More Backward" not only permissible but essential. The Court while discharging explained that the object of the special provision contained in the Constitution was not to uplift a few individuals and families in the Backward Classes, but to ensure the advancement of the Backward Classes as a whole. In this respect, Balaji decision" stands overruled.

Later, the Apex Court in A.P.B.C. Sangh v. J.S.V. Federation , held the amalgamation of extremely Backward Classes and Backward into one group as tantamount to treating categories unequal as equals and hence violative of Article 14.

The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005, inserted clause (5) in Article 15 with effect from 2006 to nullify the effect of the judgments of the Supreme Court on the point of admission in educational institutions. It provides that, “ 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 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 (1) of Article 30”.

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India

This case deals with the constitutional validity of clause (5) of Article 15. The Supreme Court held that None of the rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution had been abrogated by Clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the view taken by Bhandari, J. in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India that the imposition of reservation on unaided institutions by the Ninety third Amendment has abrogated Article 19(1)(g), a basic feature of the Constitution is not correct. Instead, the Court held that the (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 of the Constitution inserting Clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution was valid.

The Constitution (One Hundred and third Amendment) Act, 2019 has inserted clause (6) in Article 15 which is as follows: Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 or clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making:

• Any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the class mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
• Any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private 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, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten percent of the total seats in each category.

Note : For the purposes of this article and Article 16 , “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage. 

Trending now

Article 15 of the Constitution of India

• Constitutional Law Blogs Subject-wise Law Notes
• Aishwarya Agrawal
• March 26, 2023

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This article ensures equality before the law and prohibits any form of discrimination in public access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment. It also prohibits any form of discrimination in employment or the use of public resources.

In this article, we will delve into the various subclauses of Article 15 and the landmark judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India to understand the scope and impact of this fundamental right.

What is Article 15 of the Constitution of India?

Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The article states that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on these grounds and also empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children and for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The article prohibits discrimination in matters related to access to public places such as shops, restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment. It also prohibits discrimination in matters related to employment, education, and the use of public utilities such as wells, tanks, and bathing ghats.

The objective of Article 15 of the Constitution of India

The objective of Article 15 is to promote equality and eliminate discrimination on the basis of various factors that historically have been the basis of social inequality and injustice in India.

Provisions of Article 15 Indian Constitution

“(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

 (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

     (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

     (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

(4) 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 the Scheduled Tribes.

(5) 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 (1) of article 30.

(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—

     (a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and

     (b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) 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 (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.

     Explanation.—For the purposes of this article and article 16 , “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.”

Article 15 (1) of the Constitution

Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India states that the State, which includes the government and its institutions, shall not discriminate against any citizen based solely on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

This means that the State cannot treat individuals or groups differently or unfairly based on these grounds. For example, the State cannot deny an individual a job, admission to an educational institution, or access to public services, solely based on their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat 

DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that deals with the interpretation of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of an order issued by the State of Madhya Bharat, which provided for the reservation of seats in medical and engineering colleges for candidates from backward classes. The petitioner argued that the order violated Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the reservation order. The Court held that Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the grounds mentioned above, but it does not prohibit the State from making special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The Court further held that the reservation order was a special provision aimed at promoting the educational advancement of the backward classes and was, therefore, valid under Article 15(1).

The Court also observed that the classification of backward classes for the purpose of reservation must be based on objective criteria such as social and educational backwardness, and not solely on the basis of caste. Additionally, the Court held that the reservation policy must be based on the needs of the society and should be flexible enough to accommodate changing social and economic conditions.

State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh (1969) , the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of discrimination based on residence. The case involved a rule made by the Rajasthan government that only the candidates who had been residents of the state for a certain period of time would be eligible for admission to medical colleges in the state.

The court held that the government’s rule violated Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The court held that the rule was discriminatory as it excluded non-resident candidates from consideration, irrespective of their merit. 

The court further held that the rule was not covered under the exception provided in Article 15(3), which allows the state to make special provisions for women and children.

The court held that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of education cannot be limited by any discrimination based on residence. The court observed that the purpose of education is to create a pool of skilled individuals who can serve society and the nation as a whole. The court held that it is in the larger interest of society and the nation to admit the best candidates, irrespective of their residence.

Article 15 (2) of the Constitution

Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India is a fundamental right that prohibits discrimination against any citizen of India solely based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. The provision prohibits any citizen from being subjected to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition on these grounds.

Clause (a) of Article 15(2) specifically prohibits discrimination in access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment. This means that no citizen can be denied entry or services at these establishments on the basis of their religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Clause (b) of Article 15(2) prohibits discrimination in the use of public facilities such as wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of the public resort that are maintained either wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. 

This means that no citizen can be denied access to these public facilities on the basis of their religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Article 15 (3): Special Provisions for women and children

Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India is a provision that allows the State to make special provisions for women and children, despite the general prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them under Article 15(1).

The provision recognizes that women and children have historically been disadvantaged and marginalized due to various social and economic factors, and hence, require special provisions to promote their welfare and advancement.

Article 15(3) permits the State to make such special provisions without violating the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to all citizens. 

These special provisions may include policies and programs that aim to uplift women and children, such as reservations in educational institutions, employment opportunities, and healthcare facilities, as well as protection against various forms of discrimination and violence.

Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay

In Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954) , the appellant was charged with adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case raised the issue of whether Section 497 was in contradiction with Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

 The argument was made that Section 497 stated that only men could commit adultery and that women could not be punished as abettors, which raised questions of discrimination based on gender.

However, it was noted that Clause (3) of Article 15 allows the state to make special provisions for women and children, indicating that the provision was not intended to prevent such provisions. It was also argued that Article 15(3) should not be interpreted as shielding women from crimes.

Moreover, the appellant was not an Indian citizen, and only Indian citizens can invoke fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

In the case of Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) , the petitioner was elected as a Panch for a reserved seat for women of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent number 5 as Sarpanch, claiming that she was not eligible to contest for the reserved seat for Scheduled Castes (women) as she was elected only as a Panch for a reserved seat for Scheduled Castes (women).

The court held that if the seat of the Sarpanch for a village was reserved for Scheduled Castes, then both men and women belonging to those categories could stand for election for the Sarpanch’s post. The eligibility criterion was being a Scheduled Caste and representing the constituency as Panch. Therefore, the election of respondent number 5 as Sarpanch was held valid.

Article 15 (4): Special provision for SEBCs, or SCs & STs

Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. This provision overrules any potential conflict between the fundamental right against discrimination and any affirmative action programs implemented by the government to address historical social and educational disadvantages.

This means that the State can implement programs, policies, and laws that provide preferential treatment to disadvantaged communities based on their caste, tribe, or economic status, without violating the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 15(2) or Article 29(2). 

These provisions can include reservations in education, employment, and political representation, as well as other programs aimed at addressing social and educational inequalities faced by these groups. 

The aim of such special provisions is to help these communities to have access to opportunities and resources that were denied to them in the past, and to bring them to par with the rest of society.

The reason for adding this clause is linked to two significant instances.

Firstly, in the case of the State Of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951) , the government of Madras issued an order that allocated seats in medical and engineering colleges based on the caste and community of the students. 

However, the seven-judge bench declared that the order was against Clause (1) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no citizen shall be discriminated against on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, in access to educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds.

Secondly, in Jagwant Kaur v. State of Maharashtra (1952) , the construction of a colony solely for Harijans was found to be violative of Article 15(1). To help the socially and educationally disadvantaged citizens without violating the provisions of Article 15, Clause(4) was added to the article.

Additionally, Article 29(2) is mentioned in Article 15(4), and it prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them concerning admission to any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds. 

Thus, Article 15(4) is not an exception to the principle of non-discrimination but rather a special provision to promote the advancement of socially and educationally backward sections of society.

A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu 

In A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1971) , the Supreme Court held that classifying socially and educationally backward classes based on caste was in violation of Article 15(4), and that reservations were necessary for improving the conditions of such classes. 

Balaji v. State of Mysore

In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) , the Court held that categorizing backwards and more backward classes was not justified under Article 15(4), and that reservations could not exceed 50%. 

State of AP v. USV Balaram

The Court also held in State of AP v. USV Balaram (1972) that caste should not be the determining factor for belonging to a backward class and that the list of backward classes would automatically be updated if they no longer require special aid from the state. 

State of UP v. Pradeep Tandon

In State of UP v. Pradeep Tandon (1974) , the Court held that providing reserved seats to students from rural areas was unconstitutional, as poverty in rural areas does not equate to backwardness, and reservations could only be provided to socially and educationally backward classes.

Article 15(5) of the Constitution

Article 15(5) is a clause under the Indian Constitution that permits the government to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with regard to their admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, aided or unaided by the State. This clause was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

The clause specifies that nothing in Article 15 or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 shall prevent the State from making such special provisions by law. Article 19(1)(g) grants citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. However, it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of the general public.

The clause also makes an exception for minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30. Article 30(1) guarantees the right of minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

In essence, Article 15(5) allows the State to provide affirmative action or reservations for socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions. 

This provision was introduced to ensure that these marginalized sections of society have access to education and to promote equality of opportunity. However, it does not apply to minority educational institutions that have the constitutional right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Article 15(6) of the Constitution

Article 15(6) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections of citizens, other than the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, which are already covered under clauses (4) and (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

Clause (a) of Article 15(6) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of EWS of citizens other than those covered under clauses (4) and (5). This means that the state can make provisions for the economic betterment of any citizen who falls below a certain income level, regardless of their caste or community.

Clause (b) of Article 15(6) allows the state to make special provisions for the admission of economically weaker sections of citizens, other than those covered under clauses (4) and (5), to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the state. However, such provisions for admission would be in addition to existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.

Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India

On 16th January 2023, in a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing EWS reservation. With this, the Court extended the net of reservation benefits to include solely economic backwardness.

In conclusion, Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The interpretation of this article by the judiciary has evolved over the years and expanded its scope to include indirect discrimination and positive discrimination in favour of historically disadvantaged groups. 

The Supreme Court has also clarified that economic backwardness can be a basis for affirmative action under Article 15(6) but not under Article 15(4) and (5) which are specifically limited to socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

You might like

How to File a Complaint for Cybercrime in India?

Clinical Legal Education in India

Criminal Profiling in India

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Post Comment

Search bar.

• Legal Queries
• Files 
• Online Law Courses 
• Lawyers Search
• Legal Dictionary
• The Indian Penal Code
• Juvenile Justice
• Negotiable Instruments
• The 3 New Criminal Laws
• Matrimonial Laws
• Data Privacy
• Court Fees Act
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law
• The Constitutional Expert
• Matrimonial
• Writs and PILs
• CrPC Certification Course
• Criminal Manual
• Execution U/O 21
• Transfer of Property
• Domestic Violence
• Muslim Laws
• Indian Constitution
• Arbitration
• Matrimonial-Criminal Law
• Indian Evidence Act
• Live Classes
• Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Gautam Badlani

Article 15 And 16 Of The Indian Constitution - An Analysis

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution are based upon the concept of equality, social justice and social harmony.
• Article 15(4) and 16(4) are not exceptions to their respective provisions. They provide positive and affirmative support to the objective of the provisions.
• These Articles are aimed at promoting real equality in the society and to ensure such real equality, some degree of reasonable classification is essential.

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose and aim of the Indian Constitution is to ensure and promote social justice in the society. The makers of the Constitution intended to provide every citizen of the country, irrespective of his/her caste, colour, religion, region, etc., the fundamental right to equal opportunity. They envisaged the creation of a nation where every person would be provided with an opportunity to fulfil his or her dreams and aspirations.

The makers were also aware of the discriminatory practices prevalent in the society and recognised the need to provide preferential treatment to certain backward and oppressed sections. The basic underlying theme of both Article 15 and Section 16 of the Indian Constitution is the guarantee of social and equitable justice.

ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Article 15 provides that discrimination on the basis of race, caste, religion etc., shall be prohibited. The State is restrained from discriminating among its citizens on the basis of these factors. However, Article 15(3) and 15(4) provides that the State is permitted to make special provisions in the favour of women and children and in favour of other minority and backward or oppressed communities. Educationally and socially backward communities are provided an exemption under this Statute.

The 93rd Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 15(5) to the Constitution. This is an enabling provision.The Right to education and several maternity schemes are based upon the concept of Article 15.

ARTICLE 16 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Similarly, Article 16 of the Constitution provides that every citizen is entitled to equal opportunity and the State shall not discriminate when dealing with the matters of public employment. Here too, the State is entitled to make special provisions in favour of the backward communities provided the State believes that these communities are not adequately represented in the public offices.

Even though the Article provides that every citizen shall have an equal opportunity when it comes to matters of public employment, this does not mean that the State cannot lay down certain educational qualifications or required skill set as a prerequisite for appointment. This view was upheld in the case of State of J. & K. v. K.V.N.T. Kholo, AIR 1974 S.C.

Since the adoption of the Constitution, several amendments and additions have been made to this Article. Article 16(4a) was added by the 77th Constitutional Amendment and Article 16(4b) was added by the 81st Constitutional Amendment.

Article 16 uses the expression "nothing in this article". This shows that the intention of the Legislature was to ensure that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions among the provisions of the Article.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Several landmark judgments have been passed with respect to the scope as well as interpretation of Section 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of G.M. Southern Railways v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, the Court had categorically stated that Section 15(4) constitutes an exception to Section 15(1). Several subsequent judgments too upheld this view and held that Section 15(4) is a proviso of Section 15(1).

However, this view changed in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 (Supp) 3 SCC 217, where the Court firstly emphasised on the intention of the Constitution makers behind the drafting of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that these Articles are aimed at promoting real equality in the society and to ensure such real equality, some degree of reasonable classification is essential. Thus, it was held that Articles 15(1) and 16(1) are not exceptions but are rather aimed at fulfilling the objective of the provisions. This judgement also set a ceiling or 50% on reservation policies.

In the case of K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka AIR 1985 SC 1495, the Court held that economic backwardness formed the primary indicator of backwardness. The Court made this observation while interpreting Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution. In this case the Court also held that the concept of reservation is aimed at upliftment of the weaker sections and hence the reservation policies need to be regularly reviewed in order to ensure that once a class of people are uplifted, they are deleted from the list of beneficiaries in order to ensure that the benefits of the legislation reached to those who need it the most. This would ensure that the weaker among the weak are also uplifted and the benefits are not only enjoyed by a section of the people.

In the landmark case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226, the decision of the State Government of Madras reserving seats in medical and Engineer educational institutions on the basis of religion, caste and race of students was found to be violative of Article 15.

Another landmark judgment on the issue of reservation was the case of M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649. In this case, the Government reserved 68% of the seats in technical education institutions such as medical and engineering colleges for Scheduled Caste and Tribes and for the socially and educationally weaker sections. The Court held that reservation should be aimed at promoting social justice but must also ensure that deserving candidates are not excluded from getting admissions into technical higher education institutions.

In the case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, the Court held that Section 14 to 16 are equality sections which are aimed at ensuring real equality.

In Saurabh Yadav v. State of UP (M.A. No. 26141 of 2019 of SLP (Civil) No. 23223 of 2018), the Court held that if candidates belong to the reserved category are able to qualify under the general category on their merit, then they will be appointed under the open category. Thus, the Court rejected the assumption that open category is reserved for those who are not eligible for any sort of reservation.

In the landmark judgement of Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 2540, the Court held that a reservation scheme which provided reservation on the basis of education stream (that is, science and arts) was beyond the scope of Article 15 and hence was not Constitutional.

In the case of T. Devadasan v. the Union of India & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 179, the validity of the carry forward rule was challenged on the grounds that it is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 335 of the Indian Constitution. As a result of this rule, members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes could get more than 50% reservation. The Court held that the carry forward rule is unconstitutional. The Court stated that reservation with respect to a certain proportion of appointments in order to provide the weaker sections an equal opportunity is justified but the reservation should not be of such a magnitude so as to deny a deserving candidate the opportunity for appointment.

In the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, the Court held that a Legislative Scheme granting reservation to SC/STs in promotion is reasonable if it fulfils three conditions. Firstly, the State must be able to establish the backwardness of the beneficiaries. Secondly, the State must be able to establish the underrepresentation of the beneficiaries in the subject appointments and thirdly, it must be able to establish that such reservations would benefit administrative efficiency.

In the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1, the Court had deliberated upon the question of determining the criterion for determining educationally backward category. The Court had held that the threshold for determining the educational status of any person would be graduation. If a person has completed graduation, he cannot be considered to be educationally backward.

It becomes essential to understand the criterion on the basis of which welfare schemes and special provisions providing for reservations can be framed by the government under the ambit of Article 15 and 16. Policies have been framed in the basis of domicile, economic status, etc.

Domicile based reservation

In today's times, several governments have come up with schemes of reservation of jobs for domicile residents. Several beneficiary schemes have also been initiated exclusively for domiciles. In order to understand the legal relevance of such policies with reference to Article 15(1) of the Constitution, it is essential to analyse the case of DP Joshi v/s State of Madhya Bharat1955 SCR (1)1215 where the Madhya Pradesh State Government had exempted those students of a medical College who had their domicile in Madhya Pradesh from paying the capitation fees. However, students not having the domicile were required to pay the fees. This decision of the Madhya Pradesh Government was alleged to be violative of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.

However, the Court held that Article 15(1) prohibited discrimination on the basis of place of birth and place of birth is distinct from the expression place of residence. Discrimination on the basis of place of birth has been prohibited by Article 15. However, it is not essential that the place of birth be the same as the place of residence of an individual. Domicile reservation is based upon the concept of providing opportunities to the local residents of any place.

Hence, the policy of the Government was held not to be in violation of Section 15(1) of the Act.

Reservations for Economically Weaker Sections and Article 15(6)

In the recent years, the issue of reservation on the basis of economic status or reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) has been a part of discussion among the legal circles. The concept of reservation based on economic background finds its root in Article 15(6) of the Indian Constitution which provides that the State shall make reservations, including reservations in educational institutions, for the "economically weaker sections".

Article 15(6) was introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. Several petitions have been filed challenging the validity of such reservation. This Amendment provided for 10% reservations to the EWS sections in regards to jobs and educational institutions. The 103rd Amendment also amended Article 16 of the Constitution and added Article 16(6).

However, the Supreme Court is yet to deliver a concrete and conclusive judgment on the Constitutionality of EWS reservation.

Those opposing the reservation based on economic status, claim that it violates the ceiling of 50%. However, several reservation schemes have crossed the 50% ceiling. Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Maharashtra and Haryana have crossed the ceiling limit based on the special circumstances prevailing in these states. The 50% upper limit has been set but the Courts have time and again reiterated that it is the rationality behind the scheme which forms the final basis of Constitutionality.

Recently, when appeals were filed before the Supreme Court against reservation policies in NEET, the Court upheld reservation for OBCs. but is yet to decide on the issue of EWS quota.

Thus, both Articles 15 and 16 permit positive or affirmative action by the government in favour of women and backward communities. These Articles enable the government to come up with welfare measures which reduce the degree of inequality in the society and promote justice, liberty and social harmony.

These Sections shield the weaker sections of the society and enable the State to ensure social harmony in the society. They ensure that the concept of equality is not merely an utopian dream but transforms into a practical reality.

Furthermore, after a careful analysis of several judicial pronouncements, it can be concluded that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are not exceptions to Articles 15 and 16 respectively. Rather they are aimed at ensuring that the purpose of the provisions is fulfilled.

The schemes which used reservation as a tool for social welfare are based on the concept of intelligible differentia. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment was certainly the need of the hour as it provides some sort of social security to those who were left without any socio-economic welfare cover.

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

15066 Views

Category Others , Other Articles by - Gautam Badlani  

Recent Articles

• Cryptocurrency And Blockchain Technology: Legal Challenges And Opportunities In The Digital Asset Era
• The Union Public Service Commission: Constitutional Framework, Functions, And Evolving Role In India's Civil Service Recruitment
• The Legal And Ethical Implications Of Deepfake Technology: A Comprehensive Overview
• If An Accused Given Bail In Multiple Cases Is Unable To Find Multiple Sureties, Condition Of Multiple Sureties Be Balanced With Article 21: SC
• SC Directs Police Chiefs To Take Action Against Erring Officials For Arrests In Violation Of S.41/41A CrPC & SC Guidelines
• Lawyers Abstaining From Work To Condole Death Will Be Contempt Of Court: Allahabad HC
• The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent And It's Declining Credibility
• What are economic sanctions: Legal insights from leading experts
• SC Most Strongly Castigates And Reprimands West Bengal State Government For Mishandling Horrific Case
• The Expansive And Influential Legal Industry Of India: Shaping The Nation's Future Through Diverse Roles And Evolving Dynamics

More »

Popular Articles

• Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Advocating For Healthcare Worker Safety
• Mere Denial In Affidavit Doesn't Attract Offence Under Section 193 IPC
• The Legal And Ethical Implications Of Artificial Intelligence In The Justice System
• The Importance of Hiring an Experienced Wrongful Death Lawyer
• Mumbai Tragedy Spotlights Healthcare Crisis. A Mother And Child Lost To Negligence. High Court Seeks Answers

LCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to email

Browse by Category

• Business Law
• Constitutional Law
• Labour & Service Law
• Legal Documents
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Property Law

• Top Members
• Share Files
• LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 969471 and growing..

• We are Hiring
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

Constitution of India

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

(4) 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 the Scheduled Tribes.

(5) 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 (1) of article 30.

(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—

(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and

(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) 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 (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.

Explanation .— For the purposes of this article and article 16, “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.

Article 9, Draft Constitution of India 1948

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them. In particular, no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-

(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, or (b) The use of wells, tanks 3, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of the revenues of the State or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

Article 15, Constitution of India 1950

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to —

(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

Draft Article 9 (Article 15) was debated on 29 November 1948 . It prohibited discrimination on five grounds: religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Some members argued that the Draft Article did not engage with discrimination based on family or descent. Others wanted a specific mention of gardens, roads and tramways as potential public spaces where people should not face discrimination. In response to these points, it was clarified that while the Draft Article specifically mentions some spaces, the general nature of the language used in the Article was sufficient to cover a wide range of public spaces including those that were not specified in the Article’s text.

To the clause which permitted special provisions for women and children, a member proposed to add other vulnerable groups, namely Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee dismissed the need for this addition, arguing that such a provision could allow for the lawful segregation of these groups. Therefore, this amendment was rejected by the Assembly.

The Draft Article was adopted with some amendments on the same day, that is 29 November 1948.

Home / clat pg / Article 15 under the Indian Constitution

Article 15 under the indian constitution.

Introduction to Article 15

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 15 states that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

In this article, we will discuss the various aspects of Article 15 and the landmark cases related to it.

Scope of Article 15

Article 15 prohibits discrimination not only by the State but also private organizations. It extends to education, employment as well as access to public areas.

The first two clauses of Article 15 prohibit discrimination based on grounds provided in the provision like- religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15 has, however, received broader interpretation from the judiciary. In two landmark cases, the Supreme Court has interpreted ‘sex’ as including both ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ which has extended the protection of Article 15 to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons as well. The next 3 clauses of Article 15 provide positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged groups thus fulfilling state’s agenda of affirmative action.

Exceptions to Article 15

Exceptions to Article 15 comprise reservations for socially and educationally backward classes as provided under Article 15(4). The objective of this exception/reservation is to provide equal opportunities to the historically disadvantaged people by virtue of their social and economic background.

To further aid socially and educationally backward classes as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is another provision to provide aids, awards, scholarships, admission etc. under Article 15(5).

Landmark cases related to Article 15

These landmark cases have played a significant role in shaping the interpretation and implementation of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which is a crucial provision that prohibits discrimination on various grounds. The cases have also helped in defining the scope and limitations of the provision and in ensuring that reservations are provided only to those who are socially and educationally backward.

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 

This was the first case related to Article 15 to come before the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the State of Madras had issued an order reserving seats in medical and engineering colleges for different communities based on their population. The Supreme Court held that such a policy violated Article 15(1) as it discriminated against certain communities on the grounds of their caste. The court also held that the State could not provide reservations solely on the basis of religion or caste.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

This case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, dealt with the reservation policy for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in public employment and education. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 15(4) and held that reservations could be provided only for those classes of citizens who were socially and educationally backward and not for any particular caste or community. The court also set a cap of 50% for reservations in public employment and education.

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India

This case dealt with the constitutional validity of 27% reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in institutions of higher education. The Supreme Court held that the 27% quota was not based on any proper identification of socially and educationally backward classes and that the State could not rely solely on caste as a criterion for identifying backwardness.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

This case dealt with the interpretation of the creamy layer concept in reservations. The Supreme Court held that the creamy layer concept would be applicable to reservations for SCs and STs as well as OBCs. The court clarified that the creamy layer would be determined based on the economic status of the individual rather than their social status.

Maratha Reservation Case

This case dealt with the constitutional validity of the Maratha Reservation Act, which provided reservations for Marathas in education and employment. The Supreme Court held that the 2018 law providing reservations for Marathas was not valid as it breached the 50% ceiling on reservations set by the court in the Indra Sawhney case.

Subscribe to our newsletter and get daily news & updates directly to your inbox!

Please provide a valid email address.

Join our WhatsApp Channel

Join our Telegram Group

Article 15 Of The Indian Constitution: An Insight

Introduction to article 15(1), nainsukhdas v. state of uttar pradesh , air 1953[1], introduction to article 15(2), introduction to article 15 (3), introduction to article 15(4), case law- champakam dorai ranjan v. state of madras, air 1951[2], 1st amendment of the indian constitution, m.r balaji v. state of mysore, air 1962[3], introduction to article 15(5).

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1101047/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149321/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/599701/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/512761/

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Role Of Social Media Platfo...

Indian Railway Accidents an...

Nichols v/s Marsland: The L...

Right To Education To Girl ...

The South China Sea Arbitra...

Trending Legal Issues In India

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

Admission     IGP     Get Upto 100%Scholarship     CSE     Our Selections

Article 15 of Indian Constitution

Article 15 of indian constitution: prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Article 15 of Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination by the state against any citizen on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It is a fundamental right designed to promote equality among all citizens, ensuring that everyone has equal access to public places and opportunities without any discrimination. This article is crucial for upholding social equality and justice in India.

Original Text of Article 15 of Indian Constitution:

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

• access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
• the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

(4) 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 the Scheduled Tribes.

(5) 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 (1) of article 30.]

(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—

• any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
• any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) 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 (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.

List of amendments in Article 15 of Indian Constitution:

Article 15 of Indian Constitution Explanation:

Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination

It is available  only to the citizens  of India.

Article 15(1)  prohibits the State from discriminating  based only on  religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Thus, it “ prohibits class legislation” . The clause  “based only on”  means that the State cannot legislate solely to discriminate against or in favour of a class (i.e. particular religion, race, caste, sex, etc.).

But then, how can the State provide protection and schemes for particular classes?

The answer is that the Constitution  allows discrimination  if it is based on additional criteria other than the above-mentioned criteria.

This is known as “ Classification for the purpose of Legislation ”,  which our Constitution allows.

Article 15(2)   Prohibits discrimination or restriction in terms of access to shops, hotels, public restaurants, places of public entertainment, or the use of tanks, wells, roads, and other public places maintained wholly or partially out of the State Funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

However, there are  three exceptions  to this general rule of non-discrimination:

Article 15(3):   The State can make special provisions for women and children. For example, the reservation of seats in local bodies for women or the provision of free education for children  ( Article 21A ) .

Article 15(4):   The State can make special provisions for socially/educationally backward classes, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Article 15(5):   The State can make special provisions for the advancement of any  socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs)  regarding their admission to educational institutions, including private institutions, whether unaided or aided by the State,  except the minority educational institutions . This provision was added by the  93rd Amendment Act 2005 .

The Parliament enacted the  Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 , to bring this provision into effect.

It provided a  27%  quota for candidates for people of  Other Backward Classes (OBCs)   in all central higher educational institutions.

In  2008 , the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this act but directed the Central Government to leave out the   “creamy layer”  among the OBCs while implementing the law.

Article 15(6)  allows the government to reserve up to 10% of all government appointments for the  Economically weaker sections (EWS).

For Further Reference:

• Read the Constitution of India .
• Read the Fundamental Rights .

Other Related Links:

Similar Posts

Article 323a of indian constitution: administrative tribunals.

Article 323A of Indian Constitution Original Text: (1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of…

Fifth Schedule of Indian Constitution- Notes for UPSC

5th Schedule of Indian Constitution: Provisions as to the Administration and Control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Article 244(1) Provisions as to the Administration and Control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes PART A of 5th Schedule of Indian Constitution GENERAL Interpretation. —In this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression “State” 1***…

Article 330A: Reservation of seats for women in the House of the People

Article 330A of Indian Constitution Article330A: Reservation of seats for women in the House of the People. Seats shall be reserved for women in the House of the People. As nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (2) of article 330 shall be reserved for women belonging to…

Article 334A of Indian Constitution: Reservation of seats for women take effect.

Article 334A of Indian Constitution Original Text Article 334A of Indian Constitution: Reservation of seats for women take effect. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision of this Part or Part VIII, the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Reservation of seats for women in the House of the People, the Legislative Assembly of…

Article 280 of Indian Constitution: Finance Commission of India

Article 280 of Indian Constitution Article 280 of the Indian Constitution establishes the Finance Commission of India. This provision mandates the President to constitute a Finance Commission every five years or at such earlier time as deemed necessary. The commission’s primary role is to recommend the distribution of net proceeds of taxes between the Union…

12 Schedule of Indian Constitution- UPSC Notes

12 Schedule of Indian Constitution Intro: The 12th schedule of the Indian Constitution, added by the 74th Amendment in 1992, outlines the powers, authority, and responsibilities of Municipalities are expected to perform, aimed at bolstering urban local self-governance. This schedule empowers urban local bodies to deal with functions ranging from urban planning, regulation of land…

• Call for Papers
• Competitions
• World Legal
• Legal Drafting
• Know Your Rights

• Constitutional Law
• Law Academic

Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution And Case Laws

Introduction

Equality as a general concept simply means the equitable principle of fairness and non-discrimination amongst individuals. Hence, it is to create the full maximization of potentials nature has provided on an equitable platform.

Equality as a concept of law (legal egalitarianism) is a principle of law that seeks to provide the same legal benchmark and standards for all individuals irrespective of background, status or any other divisive parameter.

The general principle of equality and non-discrimination is a foundational element of international human rights law. It is evident that the right to equal treatment requires that all persons be treated equally, fairly and justly before the law, without discrimination.

Equality, before the law is the attribution of fundamental rights accrued from a body of generally accepted rules which seeks to give a humane face to the law while ensuring no individual, is above the law.

Therefore, all are viewed with the same parameters under the law irrespective of individual differences. This fundamental human right is enshrined and protected in the constitution of democratic countries around the world.

One of the countries worthy of focus with respect to this principle is India. Equality is one of the foundational rights in the Constitution of India.

This principle is as contained in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India and also recited in the Preamble to the Constitution of India . This principle of rule of law is enshrined in Article 14 while Articles 15 to 18 detailed out the application of the principle in Article 14 .

Article 14 guarantees equal protection before the law and equality before the law, while the concept of equality before the law has its roots in the English Common law.

The concept of equal protection before the law was taken from section 1 of the fourteenth (14th) amendment Act of the constitution of the United States . As the term implies, each person within the territory of India irrespective of citizenship will be guaranteed equal protection under the law.

The principle of equality before the law sprung out from the doctrine of Rule of Law as propounded by an erudite scholar, Professor A.V. Dicey in his book “ The Law of the Constitution ” published in the year, 1885 where he highlighted the three (3) implications of the doctrine of Rule of Law. These implications are:

• The predominance of Law/Absence of Erratic wield of Power – Only a breach can trigger punishment. The absence of same makes punishment unjustifiable and unlawful. It means that no man should be subjected to any form of punishment unless as expressly stated by the law and the said punishment must be stipulated by the law which was allegedly breached.
• Equality before the Law – By this, every person is under the control and dictate of the law. There is no preferential treatment rendered in the operation of law of the land as administered by the courts of law created by law.
• The preeminence of the Rights of the Individual –  This implies that the Constitution births the various rights of individuals. It acts as a medium for the documentation of such rights. However, those rights predate the Constitution; hence, the revered status given to the concept.

However just like every law, there are exceptions to the Rule of law. It should be noted that despite these exceptions, the rule of law ensures that the existing discretion conferred upon all authorities must be contained within clearly defined limits. The rule of law is deeply rooted in the foundation of the Constitution of India and it forms one of its standout features.

The import of Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not state that all laws must be uniform in nature and applicable to all persons. The distinct demands of different classes of persons more often than not require differing arguments and discussion.

What the concept of Equality frowns against the article, is the legislation according to Class. But, it does not outlaw reasonable classification which is in place to aid proper enforcement of the principle.

The parameters employed to ensure the same includes the prevention of arbitrary actions as all acts must arise from a legally justifiable laid down distinction which reflects the purpose of the legislation.

Article 14 abhors class legislation which embodies unfair and illegal discrimination by conferring privileges upon a class of persons without any legal and fundamental distinction evidence which would, in turn, justify the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.

An example of the above are instances where states make special provisions for a certain class of society.

Women and children are an example of this. There is a special seating arrangement which is made for women in buses, trains, metros trains and such cannot be referred to as unconstitutional for reasons enshrined in the paragraphs above.

A sharp contrast can be evidenced in the instructive case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India , where the Supreme Court held that R ule 34 of the Central Services(Pension) Rules, 1972 was unconstitutional.

It is so, on the ground that the classification made by it between pensioners retiring before a certain date and retiring after that date was not pursuant to any rational principle of law.

Thus, it was deemed arbitrary by the court which further held same to be an infringement of Article 14 of the Indian constitution.

Articles 15 – 18

The provision of Article 15 seeks to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

In an effort to render protection to particular classes of persons, the constitution permits the making of a unique nature for women and children and for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens who may be collectively called persons under legal disability.

The judgment of the court in the case of State of U. P. v. Pradeep Tandon (1975) 1 SCC 267; AIR 1975 SC 563 is instructive. It was held on the need to apply these legal reservations/exceptions as expressed.

This application is in the support of certain areas on the ground that these areas were instances of socially and educationally backward class citizens. As mirrored in the decided cases, circumstances of birth and place of abode contribute immensely to a person’s perception of laws.

Therefore, the intervention of law by making special provisions for them does not run contrary to the spirit of the law regarding the doctrine of equality before the law.

Article 16 throws light on the need to give equality of opportunity with respect to employment in the public or government-owned establishments. By the dictates of Article 16 of the Constitution of India , it is guaranteed that equal opportunity is to be granted to the citizens where employment or appointment in the government-owned establishment is an issue.

This provision, however, does not forestall the setting of the requisite qualifications benchmark for recruitment.

The Constitution of India in Clause 4 of Article 16 in the obvious attempt at protecting the special class of persons who are under legal disability, permits some exception to the positions for persons who are under the legal disability, who are in fact, inadequately represented in the employment sector of the government.

More light on this was thrown in the case of N. M. Thomas v State of Kerala Article [1976 AIR 490, 1976 SCR (1) 906] where the Supreme Court opined that the preferential treatment of under-represented backward classes was not illegal; so far as such treatment was reasonable and can be rationalized in line with the object sought to be attained which in turn makes such an action valid.

The focus of Article 17 was because of the social disabilities imposed from time immemorial on a certain category of people by reason of their birth in certain castes.

This constantly triggered social boycott as same was duly abolished by virtue of this commendable provision. It abolished what was commonly referred to as “untouchability” and made the practice of such a penal offense and this helped to discourage the practice of same.

The unmeritorious conferment of titles and recognition by the State on the citizens violates the dictates of equality as provided by the constitution for it will create unworthy stratification in the society.

Article 18 abolished such acts which restored equilibrium/balance and restored the principle of equality the existence of the former eroded.

By Clause (2) of Article 18 of the Constitution , citizens are barred from accepting or acknowledging any title from a foreign country but this limitation does not extend to academic and military accolades.

The erstwhile practice of conferring titles and investiture into various Order of the British Empire on the good wishers and supporters of the British regime created an undesired result. This further occasioned inequality contrary to the doctrine of equality which the law upholds.

The limitation as enshrined in Clause 2 of Article 18 of the Constitution is to the extent that accepting any presents in any form whatsoever from a foreign State while occupying a public office or any office of profit or trust in India.

The principle of equality as stipulated in the Constitution of India is the basis of the democratic structure in India.

In a society like India where the values such as social justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity are envisaged by the Constitution, it follows that the constitution against the background of the attendant diversity in India is seeking through these aforementioned values to mind the society.

The important role played by the judiciary in enforcing the dictates of the Constitution has and will continue to consolidate the values as already enshrined in the constitution.

The foresight and the legislative valor displayed by the founding fathers of the India Society is quite commendable as many countries such as America fought for years in order to have these values enshrined in their constitution.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Contract of guarantee, kinds, functions under the indian contract act, 1872, adr- arbitration vs conciliation vs mediation and their differences, advantages, know the formation, independence and functions of the election commission of india, leave a reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

8 Landmark Judgments on Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

The article '8 landmark judgments on article 15 of the indian constitution' collectively affirms the principles of non-discrimination and social justice embedded in article 15..

The article '8 Landmark Judgments on Article 15 of the Indian Constitution' collectively affirms the principles of non-discrimination and social justice embedded in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, progressively expanding its scope to encompass various facets of societal inequalities.Introduction Article 15 forbids discrimination based only on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The Constitution of India prohibits any type of constraint, disability, or...

The article '8 Landmark Judgments on Article 15 of the Indian Constitution' collectively affirms the principles of non-discrimination and social justice embedded in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, progressively expanding its scope to encompass various facets of societal inequalities.

Introduction

Article 15 forbids discrimination based only on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The Constitution of India prohibits any type of constraint, disability, or conditions from obtaining entry to public parks, commerce, hotels, and restaurants.

In the face of immense variety, sexism, and racism, Article 15 has permitted Indian society to stand high and proud. It is a defender of the oppressed and a barrier against discrimination. Despite a rigorous caste structure, it has historically influenced India’s cohesiveness and equality and will continue to do so. Article 15 was constantly going above and beyond to help individuals in genuine need. 

Click Here to Take a Closer Look at the Judgments Regarding Reservations in India

1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226 | Validation of Reservation in Educational Institution

The major constitutional decision in this case opened the path for the Indian Constitution’s first amendment. By adding clause 4 under Article 15 to the Constitution, the Constitution’s First Amendment provides for the insertion of a reservation policy. Clause 4 under Article 15 of the Constitution, as it currently stands, provides the state with the power to advocate for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe via educational and other socially beneficial initiatives. 

It was the first choice to resolve the mismatch between fundamental rights & governing principles. The Supreme Court held in this landmark decision that the government’s edict reserving seats in schooling institutions solely based on caste and religion is unconstitutional. The decision established the idea of “reasonable classification,” highlighting that affirming measures and reservation must be determined by valid standards to redress social and educational disadvantage instead of religious or caste reasons.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

2. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 321 SC 930 | Does Section 497 of the IPC contradict Articles 14 and 15?

The fundamental issue in the present case was is section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 conflicts with Articles 14 and 15. The argument in this case was that Section 497 of the I.P.C, 1860, states that adultery can only be committed by men and that women cannot even be prosecuted as abettors. As a result of this debate, there was some disagreement about whether this was in breach of Article 15, which limits gender discrimination. However, Clause (3) of Article 15 explicitly indicates that nothing in Article 15 restricts the state’s right to establish specific provisions for women and children. The Court said,

“We are not unable to read any such restriction into the clause; nor are we able to agree that a provision which prohibits punishment is tantamount to a license to commit the offence of which punishment has been prohibited”.

3. Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 P&H 355 |  Reservation for SC and ST in Election

The Petitioner was appointed to serve as Panch for a special seat reserved solely for Scheduled Caste women. The petitioner objected to respondent no. 5’s election as Sarpanch because she was ineligible to run for Sarpanch, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes and not Scheduled Castes (Women), as the respondent was appointed as Panch for Gram Panchayat only, and this was a reserved seat for Scheduled Castes (Women). It was decided that if the village’s Sarpanch seat had been reserved for those from Scheduled Castes, subsequently both men and women associated with these categories were eligible to compete for the Sarpanch’s post because their qualifications were belonging to a Scheduled Caste and expressing the region as Panch.

4. DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, 1955 SCR (1)1215 | Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination based on place of birth but not residence

The rule of State Medical College permitted only non-residents to pay a capitation fee for admission to medical college while residents of MP were exempted.

The constitutionality of the reservation order offering seats at medical for applicants from backward classes was argued against in the landmark case of DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat under Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution, which restricts prejudice on different grounds. The reservation decision was maintained by the Supreme Court, which stated that Article 15(1) does not prohibit the state from creating specific arrangements for the improvement of backwards in terms of education and society sections.

The Court stated that such provisions must promote educational advancement and be based on objective factors such as social and educational backwardness, instead of simply caste considerations. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the significance of a flexible reservation system that responds to altering economic and social circumstances in society.

The Court pointed out that residence and place of birth are "two distinct conceptions with different connotations both in law and in fact".

Click Here to Read (Bottom of P.g. 2) the Official Judgement 

5. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 55 Of 2019 | Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections

This case has had a significant impact since it has ensured that individuals who live in economically disadvantaged sectors of society are provided with equal opportunities in their educational and professional lives. The EWS reservation is an empowering clause that allows the state to offer special accommodations in educational institutions and career prospects for economically disadvantaged sections of society. The Supreme Court of India upheld the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act , 2019 , and the reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in this case.

Because of the EWS reservation, people from economically disadvantaged families now have new opportunities to obtain excellent educations and stable employment. Concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) on current reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs. It is critical to avoid dilution of current reservations and to keep the total reservation rate under 50%. Despite these reservations, the case’s total effect has been favourable, as it strives to uplift economically disadvantaged sectors of India and encourage social and economic equality.

However, careful tracking of the EWS reservation’s execution will be required to verify that it achieves its intended goal while not negatively impacting existing reservations.

6. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045 | Right to make Special Provisions for SCs and STs

The Supreme Court stated the constitutionality of a Madhya Pradesh government executive order that entirely relaxed the standard of minimum scores for applicants from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Pre-Medical Exams.

The court ruled that, in the absence of legislation to the contrary, the government can impose conditions that would make the reservation meaningful for the development of applicants from such classes. The court determined that the presidential order completely reducing the minimum qualifying marks did not violate the Regulation or Article 15 (4) of the Constitution.

Click Here to Know More (Page 2)

7. State of UP v. Pradeep Tondon, 1975 AIR 563 | Reservation of Seats for the Students of Rural Areas

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that giving reserved places to students from rural areas is unconstitutional. It cannot be supported by Article 15 Clause (4). In this case, the state of Uttar Pradesh was giving students from rural areas, mountainous regions, and Uttarakhand preference in medical colleges. Reservations for students from hilly areas and Uttarakhand are valid, as determined by the Supreme Court because those who live in these regions are educationally and socially backwards due to a lack of knowledge and insufficient educational facilities. The Court declared that being rural is not indicative of a backward socioeconomic or educational status and that poverty in rural areas does not correspond to backwardness.

8. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 S.C. 649 | Special Provisions to Make Rules for Backward Classes

In this case, the government reserved seats in the state’s medical and engineering institutions. It was presented that further clarification for the backward class is as follows backward castes had 28%; other backward groups had 22%; and Scheduled Castes and Tribes had 18%. According to the court, the sub-grouping of backward classes had no justification under Article 15 (4). Backwardness is determined by more than just caste. Reservation of up to 68% is a “constitutional fraud.” Article 15 (4) only authorizes the state to make exceptional provisions for backward castes, not exclusive provisions .

Article 15 has made a big difference in the lives of the oppressed in India by advocating harmony and minimizing atrocities against the impoverished classes. It forbids discrimination based on religion, race, socioeconomic status, gender or place of birth, to ensure equal opportunity and growth for socially disadvantaged groups.

While reservations have caused controversy, its objective is to help the underprivileged rather than to divide society. The landmark Article 15 cases have played a critical role in establishing equality and social justice in India. The judiciary has established a compromise between the promotion of equal opportunity and the preservation of merit through these verdicts. Article 15 remains a potent tool in the battle against prejudice, and such decisions have considerably aided the country’s development toward a society that is more equitable and inclusive.

Important Links

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Laiba Tahreem

A final year humanities student of Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi

Related News

Article 15 of Indian Constitution, Provisions, Explanation

Article 15 of Indian Constitution protects its citizens from discrimination of any kind. know more about its Provisions, Exceptions & Amendments in this article for the UPSC exam.

Table of Contents

Article 15 of Indian Constitution

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. India recognises a total of 22 languages, as stated in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution. Despite Hindi and English being the country’s official languages, more than 1,500 other languages are spoken there. About 44.63 per cent of Indians speak Hindi as their first language. Diverse viewpoints frequently lead to conflicts, and such conflicts may lead to prejudice.

One of the main reasons for discrimination in India is caste prejudice, which is still prevalent in some areas. Caste systems, both lower and higher, used to be the predominant method of dividing society. There had been untouchability for the lower classes. India recently made this law illegal due to how terrible it is.

Read More: Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 15 of Indian Constitution Provisions

Article 15 has been desperately needed since the Constitution’s adoption and is still in place. Six clauses in Article 15 of Indian Constitution list the many forms of discrimination that are categorically prohibited.

Read More:  Articles 12 and 13

Article 15 of Indian Constitution Exceptions

Article 15 (3): The state may provide any particular provisions for women and children. For instance, giving children free education or reserving seats for women in local councils. The Supreme Court  held in Revathi v. Union of India, AIR 1998, that the word “for” used in this clause indicated that states can provide women and children special preference while not discriminating against them.

Click here to Know about 6 Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution

Article 15 (4): The state is permitted to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. For instance, public educational institutions may offer fee discounts or seat reservations. This provision was added by the first Amendment Act, of 1951.

Article 15 (5): The state has the authority to make any special arrangements for the advancement of any socially and educationally disadvantaged classes of citizens, as well as for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, regarding their admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether state aid it or not, minority educational institutions are an exception of it.

The 93 rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2005 added it. The 93 rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2005 was upheld as legitimate by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 2008.

Article 15 (6): The state is empowered to make any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens. Additionally, the state is permitted to make a provision for the reservation of up to 10% of seats for these sections when it comes to admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the state, with the exception of minority educational institutions.

In addition to the current reservations, this reservation of up to 10% would be made. According to family income and other indices of economic disadvantage, the state would periodically notify the economically weaker sectors for this reason. The 103rd Amendment Act of 2019 adds it.

Read More: Right to Equality

Article 15 of Indian Constitution Reservation for OBC

In order to give effect to Article. 15 (5), The Centre passed the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which established a 27% quota for applicants from Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in all central higher educational institutions, including the IITs and IIMs.

Here it should be noted that the children of the following different categories of people belong to the ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs and thus will not get the quota benefit:

• Constitutional Posts: Persons holding constitutional posts like President, Vice-president, Judges of SC and HCs, Chairman and Members of UPSC and SPSCs, CEC, CAG and so on.
• Officers: Group ‘A’ / Class I and Group ‘B’ / Class II Officers of the All India, Central and State Services; and Employees holding equivalent posts in PSUs, Banks etc., and also in private employment.
• Top-ranked army officers: Persons who are in the rank of colonel and above in the Army and equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force, and the Paramilitary Forces.
• Other Professions: Professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers, artists, authors, consultants and so on. Persons engaged in trade, business and industry.
• Agricultural land: People holding agricultural land above a certain limit and vacant land or buildings in urban areas.
• Annual Income: Persons having a gross annual income of more than ₹8 lahks or possessing wealth above the exemption limit. It was Rs. 1 lakh when the “creamy layer” ceiling was first introduced in 1993. Later, it was changed to Rs. 2.5 lakh in 2004, Rs. 4.5 lakh in 2008, Rs. 6 lahks in 2013, and Rs. 8 lahks in 2017.

Read about:  Important Articles of Indian Constitution

Article 15 of Indian Constitution Reservation for EWS

In order to give effect to Article 15 (6), the central government issued an order in 2019, to provide 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in admission to educational institutions. The benefit of this reservation is available to EWS members who are not covered by any of the SC, ST, or OBC reservation programmes currently in place. The following are the requirements for eligibility set forth in this regard:

• Annual Income: Persons whose family has a gross annual income below ₹8 lahks are to be identified as EWSs for the benefit of reservation. The income would be for the financial year prior to the year of application and would comprise income from all sources, such as salaries, businesses, professions, and agriculture.
• Possession of Asset: Persons whose family owns or possesses any one of the following assets are to be excluded from being identified as EWSs, irrespective of the family income; first, Agricultural land of 5 acres and above; second, residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above; third, Residential plots of 100 sq. yards and above in notified municipalities.
• Determination of Property: The property held by a family in different locations or different places/cities would be clubbed while applying the land or property holding test to determine EWS status.
• Definition of Family: For this purpose, the individual requesting the benefit of the reservation, his or her parents, siblings, and children under the age of 18 are all considered members of the individual’s immediate family.

Read More:   Salient Features of Constitution of India

Article 15 of Indian Constitution UPSC

Article 15 has helped Indian society to stand tall and proud despite such great diversity and all forms of sexism, racism, and rigid caste system, and it will continue to do so forever. It is truly the protector of the oppressed and a shield against prejudice.

It is significant to note that Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth in all circumstances. People have been discriminated against in several ways throughout history, and the term discrimination covers a broad variety of topics.

Sharing is caring!

Is Article 15 part if Fundamental Rights?

Yes, Part III of the constitution which is Fundamental rights have article from 12 to 35.

What is Article 15 (1)?

It provides that the State shall not discriminate any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

What is Article 15 (3)?

The state may provide any particular provisions for women and children.

The 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2005 added which provision?

It added Article 15(5) according to which the state has the authority to make any special arrangements for the advancement of any socially and educationally disadvantaged classes

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019 added which provision?

It added Article 15(6) according to which the state is empowered to make any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.

• indian polity

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Trending Event

• UKPSC Prelims Result 2024
• KPSC KAS Question Paper 2024
• KPSC KAS Answer Key 2024
• SSC CGL Tier 1 Admit Card 2024
• TNPSC Group 4 Result 2024
• NEET Syllabus 2025

Recent Posts

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2025
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form
• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

SSC CGL 2024

• SSC CGL Exam 2024
• SSC CGL Syllabus 2024
• SSC CGL Cut off
• SSC CGL Apply Online
• SSC CGL Salary
• SSC CGL Previous Year Question Paper
• SSC CGL Admit Card 2024
• SSC MTS 2024
• SSC MTS Apply Online 2024
• SSC MTS Syllabus 2024
• SSC MTS Salary 2024
• SSC MTS Eligibility Criteria 2024
• SSC MTS Previous Year Paper

SSC Stenographer 2024

• SSC Stenographer Notification 2024
• SSC Stenographer Apply Online 2024
• SSC Stenographer Syllabus 2024
• SSC Stenographer Salary 2024
• SSC Stenographer Eligibility Criteria 2024

SSC GD Constable 2025

• SSC GD Salary 2025
• SSC GD Constable Syllabus 2025
• SSC GD Eligibility Criteria 2025

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Article 15 of the Indian constitution

Adv. Pooja Gupta

Updated on: September 20, 2023

Best Law Books

Article 15 specifies a specific application of the general principle enshrined/expressed in Article 14 . The same classification approach applies to Art.14 as it does to Art.15(1). The inherent consequence of Art.14 & is not that the state cannot pass unequal laws, but that it can, and that the inequality must be justified

Art. 15(ii) No one has the authority to restrict the public space under Art.15 (1). Art.15(iii) Nothing in this article precludes the government from establishing specific provisions for women & children.

Article 15(iv): Nothing in this article prevents the State from providing specific provisions for citizens of different educational and social backgrounds, as well as for SC/STs. (It was added in 1951 by the 1st Constitutional Amendment.)

Article 15(v) gives the state the power to enact legislation relating to educational and socially backward groups, Scheduled castes, and Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, both aided and unassisted, but not in minority institutions (Art.30 (1)). (Added by the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution in 2005)

Table of Contents

Exception to Article 15(1) and 15(2)

Art. 5(3), 15(4), and 15(5) create exceptions to Articles 15(1) and 15. (2). These Exceptions are clarified further below under the following headings: Special provisions for women and children [Article 15(3)].

According to Article 15(3), nothing in Article 15 prevents the state from taking specific measures for women and children. As a result, Art. 15 does not prohibit the government from excluding special provisions for women & children.

The court upheld it in Choki vs. State of Rajasthan on the grounds that it makes specific provisions for women and thus falls under Article 15 protection (3). The constitution (1st Amendment) Act of 1951 added Art. 15(4).

As a result of S.C.’s judgment in the State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan , this change was necessary. On the other hand, the government of Madras had allocated seats in medical and engineering colleges in particular proportions for distinct communities based on religion and race.

“Article 46 of the D.P.S.P . requires the state to implement legislation that promotes social justice for all groups in society.” S.C held that the law was unconstitutional because it classified students based on caste and religion. Fundamental Rights cannot be overruled by D.P.S.P. As a result of this decision, the 1st Amendment has been added to Art.15.

Special provisions are made

The improvement of socially and educationally backward classes, as well as for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) [Article15(4)].

Balaji v. State of Mysore (AIR 1963)

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the order’s sub-classification of “backward classes” and “more backward classes” was unjustified under Art.15(4) because it was based solely on caste without due consideration for other factors.

Balaji was the first case heard by the Supreme Court following the adoption of the first constitutional amendment in 1951.

How far “backward” and “more backward” classification is valid?

Article 15 of the Constitution does not allow for the differentiation between backward and more backward classes as was found in the case of Balaji vs. State of Mysore (4) .

As a result, “ Creamy Layer ” was accepted. In the case “ Indira Sawheny v/s Union of India,” the idea of a “ creamy layer ” was established. The number 10 is the most significant. The Supreme Court ruled that 27 percent of government jobs will be designated for people of color. According to the terms, in this case, reservations were made for “ first stages of appointments ” only, and not for subsequent promotions. No more than 50% of the entire amount of the reservation is permitted. This is because already 22,5 % is allocated for SCs and STs’. The Indira Sawheny case led to Mandal Report being supported by several state governments and other government organizations. Article 16 was cited in this case (4)

Supreme Court of India ruled in Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India that backward and more backward classes can be classified & it is constitutionally acceptable.

This interpretation applies equally to clause (4) of Article 15 because the term “ backward classes ” in Article 16 (4) includes the SCs, STs, and other socially and educationally backward classes.

As a result, the viewpoint expressed in the case of Balaji vs. State of Mysore has been rejected.

Cases related Article 15 very important to understand

Nainsuphdas vs. state of u.p. (air-1953).

A law prohibiting members of various faith communities from voting in distinct electorates was held to be unconstitutional .

Shamsher Singh vs. U.O.I (AIR-1970)

In this decision, the court decided that only reasonable accommodations in favour of women can be made under Article 15(3) and that the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Art-16 (2)cannot be entirely obliterated or rendered illusory.

D.P Joshi vs. State of M.P.

It was said that place of residence is a valid criteria for classification and if some college charges less fee to locally domiciled students and more fee to students coming from outside, it would be valid.

Valsamma Paul vs. Coachin Univerity (AIR-1996)

The court ruled in this case that a girl from a high caste marrying a boy from an SC/ST family is not eligible for the reservation benefits available to SC/STs.

The Constitution (93 rd Amendment) Act, 2005

The Constitution (93 rd Amendment) Act of 2005 modified Article 15, adding a new clause (5). Insofar as such legislation relates to their admission to educational institutions or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Art. 19, the State is prohibited from enacting special legislation for the development and betterment of any backward classes of citizens, or for SCs or STs.

Other than the minority institutions referred to in clause (1) of Art. 30, whether assisted or unassisted by the State.

Conclusion of the Article 15

In order to reach those in need, Article 15 has always had to go through a lot of hoops. Since its commencement in 1949, the oppressed situation has vastly improved. In addition, it provides a solid foundation on which the legislature can build policies to encourage peace in society.

Nature of the Indian Constitution (Meaning and Nature)

Preamble of india [preamble of the indian constitution], leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Most Popular Law Books

Most popular article.

Law of Tort

Define torts and its essential elements law of torts in india.

Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum – The legal maxim

Constitution of India

The doctrine of eclipse and severability in indian constitution.

Doctrine of Volenti non-fit Injuria case and exception

© LAWS STUDY 2024

Article 15 of The Constitution of India and Important Case Laws

Article 15 in the constitution of india 1949.

Article 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

• The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them
• No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to a) .access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing Ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
• Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
• 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 the Scheduled Tribes.

Explanation-

Article 14 to 18 of The Constitution of India 1949 deals with the Right to Equality. Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by The Constitution of India to an individual to live life with dignity without any discrimination. Article 14 of The Constitution of India deals with equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Article 15 of The Constitution of India prohibits any discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(3) The Constitution of India is a special provision for women and children. The state can make any special provision for women and children. Example- Reservation for women in local self-government and free education to children.

The basic object of Article 15 of The Constitution of India prohibits the discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and making special provisions to the weaker section of the society. Article 15(1) and 15(2) prohibits the discrimination whereas Article 15(3) and Article 15(4) are an exception to Article 15(1) and 15(2).

Article 15(4) is a special provision for the SC and STs where a State can make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Dr. Ambedkar, in his general reply to the debate on the point, stated thus:

If honorable Members understand this position that we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, then, I am sure they will agree that unless you use some such qualifying phrase as ‘backward’ the exception made in favor of reservation will ultimately eat up the rule altogether. Nothing of the rule will remain….

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

M.r. balaji and ors. v. state of mysore [1963].

Gajendragadkar, J. observed, “Though castes in relation to Hindus may be a relevant factor to consider in determining the social backwardness of groups or classes of citizens, it cannot be the sole or the dominant test in that behalf.”

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India  ( AIR 1993 )

K.c. vasanth kumar & another vs state of karnataka, ashoka kumar thakur vs union of india & ors, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.