Article 15 Indian Constitution

Clause (1) - "The State shall not discriminate

against any citizen on grounds only of religion,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them."

The prohibition is against the State but not against

private persons. The word 'discrimination' means
'to make an adverse distinction with regard to', to
distinguish unfavourably from others'. The
constitutional prohibition is directed to all State
action-legislative or executive. It may be political,
civil or otherwise. A law which provides for election
on the basis or separate electorates based on the
religion of the voters offends against this clause.

It must be noted that discrimination based on any

of these grounds and also on other grounds is not
hit by Art. 15(1). In other words, the discrimination
should be based solely or only on a ground
mentioned in Art. 15(1) and no other ground.

Thus, a law which discriminates on the ground of

residence does not violate Art. 15(1) (Place of birth
is different from residence). Similarly, the
requirement of a test in regional language for State
employment doesn't contravene Art. 15 as the test
is made compulsory for all persons seeking
employment.

The expression "place of birth" is not synonymous

with the expression "domicile". Thus, reservation
in Government run medical colleges based on
domicile was not prohibited by Art. 15(1) [D.P.
Joshi case AIR 1955 SC 334; Saurabh Chaudari v
UOl].

Clause (2) - "No citizen shall, on ground 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 general public."

"Places of public resort' includes public parks,

buses, milway, hospitals, etc. It is to be noted that
while clause (1) prohibits discrimination by State,
clause (2) includes private persons also from
making any discrimination. Thus, clause (2) is
more general in nature or wider in operation.
However, otherwise, clause (2) is a particular
application of the general principle against
discrimination embodied in clause (1), because the
latter forbids discrimination against citizens in all
matters, the former deals only with discrimination
as regards to use or access to public places.
Clause (2) is quite relevant in the contex of the
practice of untouchability prevalent in India on a
large scale.

Provisos (or Exceptions) to Art. 15(1) and (2)

Clause (3) - "Nothing in this article shall prevent

State from making any special provision for
women and children".

Thus, reservation of seals for women in a college

does not offend against Art. 15(1). Provisions can
be made for maternity benefit or free education of
women and children. Similarly special treatment
for women and children in Sec. 437 of Code of
Criminal Procedure in granting bail is valid.

It may be noted that under clause (3), special

provisions can be made in favour of and not
against women. Art. 15(1)-(3) would imply that
State can discriminate in favour of women against
men but not vice versa (Revathi v UOI AIR 1998
SC 835).

Clause (4) - "Nothing in this article or clause (2) of

Art. 29 shall prevent the State from making any
special provision for advancement of any socially
and educationally backward classes of citizen or
for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."

Clause (4) was added by the Constitution (First

Amendment) Act, 1951. It was also to override the
judgement in State of Madras v Champakam
Dorairajan (AIR 1951 Mad. 120) in which
caste-wise distribution of seats was struck down
as violating Art. 15(1).

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR
1951 SC 226) is a landmark decision of the
Supreme Court of India. This judgement led to the
First Amendment of the Constitution of India. It
was the first major judgement regarding
reservations in Republic of India. In its ruling the
Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court
judgement, which in turn had struck down the
Government Order (G.O) passed in 1927 in the
[Madras Presidency]. The G.O had provided caste
based reservation in government jobs and college
seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that
providing such reservations was in violation of
Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution.

Under Art. 15(4), two things are to be determined

while providing for reservation of seats in public
educational institutions: (i) Who are socially and
educationally backward classes? (il) What is the
limit of reservation? It may be noted that the
expression "special provisions for advancement" is
of wide import and not necessarily confined to
reservation of seats in educational institutions.
Thus, it may include financial assistance, free
medical facilities, concessional or free housing,
etc.

The scope of Art. 15(4) was discussed in Balaji v

State of Mysore (AIR 1963 SC 649). The court
observed that Art. 15(4) only enable the State to
make special and not exclusive provisions for
backward classes. Clause (4) is only an enabling
provision and does not impose any obligation on
the State to take any special action under it. It
merely confers discretion to act, if necessary.

Clause (5) - The Constitution 93rd Amendment

Act, 2005 (w.e.f. 20th January
2006), has added a new Clause (5) to Art. 15. Cl.
(5) provides that nothing in Art. 15 or in Art.
19(1)(g) prevent the State in making any special
provision, by law, for the advancement of socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens or
for SCs/ STs in so far as such special provision
relate to admission to educational institutions,
including private ones, whether aided or unaided
by the State, other than minority educational
institutions referred to in Art. 30(1).

This amendment is intended to nullify the effect of

the Supreme Court's judgement in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation and P.A. Inamdar cases, in which it
was held that the government cannot make
reservation of seats for Backward Classes and
SCs and STs in private educational institutions. But
the 93rd amendment exempts the minority
educational institutions established under Art. 30
from its purview.
Art. 15(5) amplify what is stated in Art. 15(4), by
specifically mentioning, 'admission to educational
institutions. Further, The State could do so only by
law, and not by executive action.

Clause (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.

Insertion of Clause (6)

Article 15(6) is added to provide reservations to
Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) for
admission to educational institutions including
private educational institutions, whether aided or
unaided by the State, other than the minority
educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of
Article 30. The amendment aims to provide
reservation to those who do not fall in the category
mentioned in article 15(5) and 15(4). For availing
above benefit the Gross annual income of family
should be below 8 lakh and own less than 5 acres
of farm land. This clause was added by
Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 (w.e.f.
14-01-2019) and the Constitutional validity of this
amendment was challenged.

New development
On 7 November 2022, Supreme Court of India by
a 3:2 verdict in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 55 OF 2019, upheld the
validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment
carried out to provide legal sanction carve out 10%
reservation for the economically weaker sections
from unreserved classes for admission in
educational institutions and government job.