Skip to main content

Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination)

Article – 15

Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth:

When a law comes within the prohibition of Article-15, it cannot be validated without Article-14 by applying the principle of reasonable classification.

There are 5 clauses under Article-15, they are:

15(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds 

only of Religions, Race, Caste, Sex, Place of birth or any of them.

15(2) No citizen shall on the grounds only of Religions, Race, Caste, Sex, 

Place of birth or any of them, be the subject of any of the disability, 

liability, restrictions or any condition with regard to:

Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and any places of public entertainment or

The use of Wells, tanks, Bathing Ghats, Roads and the places of public resort maintained wholly or partially out of state funds or is dedicated to the use of general public.

15(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making any special 

provisions for the women and children.

15(4) The fourth clause which was added by the constitution 

(1st Amendment) Act 1951, enables the state to make a special 

provision for the protection of the interest of the backward classes of

 citizens and is therefore an exception to the Article-15 and 29(2) of 

the constitution.


Under clause-15(4), there are 2 things to be determined:

Socially and educationally backward classes,

The limit of reservation

In Balaji

   V

State of Mysore

The Mysore government issued an order under the Article – 15(4) reserving the seats in the medical and engineering colleges in the state as follows:

Backward Classes 28%

More Backward Classes 20%

Scheduled Castes and tribes 18%

Thus, 68% of the seats available in the colleges were reserved and only 32% seats were made available to merit students.

The Supreme Court laid down that there should be no reservation more than 50% if giving more that 50%, then it is Invalid.

In Devdasan

      V

       Union of India

This case is known as the Carry Forward Rule.

It means that vacancy remains unfilled for the non-availability of the candidates may be filled by reserved candidate in subsequent year

In Indra Sawhney

V

Union of India


This case is also known as Mandal Commission Case.

In this case, the Supreme Court over- ruled the decision in the Devdasan Case and upheld the validity of the carry forward rule, subject to the condition that it does not result in Breach of 50% rule.

15(5) By the constitution (93rd Amendment) Act 2005, the Parliament 

inserted the clause(5) in Article-15,

It says that,

The state is empowered to make any special provisions for the 

backward classes or for the ST and ST, regarding their admission to 

Education Institution except the minority Educational Institutions as 

referred in clause(1) of Article-30.

Stay Tuned!!

Labels:
Location: Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more