Article 15

Article 14 & 15
 Article 15 is a facet of Article 14.
 Like Article 14, Article 15(1) also cover the entire
range of state activities.

Scope of Article 15 is narrower than that of Article

14.
1. Article 14 is general in nature in the sense it applies
both to citizens and non-citizens. Whereas Article
15(1) cover only the Indian citizens. No non-citizen can
claim right under Article 15(1).

2. Article 14 permits any reasonable classification on the

basis of any rational criterion. On the other hand,
Article 15(1), certain grounds mentioned therein can
never form the basis of classification.
 No Discrimination on Grounds of
Religion, Race, Caste etc. Article 15(1)
Art 15(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
ONLY of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
“discriminate against” means-

to make an adverse distinction with regard to;

to distinguish unfavourably from others

Discrimination against one person necessarily involves discrimination in

favour of the other. The term thus includes comparison. Where two citizens
placed, more or less similarly in all material respects, any State action placing
one of them alone under a disadvantage, there would be discrimination
against him within the meaning of Art 15.
 Discrimination, in the context of Art 15 also means
classification among persons or things and also
reservations for some of the members of a group or a
class.
 If any such classification or reservation is based on any
of the grounds mentioned in Art 15(1) i.e., religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth, it would be violative of Art
15(1).
 Case- Rajeshwari v. State of U.P AIR 1954 All 60- It
was held that the U.P Court of Wards Act, 1912, which
deprived a female proprietress to hold and enjoy her
property on the ground of her sex, was violative of
Article 15(1).
 .
 Similarly in case –Sundra Sodha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR
2015 Raj. 158- wherein Rajasthan High Court held illegal and
violative of Article 15, the denial of admission to women
candidates in undergraduate programme in discipline of Mining
Engineering, merely because employment of women in any part of
mines below ground was prohibited
 Case Karma Dorjee v. Union of India (2016) 12 SCALE 770
SCALE- Supreme Court Almanac(Yearbook/manual/register)- the
apex court took serious note of the menace of racial discrimination
committed against the people of North- Eastern States, residing in
other parts of the country. Stating that such discriminatory
treatment was not only prohibited under Article 15 of the
constitution, it also violated art 51A(e) , which imposed a
fundamental duty on the citizens to promote harmony and spirit of
common brotherhood amongst all the people of India.
 On the ground ONLY of
 In Art 15(1), the emphasis seems to be, on the word
“only” running with the prohibited grounds. It indicates
that it is only where the discrimination rests solely on
the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth,
that Article 15 comes into play.

 The significance of the word “only” in Art 15 is that

other qualifications being equal, religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth should not be ground of preference
or disability.
 Case- D.P.Joshi v State of M.P. AIR 1955 SC 334-
popularly known as first capitation fee case, a rule
framed for admission to the State Medical Colleges,
required the payment of capitation fee from Non-
Madhya Bharat students. The Madhya Bharat students
were exempted for the payment.
 It was held that the law which discriminates on basis
of residence is not against 15(1). Art 15(1) prohibits
discrimination on basis of place of birth and not on
basis of residence.
 Same requirement of regional language for State
employment does not contravene 15(1).
 Case- Nainsukhdas v. State of UP AIR 1953 384- It was
held that a law which provided for elections on the basis
of separate electorates for members of different religious
communities was held to be unconstitutional.
 Again, where the discrimination is based on one or more
of the prohibited grounds and also on some other
grounds, Article 15(1) will not be attracted. For instance in
Case- Chitra v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC35, a refusal
of admission to a girl student to a co-educational
institution not on the ground of sex, but on account of a
scheme for the better organisation of education including
the development of women’s college there, as a step
towards the advancement of female education, and to
relieve pressure on the mixed college, was held not to be
violative of Article 15(1).
 No Discrimination as to use or Access to
Public Places [Article 15(2)]
 Art 15 (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.
 Clause (2) of Art 15 is a particular application of the
general principle against discrimination embodied in
Clause(1).
 While, clause (1) forbids discrimination against all
citizens in all matters, clause (2) deals only with cases of
discrimination as regards to the use or access to public
places mentioned therein.
 Object of Art 15(2):
 It is to guard against the menace of discrimination which
can possibly be practiced, in a country like India, on a
vast scale and in a relentless manner.
 The purpose is to eradicate the evil of the Hindu Caste
System, wherein the depressed classes, were considered
untouchables and were prohibited entry to public places.
 Shop- It has been used in a generic sense and would
mean- any place where the owner is prepared to offer
his service to anybody who is prepared to go there
seeking his service. For e.g., laundry, saloon, office of
doctor or lawyer, besides any premises where goods
are sold either by retail or wholesale or both.
 Place of public resort- It mean the place to which
members of public are allowed access and where they
habitually resort to. Viz., public park, a public road, a
public bus, railway platforms or hospitals.
 The word tank would include ponds.
 A private tank, well or a bathing ghats, does not come
within the purview of Art 15(2).
 It may be noted that clause (2) is wider in operation
and more general in nature than clause(1) of Article 15.
For, while the prohibition under clause(1) is against
State only, Clause(2) Prohibits not only the State but
also Private Individuals from violating the directions
contained therein.
 Case-Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v.
Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473- the SC ruled that
whenever any fundamental right, which was
enforceable against private individuals was being
violated, it would be the constitutional obligation of
the State, to take necessary steps, for the purpose of
prohibiting such violation and ensuring observance of
the fundamental right by the private individual who
was transgressing the same.
 Article 15(3)- Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children.

 This clause is an exception to the rule against

discrimination embodied in Clause(1) as well as
Clause (2). While both these Clauses prohibit
discrimination on the ground of sex, Clause (3)
enables the State to confer special rights upon
women, since women are a well defined class.

 It is to strengthen and improve the status of

women.
 The word “ for” in Clause (3) signifies that special
provisions can be made in favour of women and not
against them. Therefore, Clauses(1) to (3) of Art 15,
read together would imply that State can discriminate
in favour of women, but cannot discriminate in favour
of men against women.
 For e.g., the plea that a woman belonging to SC
category, cannot contest for the post of sarpanch,
reserved for candidates belonging to SC category and
not reserved for women belonging to that category,
would not be tenable.
 Thus u/Art 42 women workers can be given special
maternity relief and law to this effect will not infringe
15(1).
 Section 125 Cr. P. C which requires the husband to
maintain his wife and not vice versa, has been held not
discriminatory, for it merely provides benefits and
protection to women and children in certain
circumstances.
 The Constitution 73rd and 74th Amendment Act, 1992
added Art 243-D and 243-T, making provision for
reservation of not less than 1/3rd of the total seats for
women in the constitution of the Panchayats and the
Municipalities, respectively.
 Similarly proposed Constitution 84th Amendment Bill,
1998 contains provisions for the reservation of 33 percent
of seats for women in the composition of Lok Sabha and
legislative Assemblies of the States.
 Case-Dattatraya v. State AIR 1953 Bom 311- it was
held that it would not be violation of Art 15 if
educational institutions are established by the State
exclusively for women. The reservation of seats for
women in a college does not offend against Art 15 (1).
 Case-Yusuf Abdul Aziz v State of Bombay AIR 1954-
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of Section
497 of IPC, 1860 and said that the impugned section was
justified on the ground that the discrimination was not
based on the ground of sex alone, but for other reasons
also. s497 IPC punishes only men for adultery even
women may be liable is not against 15(1)
 Article 15(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.
 Article 29(2)-No citizen shall be denied admission
into any educational institution maintained by the
State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
 This Clause (4) was added by the constitution ( Ist
Amendment) Act, 1951, as sequel to the decision of
the seven judge bench of SC in State of Madras v.
Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226.
 Facts-Madras Government issued a Communal
G.O. providing for reservation of seats in the State
Medical and Engineering College for different
communities in proportion of students of each
community. Thus, seats were reserved on the
ground of religion, race, caste.
 Object – defended by the State that it to help the
backward classes and to promote directive
principle under Article 46. that lays down that the
state should promote with special care the
educational & economic interests of the weaker
sections of the people & protect – them from
social injustice.
 Court held- the law void because it classified students
on the basis of caste and religion irrespective of merit and
also held that “DPSP (non justiciable) have to conform to
and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of F.R (Justiciable).”
 The Court thus gave literal interpretation to the
constitutional provision which led to the insertion of
clause(4) in Article 15.
 Art 15(4)-Historical Aspect
 In 1850s these communities were loosely referred to as the
"Depressed Classes". The Morley-Minto Reforms Report,
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Report, and the Simon
Commission were some of the initiatives that happened
in this context.
 Reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes was
incorporated into the Government of India Act 1935 act,
which came into force in 1937.
 The Act brought the term "Scheduled Castes" into use, and
defined the group as including "such castes, races or tribes
or parts of groups within castes, races or tribes, which
appear to His Majesty in Council to correspond to the
classes of persons formerly known as the 'Depressed
Classes', as His Majesty in Council may prefer."
 This discretionary definition was clarified in The
Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936 which
contained a list, or Schedule, of castes throughout the
British administered provinces.
 After independence, the Constituent Assembly continued
the prevailing definition of Scheduled Castes and Tribes,
and gave (via articles 341, 342) the President of India and
Governors of states responsibility to compile a full listing of
castes and tribes, and also the power to edit it later as
required.
 The actual complete listing of castes and tribes was made
via two orders The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,
1950, and The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
respectively.
 Art 15(4)- Enabling Provision
Clause(4) of Art 15 is an enabling provision. It merely confers
discretion on the State to make special provisions.
It does not impose any obligation on the State to take any
action under it.
 Case Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana AIR
2010 SC 288- the appellants by a writ petition had
sought the court to direct the State Government to
provide reservation of seats in Post graduate Courses
(MD/MS/MDS/Diploma), in accordance with the
guidelines issued by the government of India in
respect of All India Entrance Examination for said
courses.
 Dismissing the appeal, a three Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court observed:
 Art 15(4) is only an enabling provision. Art 15 is not an
exception but only makes a special application of the
principle of reasonable classification.
 Art 15(4) does not make any mandatory provision for
reservation and the power to make reservation under
Art 15(4) is discretionary and no writ can be issued to
effect reservation.
 The expression “backward classes” is not defined in
the constitution. Art 340 of the Constitution, however,
empowers the president to appoint a commission to
investigate the conditions of socially and educationally
backward classes within the territory of India. On
receiving the report of the commission, the president
may specify the classes to be considered backward.

 SC and ST has been defined under Art 366(24) & (25).

 Scope of clause(4) Article 15
 Clause(4) of Art 15 enables the State to make special
provisions of the advancement. This expression-
Special provisions for advancement is a wide
expression and should not be construed in a restricted
sense as meaning only social and educational
advancement.
 The expression may include many more things besides
mere reservation of seats in colleges. It may be by way
of financial assistance, free medical, educational and
hostel facilities, scholarships, free transport,
concessional or free housing, exemption from
requirements insisted upon in the case of other
classes.
 Such special provisions are permissible under clause(4)
of Art 15 must , however, be for the advancement of
persons belonging to those categories and therefore,
special provisions, which is not for the advancement of
those persons, would not be protected under Art 15(4).
 Case- State of M.P v. Mohan Singh AIR 1996 SC 2106-
it was held by the SC that there was no justification, in
law, for giving remission to prisoners belonging to the
SCs/STs. In so far as these prisoners had broken the law,
they stood on the same footing as all other prisoners.
The invocation of Art 15(4) was thus, held wholly
unjustified , as the grant of remission to convicted
prisoners belonging to the SCs/STs, could hardly be said
to be a measure for the advancement of the SCs/STs
 Two contentious issues in the application of
Article 15(4)-
 Basis to determine a class to be socially and
educationally backward;
 Extent or quantum of the special provision
authorized by this clause.
 “Schedule Castes” means such castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within such castes,
races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to
be Schedule Castes for the purpose of this
Constitution.
 “Schedule Tribes” means such tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within such
tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under
article 342 to be schedule tribes for the Purpose
Socially and Educationally backward Classes- Caste may be the sole basis

 Case- M.R Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

it was held by the court that backwardness under Art
15(4), must be both socially and educationally. The
caste of a group of persons could not be the sole or
even predominant basis to ascertain whether that class
should be taken to be backward for the purpose of Art
15(4).
 The court held that as regards social backwardness, the
main determining factor would be the result of
poverty.
 One’s occupation and place of habitation could be the
other relevant factor.
 The court thus invalidated the test of social
backwardness which was based predominantly, if not
solely, on the basis of caste.
 However in Case-P. Rajendran v, State of Madras
AIR 1968 SC1012- The court upheld the test of
backwardness which was solely based on caste. It was
observed by the court that- it must not be forgotten
that a caste is also a class of citizens and if the caste as
a whole is socially and 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 Art
15(4).
 Case- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC
477- the matter seems to have been settled by the
majority of the Supreme Court, holding that caste can be
an important or even sole factor in determining the
social backwardness and that poverty alone cannot be
such a criterion.
 Case – National Legal Services Authority v. Union of
India AIR 2014 SC 1863- the SC while quashing the
Central Govt’s 2014 notification, putting Jats of Haryana,
H.P, Uttrakhand, U.P, Rajasthan, M.P, Delhi , Bihar and
Gujarat, on the list of OBC, for reservation in jobs and
educational institutions, ruled that backwardness could
not be caste centric forever. It was advised to the govt to
evolve new practices, methods and yardsticks to discover
and address emerging forms of backwardness.
 Quantum of Special Provision
 Case- M.R Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC
649, the SC held that Clause (4) of Art 15 enabled the
State to make special provisions not exclusive
provisions.
 In this case, the Mysore govt issued an order
reserving seats in the medical and engineering
colleges in the State. Under this Order, the
reservation provided was as follows- Backward
Classes- 28%, more Backward Classes-20%, SC and
ST 18%. Thus 68% of the available seats in the
colleges were reserved seats and only 32% seats were
left for general merit pool.
 The SC held the Order bad and said that it amounted
to be a fraud upon the Constitution, plainly
inconsistent with Art 15(4). The Court said that the
State would not be justified in ignoring altogether
advancement of the rest of the society in its zeal to
promote the welfare of the backward classes.
 National interest would suffer if qualified and
competent students were excluded from admission
into institution of higher education. The Court held
that a special provision, should be less than 50%, how
much less than 50%, would depend upon the relevant
prevailing circumstances in each case.
 Case- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993- The SC
in this case finally held that barring any extraordinary
situations, reservation should not exceed 50%. However, the
reserved candidates getting selected in open competition on
the basis of their merit, should not be counted against the
quota reserved for them. They would be deemed as general
category candidates.
 Case- Voice Consumer Care Council v. State of T.N 2010-
Justice Kapadia allowed the State of Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka, to offer reservation in education and jobs
beyond the 50 per cent cap, provided they had quantifiable
data on the BC/OBC population warranting this. The Court
has asked the states to collect the data and submit it to their
respective Commission for Backward Classes in order to
revisit the reservation issue. It was ruled that reservation
beyond 50% must be justified with reasons.
 Article 15(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.]
 This clause was added by The Constitution (Ninety-
Third Amendment) Act, 2005.
 Case- Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
6 SCC 1.
 The SC upheld the validity of the 93rd Amendment Act,
2005 so far as it related to State maintained and State
aided educational Institutions. As regards the private
unaided educational institutional institutions, the
question is left open.
 Case- Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v.
Union of India AIR 2014 SC 2114- A constitutional
bench upheld the constitutional validity of Clause(5) of
Article 15 and explained:
 It is an enabling provision to make equality of
opportunity promised in the preamble a reality,
 Clause (5) amplifies the provision of Art 15, despite which
some classes have remained backward and also not been
able to access educational institutions for the purpose of
advancement.
 Law made for the purpose of clause(5) will have to be in
conformity with equality clause. Exclusion of minority
institutions, which are a separate class by themselves
does not destroy concept of secularism.
 Article 15(6)-enables 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%
(meaning up to 10% of seats can be reserved for citizens
falling in the EWS category). This 10% ceiling is
independent of ceilings on existing reservations.
 On January 9th 2019, the Parliament of India enacted
the Constitution (One Hundred and Third
Amendment) Act, 2019 which enabled the State to
make reservations in higher education and matters of
public employment on the basis of economic criteria
alone. The Act amended Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution by inserting 15(6) and 16(6). It received
presidential assent on January 12th 2019 and was
published in the Gazette on the same day.
 Article 16(6) enables the State to make provisions for
reservation in appointments. Again, these provisions
will be subject to a 10% ceiling, in addition to the
existing reservations.
 More than 20 petitions have been filed challenging the
constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment. They argue that
the Amendment violates the basic features of the Constitution and
violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14. In
particular, they make the following arguments:
 Reservations cannot be based solely on economic criteria, given
the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
(1992).
 SCs/STs and OBCs cannot be excluded from economic
reservations, as this would violate the fundamental right to
equality.
 The Amendment introduces reservations that exceed the 50%
ceiling-limit on reservations, established by Indra Sawhney.
 Imposing reservations on educational institutions that do not
receive State aid violates the fundamental right to equality.
 At present, 49.5% of seats in education and public
appointments are reserved, with 15%, 7.5% and 27% quotas for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes respectively.

 After five days of hearings in 2019, the Court had reserved its
order on the issue of referring the case to a Constitution
Bench. On August 5th 2020, the Court decided to refer this
case to a five-judge bench.

 On August 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court listed the matter to

be heard, along with four other Constitution Bench matters,
from the first week of September. A 5-Judge Constitution
Bench led by CJI U.U. Lalit stated its intention to hear this case
along with the challenge to Andhra Pradesh’s 2005 Act
providing reservations for Muslims in the State.
 However, on September 6th, the Bench stated that they would
decide when to hear the EWS reservation case first. On
September 8th the Bench accepted the issues framed by
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. They will decide:
 If reservations can be granted solely on the basis of economic
criteria?
 If States can provide reservations in private educational
institutions which do not receive government aid, as provided
in the Amendment?
 If EWS reservations are invalid for excluding Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Socially and
Economically Backward Classes from its scope?
 On September 27th, 2022, the Bench finished hearing
arguments from all the parties and reserved Judgment in the
case.