DECEMBER 16, 2017 BY ADMIN

Article 15 & 16 – Constitution of India – Notes

Spread the love

Pradeep Jain v Union of India

Residence requirement of medical college inconsistent with unity and integrity of India
Though given circumstance reservation on basis of residence could be justi ed but it should
not exceed 50% of the total seats
No reservation permissible on basis of residence for post graduate courses such as M.S. and
M.D.
Also allowed up to 50% reservation in higher courses for student of same institute seeking
admission in post graduate course in the institute itself

Government of A.P. v. P.B. Vijaykumar

Andhra Pradesh government allowed for reservation of women in following ways:-

o   Preference for women in jobs better suited for them

o   Preference upto 30% for women in jobs for which they are equally suited with man;
o   Direct recruitment to posts reserved exclusively for women was upheld.
Court held that Article 15(3) is broad enough to cover any special provisions for women
including reservation in jobs.

Issues of Reservation

State of Madras v. Champakam Doraijan

Madras government passed an order which had xed the proportion of students of each
community that could be admitted in the state medical and engineering colleges.
The government contended that it had a duty under Article 46 to protect people from social
injustice.
The court held that the directive principles of state policy have to conform to and run as
subsidiary to the chapter of fundamental rights.

M. R. Balaji v. State Of Mysore (1962)

Considered the validity of reservation for OBC for the rst time and answered its validity in
af rmative
Matter of national ef ciency need to be considered and thus reservation should be less than
50% – Article 335, Constitution
Caste can be one of criteria with other criteria such as poverty, place of habitation etc.
The court also held that since Article 15(4) is an exception to 15(1) the reservation cannot
exceed 50% as then the rule will eat the exception.
Since Mysore scheme was entirely based on caste it was struck down

T.Devadasan v. The Union Of India (1964)

Carry forward rule (vacancies which remained un lled due to non-availability of reserved
category candidates be carried forward to the next year) was implemented for SC and ST
Reservation thus reached 64% in a particular year and was struck down
Court reiterated Balaji that reservation should be less than 50%

Mandal Commission Report

Mandal Commission recognized 4000 classes eligible for reservation
They wanted proportional reservation for OBC ie 52% and thus a total of 74% reservation
(22% for SC & ST)
Balaji judgment was a hindrance in implementing this

P. Rajendran v State of Madras

Court determined the test of backwardness which was predominantly based on caste.
Reservation based only on caste without taking into account social and educational
backwardness of the caste in question would be violative of Article 15 (1).
Caste is also a class of citizens and if the caste as a whole is socially ad educationally
backward, reservation can be made in favour of such a caste on the ground that it is socially
and educationally backward class of citizens within the meaning of Article 15(4).

State Of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1975)

Developed difference between substantive and formal equality
Rule 13A which was introduced sometime later, gave temporary exemption from passing the
departmental tests for a period of two years. The rule also provided that an employee who did
not pass the uni ed departmental tests within the period of two years from the date of
introduction of the test would be reverted to the lower post and further said that he shall not
again be eligible for appointment under this rule. Proviso 2 to this rule gave temporary
exemption of two years in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
Found valid as per nexus test, object being removal of backwardness
As long as legal classi cation (social, nancial, educational backwardness) is valid preference
to any extent is valid till goal is achieved (even upto 100%)
The majority of the court rejected that article 15(4) or 16(4) is an exception to article 15(1) or
16(1). The court asserted that article 16(4) and 15(4) are emphatic assertions and directions
to the State to take effective af rmation steps to enforce the concept of equality as lay down in
article 14, 15 and 16.

Indra Sahwney v. Union of India (1992)

Mandal Commission report was not challenged but VP Singh  & Narsimha Rao  government’s
memo was challenged
Concept of ‘creamy layer’ advanced section of OBC to not get reservation was implemented
Creamy layer not there for SC and ST
Caste cannot be sole factor but important factor.
 Caste is a Predominant Test of backwardness among Hindus. While classi cation on the
basis of caste was forbidden by 16(2), the use of caste was permissible for identifying
backward classes.
Reservation impermissible in promotion

o   Analogy was given – a medical student even if he gets seat from reservation still need to
pass exam

o   Also reservation for class and in case of promotion it would work for individual rather than
class (Certain individual who have already received bene t of reservation will get the bene t of
this scheme)

Reservation cannot exceed 50%

Reservation cannot be given on exclusively economic state

____________

Post Indra Sahwney, constitution was amended [Article 16(4)(a)] and reservation in promotion
for SC & ST was allowed
Article 16(4)(a) was again amended in 2001 to have retrospective effect
Article 16(4)(b) was inserted in 2000 so as to remove 50% rule for ‘carry forward’ rule of
lling backlog vacancies of SC & ST
Also Balaji was focused more on education and Indra Sahwney was focused on jobs
Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab (1999)
Court discarded the consequential seniority for SC & ST
Court said a person getting promotion due to reservation cannot get the bene t of seniority as
it will lead to double bene ts.
This was nulli ed by parliament through an amendment made to Article 16(4)

TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)

Unaided private educational institution asserted their right under Article 19(1)(g) [right to
occupation] to choose student of their own choice and claimed that state cannot impose
restriction on the same
The court upheld their contention
This case was upheld in P.A. Inamdar  v. State Of Maharashtra (2005)
This case was nulli ed by inserting Article 15(5) through an amendment to the constitution
Aided or unaided will have to provide reservation if a law is made under Article 15(5) now

M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union Of India (2006)

Amendment made to constitution (Article 16(4)(a) & (b)) were challenged on ground that they
went against concept of ef ciency given in Article 335 of constitution and basic structure of
constitution
Court stated that Kesavananda held that fundamental rights could be abridged but not
destroyed and these amendments were abridging fundamental rights so as to promote
substantive equality through af rmative actions.
Also held that each time State provides reservation under Article 16(4)(a) it must present
quanti able data regarding backwardness of class

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

Upheld Indra Sahwney
Creamy layer to be excluded for OBC
Those who have achieved economic advancement also need to be excluded as then they have
achieved social advancement.
Poverty nexus is map for reservation in jobs and educational institutions

U.P.Power Corp.Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar (2012)

No quanti able data was shown regarding backwardness and the fact that ef ciency won’t be
affected wasn’t proved (Article 335)
17th Constitution Amendment Bill 2012, seeks to do away with this quanti able data test of
Nagaraj

State of Tripura & others v. Jayanta Chakraborty

(2017)
The three-Judge bench made a reference to the Chief Justice under Article 145(3) to constitute
a Constitution Bench to decide whether the M. Nagaraj’s judgment needs reconsideration.
The contention is that a re-look of M. Nagaraj is required on the ground that test of
backwardness ought not to be applied to SC/ST in view of Indra Sawhney judgment.

You can grab notes on other provisions of the Constitution and other law subjects from here.

Spread the love

CO N S T I T U T I O N , L AW S C H O O L N O T ES