Introduction of Article.

Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the Indian Constitution are part of the Right to Equality under Part III. These provisions guarantee equal opportunities in public employment, abolish untouchability, and prohibit the conferment of titles that create social inequality. Since these rights are justiciable, citizens can directly approach the High Court or the Supreme Court for enforcement if violated.

Article16 of Indian constitution

It deals with Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.—

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment means that every citizen of India should be given a fair and equal chance to apply for government jobs, without facing discrimination based on religion, caste, gender, place of birth, or any other personal background. It ensures that the government cannot favour or reject anyone unfairly while filling public posts. At the same time, the Constitution allows certain exceptions, like reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), if they are not adequately represented in public services. It also allows some preferences for people from a particular state or religion in specific cases, such as jobs in local governments or religious institutions. This provision aims to promote both fairness and social justice by giving equal chances to everyone while supporting those who have been historically disadvantaged.

Article 16 (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

Every citizen of India must be given an equal and fair chance to apply for and get a government job or be appointed to any public office. The government cannot show favouritism or treat someone unfairly while hiring for public positions. Everyone, whether rich or poor, from any caste, religion, or region, should be treated equally when it comes to job opportunities in government services. 

Article 16 (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

A citizen cannot be denied a government job or treated unfairly just because of their religion (like Hindu or Muslim), race, caste (like SC/ST), gender (male or female), family background, where they were born, or where they live. These personal factors cannot be used as reasons to reject someone from applying for or holding a public job. 

Article 16 (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

Parliament is allowed to make laws that say a person must have lived in a particular State or Union Territory before applying for certain government jobs in that area. This applies only to specific types of jobs, and it helps to give preference to local residents for local or state-level employment. 

In the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of giving preference to local residents (domicile) in admissions to medical colleges, which are public institutions. The Court said that while the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, it is sometimes reasonable to give preference to people from a particular state, especially in areas like education and public jobs. However, the Court also made it clear that only Parliament has the power to make laws that allow such preference based on residence, not individual states.

Article 16 (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 

This clause allows the government (State) to reserve jobs in public services for backward classes of citizens—that is, socially and educationally disadvantaged groups—if they are not properly represented in government jobs. This is done to bring equality and social justice by helping those who have been historically left behind.

T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964 AIR 179) 

Facts: In this case, a government scheme allowed unfilled reserved seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to be carried forward to the next year. As a result, in some years, the total number of reserved seats went beyond 50%, which was challenged as unconstitutional and discriminatory. 

Issue: Was the carry forward rule, which could result in more than 50% reservations in a particular year, valid under Article 16(4)? 

Judgment: 

The Supreme Court struck down the rule as unconstitutional, stating that reservations cannot exceed 50% in any given year, even with the carry forward of unfilled posts from previous years. 

The Court held that Article 16(4) is an enabling provision for ensuring fair representation of backward classes, but it cannot be used to destroy the principle of equality in Article 16(1). 

Excessive reservation, even if due to carry forward, would amount to denial of equal opportunity. 

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — 

also known as the Mandal Commission case

Facts: 

The Government of India implemented the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which proposed 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs. This was challenged in the Supreme Court, with arguments that such reservations violated the principle of equality under Article 16. 

Judgment:  

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16(4) and ruled that: 

Reservation for backward classes is valid if they are not adequately represented in public services. 

The total reservation (including SC, ST, and OBC) should not exceed 50%, except in exceptional cases. 

Economic backwardness alone is not a ground for reservation under Article 16(4); it must be social and educational backwardness. 

The Court also said that ‘creamy layer’ (economically advanced people within backward classes) should be excluded from getting reservation benefits.

Article 16 (4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

This clause  allows the State to provide reservation in promotions for members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government services. This provision is applicable when, in the opinion of the State, these communities are not adequately represented in the services. It also allows such promoted employees to receive what is known as "consequential seniority," meaning their seniority is counted from the date of their promotion. This provision was added to ensure that SCs and STs not only get opportunities in recruitment but also in upward movement within the government jobs, helping to address their historical disadvantage and underrepresentation.

Article 16 (4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.

This clause allows the State to carry forward any reserved vacancies that could not be filled in a particular year due to the unavailability of suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or other backward classes. These unfilled vacancies can be treated as a separate category and filled in future years. Importantly, while filling these backlog vacancies in subsequent years, they will not be counted along with the current year's vacancies for calculating the limit of 50% reservation. This means that the total reservation in a given year may exceed 50%, but only because of the inclusion of these past unfilled reserved seats, which are treated independently. This provision ensures that the benefits of reservation are not lost simply because suitable candidates were not available in a particular year.

Article 16 (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

This clause says that the right to equality in government jobs (given under Article 16) does not stop the government from making laws that require a person holding a position in a religious or community-based institution to belong to a particular religion or community. For example, if a temple needs a priest or a mosque needs an imam, the law can say that the person must follow that specific religion. This clause respects the special needs of religious institutions, allowing them to appoint people who share their faith, without violating the general rule of equal job opportunity.

Article 16 (6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.

This clause allows the government to give reservation in jobs to people from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society, who do not belong to SCs, STs, or OBCs (those mentioned in clause 4). This reservation is in addition to the existing reservations and is limited to a maximum of 10% of the jobs in each category. This means the government can help poor people from the general category by giving them up to 10% reservation in appointments or posts, without affecting the already existing reservations for other categories. 

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution:

Article 17:- Abolition of Untouchability.—“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution says that "untouchability is completely abolished", which means no one can treat another person as "untouchable" just because of their caste.

It also says that: 

Practicing untouchability in any form is strictly not allowed. 

If anyone tries to stop or deny others their rights (like entry into temples, access to public places, water, education, jobs etc.) because of untouchability, it is a criminal offence. 

The person doing it can be punished by law. 

The word "untouchability" here refers to caste-based discrimination, especially against people from Scheduled Castes. 

The Constitution of India does not provide a direct definition of the term “untouchability.’’

The term "Untouchability" refers to a social practice where certain castes or communities, especially Scheduled Castes, are treated as impure or inferior and are denied basic social interactions, rights, and access to public spaces simply because of their birth in a particular caste. 

This discrimination often includes: 

Not allowing entry into temples 

Denying access to public wells, roads, schools, hospitals 

Refusing to eat or interact socially with persons of “lower castes” 

Social boycotts, forced isolation, and humiliation 

EXAMPLES OF THE ARTICLE 17 

1) A person is stopped from entering a temple just because of their caste. This is untouchability and a violation of Article 17. 

2) In a school, children from Scheduled Castes are told to drink water from a separate pot or sit separately while eating. This is caste-based discrimination and punishable under law. 

3) A barber refuses to cut the hair of a Dalit customer due to caste. This is untouchability and is not allowed under Article 17. 

4) A hotel owner or shopkeeper denies entry or service to someone just because they belong to a lower caste. This is illegal under Article 17 and punishable. 

The supreme court held that the right under Article 17 is available against private individuals and it is the constitutional obligation of the state to take necessary action to ensure that this right is not violated.

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution:

Article 18: Abolition of Titles Article 

Article 18 is a part of the Right to Equality under Part III of the Constitution. It deals with abolishing titles to promote equality and end the hierarchical structure of society that existed during the colonial period.

Article 18(1): No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

This means: The Indian government cannot give any title like “Raja”, “Maharaja”, “Sir”, “Nawab”, etc. to anyone. Only military and academic titles are allowed (e.g., Dr., Prof., Major, Colonel). The purpose is to remove caste/class-based privileges and ensure equality.

Example: 

The government cannot call someone “Sir Ramesh Singh” or “Nawab Khan” as a title of honor. But it can confer the academic title of “Dr. Ramesh Singh” or the military title “Major Ramesh Singh.”

Article 18(2):"No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State." 

Meaning: 

Indian citizens are not allowed to accept royal or honorary titles from any foreign country. 

This keeps the sovereignty and loyalty of Indian citizens intact. 

Example: 

An Indian citizen cannot accept the title "Sir" from the British Crown (e.g., “Sir Mohan Singh” by the UK). However, receiving an academic degree (like honorary PhD) from a foreign university is allowed. 

Article 18(3): "No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State." 

Meaning: 

If a non-citizen (foreigner) is working in a government job or official position in India, they cannot accept a foreign title without approval from the President of India.  

Example: 

A foreign diplomat working for the Indian government cannot accept a title like “Baron” from another country unless they take permission from the President. 

Article 18(4): "No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State."

Meaning: 

Any Indian government officer (like civil servants, military officers, judges, etc.) cannot accept gifts, salary (emoluments), or foreign job offers from foreign governments without prior permission from the President of India. 

Example: 

A government officer cannot accept a job offer from the U.S. Embassy or a gift from a foreign government without approval from the President. If they do get permission from the President, then they can accept it legally. 

Objectives of Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability) 

The main objective of Article 17 is to eliminate the centuries-old practice of untouchability from Indian society and ensure social equality and human dignity for all citizens. It was introduced to protect the rights of Scheduled Castes and other oppressed communities who were historically treated as "untouchables" and denied access to basic public facilities, education, temples, and employment. By declaring untouchability as a punishable offence, Article 17 aims to create a caste-free society where every person is treated equally, regardless of their birth, caste, or background. It enforces the idea that discrimination based on caste is illegal and immoral, and the state must actively take steps to prevent such practices through legal means. 

Objectives of Article 18 (Abolition of Titles) 

The purpose of Article 18 is to promote equality by abolishing hereditary and honorary titles that create artificial divisions in society. During British rule, titles like “Sir,” “Raja,” or “Nawab” were used to create a privileged class, leading to inequality and a sense of superiority among a few individuals. Article 18 ends this practice by banning the Indian State from giving such titles and prohibiting Indian citizens from accepting foreign titles. It ensures that no one is considered superior or inferior due to a title, and everyone is treated equally under the law. This Article supports democratic values by discouraging social hierarchies and protects national loyalty by restricting the acceptance of foreign honors without government approval. 

Read more ...

Article 14 & 15 Of the Indian Constitution Explained

Introduction Of Article 14

Article 14 is enshrined in the part 3 of the Indian Constitution which is about Fundamental rights. The rights given in article 14 are enforceable and justiciable in nature means that if anyone violates your right you can go to the court to enforce them.

 

Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 14:- States that the state shall not deny to any person equality before law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

The right guaranteed under Article 14 is available to any person whether citizen or non-citizen within the territory of India.

This provision forms the foundation of the right to equality in India and aims to promote fairness, prevent discrimination, and ensure uniform application of laws.

Explanation of article 14:-

1. The state

2. Any person

3. Equality before law

4. Equal protection of laws

1."The State":

1.Includes the Government (central and state), Parliament, Legislatures, local authorities, and other bodies functioning under the Constitution.

2."Any person":

1. The word person here includes not only Indian citizens but also foreigners and legal persons (e.g., companies, corporations).

3."Equality before the law" (borrowed from the British legal system): Every individual, regardless of status or position, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. No one is above the law, whether rich or poor, powerful or weak.

Example:-

Imagine a traffic signal.

If a minister's car jumps the red light, and a common man's car also does the same, both should be fined.
The police cannot excuse the minister just because of their position.
This is equality before law - the law treats everyone equally, no matter who they are.

4."Equal protection of the laws" (drawn from the American Constitution):

Laws must apply equally to all persons under similar circumstances. It permits classification but not arbitrary discrimination.

Example:

Imagine the government gives free coaching classes to poor students but not to rich students.
Here, the law is not treating everyone the same but it's treating equals equally (all poor students get the benefit). This is not discrimination because poor students are in a different situation than rich students. This is equal protection of laws - the law protects similar people equally, but can make special rules for different groups if the classification is fair and logical.

Both the terms equality before law and equal protection of law aims at establishing equal justice.

in State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) the supreme court held that the two expressions means one and the same Moreover, the second expression is the outcome of the first and it would be difficult to imagine a situation where violation of the equality before law will not be a violation of equal protection of laws.

Example:-

Ravi and Arjun both stole a bicycle.

The police arrested Ravi and sent him to jail, but let Arjun go because his father is a politician. This violates equal protection of laws (both should be treated the same) and also equality before law (no one should be above the law).

RULE OF LAW:-

The concept of equality before law is the outcome of Rule of law. The concept of Rule of law was propounded by A.V Dicey, the British jurist.

The rule of law ensures that all individuals, including the government, are subject to law and no one is above the law. A.V Dicey's concept has three aspects.

1. Absence of arbitrary power, that is, no man can be punished except for a breach of law.

2. Equality before law: that is equal subjection of all citizens (rich or poor, high or low, official or non-official) to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts.

It prohibits the discrimination and arbitrary treatment, it guaranteeing that justice is administered impartially.

3. The priority of right of the individual which means that constitution is the result of the rights of individual as defined and enforced by courts of law rather than the constitution being the source of the individual rights.

The First and second elements are applicable to the Indian system and not the 3rd one in the Indian system, the constitution is the source of the individual rights.

The Supreme Court held that the Rule of law as embodied in article 14 is basic feature of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that where equals and unequals are treated differently, article 14 does not apply. While article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits a reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the law. But the classification should not be arbitrary, artificial or vague. Rather, it should be based on an intelligible differential and substantial distinction.

What is class legislation?

Class legislation means making a law that gives special benefits to one group of people or treats another group unfairly, without any good reason. Such laws are not allowed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which gives everyone the right to equality.

For example, if a law says only people from one village can apply for

government jobs, it is unfair to others and is called class legislation. This kind of law creates unequal treatment without any proper reason. But if a law gives special help to poor students through scholarships, it is not class legislation, because it is based on a reasonable reason - helping those in need. So, class legislation is unfair and unequal treatment without a valid reason, and our Constitution does not allow it.

WHAT IS REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION?

Reasonable classification means dividing people into different groups and treating them differently, but only when there is a good and fair reason for doing so. It is allowed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because not all people or situations are the same.

For example, giving free coaching to students from poor families is reasonable, because they need extra support. The classification must be based on a real difference and must have a clear purpose. So, reasonable classification is a fair way of treating people differently when it is necessary and justified.

In State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar the court held that following are the requirements of a reasonable classification:

1. Intelligible differentia means a clear and reasonable difference between two or more groups of people that helps the government to make fair laws. This difference must make sense and should not be based on random or unfair reasons.

For example, giving special job reservations to physically disabled persons is based on intelligible differentia, because their needs and challenges are different from others. The difference must be easy to understand and must relate to the purpose of the law. So, intelligible differentia is a sensible reason used to divide people into groups for making fair and just laws.

2. Rational nexus means there must be a clear and logical connection between the goal of a law and the difference made between groups (intelligible differentia). In simple words, the reason for treating people differently must be directly related to the purpose of the law.

For example, if a law gives free coaching to poor students, the goal is to support education, and the difference (poverty) is directly linked to that goal this is rational nexus. If there is no connection between the classification and the aim of the law, it becomes unfair. So, rational nexus means the law must treat people differently only when that difference helps to achieve the law's purpose.

CASE LAWS OF ARTICLE 14:

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court made Article 14 stronger by connecting it with Articles 19 and 21. The government took away Maneka Gandhi's passport without giving her a chance to explain or defend herself. The Court said that whenever the government wants to take away someone's rights, it must follow a fair and reasonable process. This means the government cannot act unfairly or in a random way. The decision showed that the rights to equality, freedom, and life are all connected and should be protected together. It made sure that laws and government actions must be fair and just.

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 

It is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that expanded the scope of Article 14 by introducing the principle that arbitrariness is unconstitutional and is incompatible with the concept of equality. The Supreme Court held that Article 14 not only prohibits discrimination or classification that is unreasonable or irrational but also prohibits arbitrary actions by the State. The Court emphasized that equality is a dynamic concept that ensures fairness and justice, and arbitrariness is the negation of equality. In fact equality and arbitrariness are the sworn enemies one belongs to rule of law while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. This judgment marked a shift from the traditional narrow view of Article 14, underscoring that any action taken by the State must be free from arbitrariness and must satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness.

Article 15 Of The Indian Constitution.

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

It means that the government is not allowed to treat people unfairly just because of:

• Their religion (like Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc.) 
• Their race (ethnic background) 
• Their caste (like Scheduled Castes or other castes) 
• Their sex (whether they are male, female, or others) 
• Their place of birth (where they were born) 

Example Imagine there’s a government college in India. Many students apply for admission. It cannot reject a student just because: 

1. The student is a Muslim (religion) 
2. The student belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) (caste)  
3. The student is a girl (sex) 
4. The student was born in Bihar (place of birth) 

This would be discrimination, and it is not allowed under Article 15. 

Article 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. 

The statement “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them” means that the government of India cannot treat any citizen unfairly just because of their religion, skin color or ethnicity, caste, gender, or the place where they were born. Every citizen must be treated equally, and the government is not allowed to give special treatment or deny rights to someone based only on these personal factors. 

For example, the government cannot make rules that favor men over women, or deny jobs or services to people from a certain religion or caste. This ensures fairness and equal treatment for all citizens under the law.

Article 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 means that no citizen can be stopped or treated unfairly when it comes to using public places just because of their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Every person has an equal right to go to shops, hotels, restaurants, and places of public entertainment like movie halls. Similarly, everyone must be allowed to use public places such as wells, water tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and parks if they are maintained by the government or meant for the public.

For example, a hotel owner or a shopkeeper cannot deny entry to someone just because they belong to a lower caste or a different religion. This rule helps to stop untouchability and social discrimination, and promotes equality in public life.

The clause (1) of article 15 prohibits discrimination by the state and clause (2) prohibits discrimination by both the state as well as private individual.

In the case of Nainsukh Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953), the Supreme Court dealt with a law that allowed separate electoral rolls for Muslims in municipal elections. This meant that only Muslims could vote for Muslim candidates. Nainsukh Das, a citizen, challenged this law, saying it was unfair and violated the Constitution. The Court agreed with him and held that such a system of separate voting based on religion was against Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, and also violated Article 325, which says that no one can be excluded from voting based on religion, caste, or sex. The Court ruled that elections must be fair and equal for all citizens, and everyone should vote on a common electoral roll, regardless of their religion.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Pratap Singh (1960), the Rajasthan government had declared some villages as disturbed areas and sent extra police forces there. The cost of these police forces was to be paid by the villagers. However, the government exempted only the Harijan (Scheduled Castes) and Muslim residents from paying, saying they were peaceful and law-abiding. Thakur Pratap Singh challenged this, saying the exemption was unfair and based only on religion and caste, which is not allowed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed and said that the government cannot treat people differently just because of their caste or religion, even with good intentions. 

Article 15(3): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. 

clause (3) says that the government is allowed to make special rules or give extra help to women and children. This means the State can create laws or programs to protect women and children or give them benefits, like reservations in jobs or education, to help them get better opportunities. This is allowed because women and children may sometimes need extra support to be treated fairly and equally in society.

In the case of Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court talked about the special rights given to women under the Constitution. The Court said that the government can make special rules to protect women and give them extra help, like in matters of inheritance or property. This is allowed under Article 15(3), which says the State can make special provisions for women and children to help them get equal opportunities in life. The Court made it clear that giving women these special benefits does not break the rule of equality but actually helps to correct unfair disadvantages they have faced in the past.

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.  

Clause 4 says that the government can make special rules or give extra help to groups of people who are socially and educationally backward, like certain castes or tribes (called Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes). These special rules are meant to help these groups improve their situation in society by giving them better chances in education, jobs, and other areas.

In the Indra Sawhney case (1992), (also known as the Mandal Commission case) the Supreme Court talked about the government’s power to give special help to socially and educationally backward groups like the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The Court said that the government can set aside a certain number of jobs and school seats for these groups to help them get better opportunities. This is allowed under Article 15(4) because it aims to improve their social and educational conditions. The Court also explained that these special provisions should be fair and used properly to make sure they help the right people.

In the M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) case, the Supreme Court talked about the government’s power to give special benefits like reservations in education and jobs to socially and educationally backward classes. The Court said that while the government can help these groups under Article 15(4), the amount of reservation should be reasonable and should not go beyond 50% of the total seats or jobs. This was to make sure that there is a fair balance and that reservations don’t become too large or unfair to others. This case helped set limits on how special provisions can be made.

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.

Clause 5 says that the government can make special laws to help socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) get admission into educational institutions. This includes both government and private colleges or schools, whether they receive government aid or not. However, it does not apply to minority-run institutions protected under Article 30(1). This means that if a college is run by a minority group (like religious or linguistic minorities), the special admission rules won’t apply to them. The purpose of this provision is to make sure that weaker sections of society get better access to education and opportunities.

Article 15(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. 

Read more ...