Reservation is given to certain individuals for admissions to educational institutions, in employment in the public sector and in other forums as the government by virtue of legislation specifies. It is akin to “affirmative action”.
The Central Government of India classifies some of its citizens based on their social and economic condition as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class (OBC). The OBC list presented by the commission is dynamic (castes and communities can be added or removed) and changes from time to time depending on Social, Educational and Economic factors. Under Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, it is obligatory for the government to promote the welfare of the Other Backward Classes.
Prior to the said move there was 15% reservation for SCs and 7.5% reservation for STs in educational institutions. After Act 5 of 2007, additional reservation of 27% was granted to OBCs making the total reservation for backward classes 49.5%.
Both public and private, either aided or unaided except minority institutions.
Article 38(2): The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
Caste-based reservation was initially a temporary measure that was to only last for ten years. The original Framers considered caste-based reservation a necessary evil. See Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 para 196 of the judgment.
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 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 minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.
(2008) 6 SCC 1
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
Kesavananda Bharati. v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 as per Shelat and Grover JJ, para 620.
Ibid, As per P. Jagmohan Reddy J, para 1206.
AIR 1965 SC 845.
(2007) 2 SCC 1.
Article 14, 19 & 21. See also, Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.
Essentially, it is the consequence of amendment which is relevant than its form to determine constitutional validity of the Ninth schedule laws on the touchstone of basic structure doctrine, to be adjudged by applying the direct impact and effect test, i.e. rights test.
(1981) 2 SCC 363.
AIR 1975 SC 2299.
AIR 1951 SC 226.
AIR 1951 SC 229.
AIR 1963 SC 649
AIR 1973 SC 930
Also see State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon AIR 1975 SC 563; and Narayan Sharma v. Pankaj Kumar Lekhar AIR 2000 SC SC 72
AIR 1964 SC 1823
AIR 1968 SC 1012.
AIR 1972 SC 1375.
AIR 1968 SC 1378.
AIR 1976 SC 2381.
(1997) 7 SCC 203.
(1992) 3 SCC 217.
(2008) 6 SCC 1.
In the United States of America, the time period propounded for Affirmative Action was 25 years. Justice O'Conner in Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306, 338 (2003), suggested that there should be a time limit on preferential treatment for certain races as a means of promoting diversity. Justice O'Connor stated: "we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today".
(2008) 6 SCC 1.
(1992) 3 SCC 217.
(1976) 2 SCC 310.
AIR 1981 SC 298.
(1985) Supp SCC 714.
(1976) 3 SCC 730.
(1992) 3 SCC 217.
(1995) 5 SCC 403.
The condition prescribed for exclusion of children of professional doctor, surgeon, lawyer, architect, etc from the benefit of reservation was that he/she should have an income of not less that Rs. 10 lacs. This condition was also struck down as discriminatory.
(2000) 1 SCC 168.
(2008) 6 SCC 1.
AIR 1964 SC 269
Supra 9.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws and the same has been interpreted to preclude arbitrariness and unreasonable classification. See also Budhan Chowdhry v. State of Bihar, 1955 (1) SCR 1045 (1049), State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 602, Motor General Tradersv. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 12 at page 130.
Golden Triangle - Articles 14, 19 and 21 are the three fundamental rights that stand above the rest. Writing for the majority in Minerva Mills, Justice YV Chandrachud has provided a fitting justification for protecting the Golden Triangle from legislative attack.
AIR 1980 SC 1789, See Also I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamilnadu and Ors AIR 2007 SC 861
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Another AIR 1973 SC 1461.
The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution saves the Legislative Acts added to the said schedule from judicial scrutiny unless and until the said Acts are contrary to the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This is done on the principle of public policy and expediency.
