as a basis for special provisions.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\nArticle 15 of Indian Constitution Judgements<\/b><\/h2>\n
Article 15 has been interpreted through several landmark Supreme Court judgments dealing with discrimination, affirmative action, reservation, gender equality and substantive equality.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)<\/b>: The Supreme Court struck down the Communal Government Order of Madras, which allocated seats in educational institutions among different communities. The Court held that the order violated Article 15(1) and Article 29(2). The judgment led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which inserted Article 15(4) and provided a constitutional basis for special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs.<\/span><\/li>\n
- M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)<\/b>: The Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 15(4) and held that backwardness must be social as well as educational. It observed that caste alone cannot be the sole basis for determining backwardness. The Court also held that reservation should be within reasonable limits, ordinarily not exceeding 50%.<\/span><\/li>\n
- P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)<\/b>: The Supreme Court held that the State could not impose its reservation policy on unaided private professional educational institutions under the constitutional framework then existing. The judgment was an important background to the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005, which inserted Article 15(5) and enabled the State to make special provisions for admission in private educational institutions, except minority institutions.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008):<\/b> The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 15(5)and the 27% OBC reservation in Central Educational Institutions. It also supported the exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC reservation and confirmed that minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) are outside the scope of Article 15(5).<\/span><\/li>\n
- NALSA v. Union of India (2014)<\/b>: The Supreme Court recognised transgender persons as a third gender and affirmed their right to equality and dignity. The Court held that discrimination based on gender identity is inconsistent with Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)<\/b>: The Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court recognised that discrimination based on sexual orientation is contrary to constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and liberty, giving an expansive interpretation to the constitutional protection against discrimination.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)<\/b>: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which introduced Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) for EWS reservation. By a 3:2 majority, the Court upheld the provision allowing up to 10% reservation for EWS, including in educational institutions under Article 15(6). The judgment confirmed that economic disadvantage can be a basis for affirmative action.<\/span><\/li>\n
- State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)<\/b>: The Supreme Court, by a 6:1 majority, held that States can sub-classify Scheduled Castes for reservation to ensure that the benefits reach the more disadvantaged groups within the SC category. The Court overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) on this point. The judgment is primarily based on Articles 14, 16 and 341, but is relevant to the broader constitutional framework of affirmative action.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Article 15 of Indian Constitution Committees<\/b><\/h2>\n
Several committees have shaped India\u2019s approach to affirmative action by examining the social and educational backwardness of different groups and recommending measures for their advancement.<\/span><\/p>\nKalelkar Commission (1953)<\/b>: The First Backward Classes Commission<\/strong>, headed by Kaka Kalelka<\/strong>r, was constituted under Article 340 to identify socially and educationally backward classes and suggest measures for their advancement.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- It recommended reservation in government services and educational institutions for backward classes, along with measures such as land reforms, adult education and economic development programmes<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Mandal Commission (1979)<\/b>: The Second Backward Classes Commission, headed by B.P. Mandal<\/strong> was constituted under Article 340 to identify socially and educationally backward classes.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- It recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in government services and educational institutions, along with other measures for their advancement.<\/span><\/li>\n
- The recommendation for 27% reservation in Central Government jobs was implemented in 1990. Its implementation was later examined by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Sachar Committee (2005)<\/b>: Headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar,<\/strong> it examined the social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- It recommended measures to improve education, skill development, access to credit, basic amenities and affirmative action, including proposals for an Equal Opportunity Commission and National Data Bank.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Rohini Commission (2017)<\/b>: Headed by Justice G. Rohini,<\/strong> it was constituted to examine the sub-categorisation of OBCs and ensure a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- It examined a mechanism for sub-categorising OBCs and correcting repetitions, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Central OBC List.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
- The Commission submitted its report to the President on 31 July 2023, but its recommendations have not been implemented by the Central Government so far.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Article 15 <\/strong>