Constitution of Bharat: Article 15: Part 4

 

Here is a provision-wise interpretation of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, with references to relevant judgments:

Clause (1) of Article 15:

• Prohibition of Discrimination: This clause prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
  
  
  • Judgment: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) - This case was pivotal as it initially led to the understanding that reservations for backward classes could be seen as discriminatory, prompting the 1st amendment to include clause (4) for affirmative action.

    

Clause (2) of Article 15:

• Access to Public Places: No citizen shall, on the grounds mentioned in clause (1), be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition regarding access to various public amenities.
  
  
  • Judgment: Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954) - The Supreme Court dealt with issues of gender discrimination in law, specifically regarding the adultery law under Section 497 IPC, indirectly touching upon this clause's implications.

    

Clause (3) of Article 15:

• Special Provisions for Women and Children: This clause allows the State to make special provisions for women and children.
  
  
  • Judgment: Revathi v. Union of India (AIR 1998) - The Court discussed the scope of "special provisions" for women, emphasizing that these provisions aim at positive discrimination.

    

Clause (4) of Article 15:

• Special Provisions for Backward Classes: Introduced by the 1st Amendment in 1951, it allows special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes.
  
  
  • Judgment: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) - Known as the Mandal Commission case, it dealt extensively with reservations, setting a 50% cap on reservations and defining "backward classes".

    
  • Judgment: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) - This case further interpreted clause (4) in relation to reservations in promotions, emphasizing the need for quantifiable data to justify such measures.

Clause (5) of Article 15:

• Reservations in Educational Institutions: Added by the 93rd Amendment in 2005, this clause allows reservations in educational institutions, including private ones, for the advancement of backward classes, SCs, and STs except minority institutions.
  
  
  • Judgment: Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment, allowing reservations in educational institutions, including private ones, for backward classes.

    

Clause (6) of Article 15:

• Special Provisions for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS): Introduced by the 103rd Amendment in 2019, this clause allows for up to 10% reservation for EWS in educational institutions and public employment.
  
  
  • Judgment: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) - The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment, stating it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, affirming economic criteria for reservation without breaching the 50% cap on total reservations.

    

These judgments collectively illustrate how the judiciary has interpreted and expanded the application of Article 15, balancing between non-discrimination and the need for affirmative action to achieve social justice. Each clause has been subject to legal scrutiny, ensuring they align with the broader constitutional framework for equality and justice.