BHARATI VIDYAPEETH UNIVERSITY

CES- II
Constitutional Law I

TOPIC
“Understanding the significance and impact of Articles 15 and
16 in the Indian Constitution”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. Gayatri Kapur Pranjal Kumar
Jyotishna Verma
BBA LLB- 3A
UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT
OF ARTICLES 15 AND 16 IN THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

"It is against the fundamental principles of humanity, it is against the dictates of reason that a
man should, by reason of birth, be denied or given extra privileges"

-Mahatma Gandhi

ABSTRACT

In-depth analysis of Articles 15 and 16, which are fundamental to India's concepts of equality,
social justice, and affirmative action, is provided in this research study.
Addressing past injustices, caste-based prejudice, and guaranteeing participation in public
services have all been made possible thanks in large part to Articles 15 and 16.
The study looks at how these articles have been interpreted historically, how the judiciary has
interpreted them, and what they mean practically in modern India.
To leverage already available data and information, the researcher used a variety of research
techniques, including analytical and doctrinal study. Additionally, the researcher obtained a lot
of material from primary and secondary sources, including books, journals, newspapers, and
early proceedings.
While doing this research the researcher came across that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are not
exceptions to their respective provisions. They provide positive and affirmative support to the
objective of provisions. These Articles are aimed at promoting real equality in the society and to
ensure such real equality, some degree of reasonable classification is essential.
INTRODUCTION
As the primary goal of the Constitution's creators was to establish an egalitarian society where
social, economic, and political justice prevailed and equality of position and opportunity were
made available to everyone, the spirit of equality permeates every article of the Indian
Constitution. However, many segments of Indian people are severely socially and economically
handicapped due to historical and customary causes, making it impossible for them to properly
enjoy equality of opportunity or position. As a result, the Constitution provides protection from
discrimination in several clauses, notably Article 15(4).
This provision gives the state the authority to create specific reservations for the progress of any
socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of people, as well as for scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Articles 15(1) and 29(2).
The creators were also conscious of the prejudices present in society and understood the
necessity of giving some marginalized and backward groups special treatment. The protection of
social and equal justice is the fundamental underlying concept of both Article 15 and Section 16
of the Indian Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
The Indian Constitution specifies the precise conditions for the SC/ST community's members to
have job reservations. These are what they are: Articles 15(4), 15(5), 15(6), and 16(4), 16(5),
16(6) of the Constitution gave the state and federal governments the power to designate seats in
the public sector for SC and ST citizens, enshrining equality of opportunity in civic engagement.
Article 15(4) expresses that: According to Article 15(4), the State is allowed to establish special
provisions for women, children, and other minorities, underprivileged communities, or
persecuted groups. This Statute provides an exemption for communities in disadvantaged
educational and social systems. Any special efforts for the advancement of any socially and
educationally disadvantaged classes of people, as well as for the scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes, may be made by the state. For instance, public educational institutions might provide seat
reservations or fee reductions. The First Amendment Act of 1951 added this clause.1
Article 15(5) expresses that: According to Article 15(5), the minority educational institutions
are an exception to this rule, and the state has the authority to make any special arrangements for
the advancement of any socially and educationally disadvantaged classes of citizens, as well as
for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, regarding their admission to educational
institutions, including private educational institutions, whether state aid it or not. 2
The Constitution's Article 15(5) was included with the 93rd Constitutional Amendment. It is an
enabling provision. Several maternity programmes and the right to education are built around the
concept of Article 15.
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which set a 27%
quota for applicants from Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in all central higher educational
institutions, including the ITs and IIMs, was approved by the Centre in order to give effect to
Article 15(5). It should be emphasized that the children of the following groups of persons fall
under the OBCs' "creamy layer" and are therefore ineligible for the quota benefit.
Article 15(6) expresses that: According to Article 15(6), the state has the authority to make any
special plans for the advancement of any economically disadvantaged class of citizens. In
addition, the state is allowed to set aside up to 10% of seats for these groups when it comes to
admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions that are either
supported or unsupported by the state, except for minority educational institutions.3

1
https://nta.ac.in/Download/Notice/Notice_20210730163143.pdf
2
Article 16- Constitution Of India,1950
3
1964 AIR 179
This additional reservation of up to 10% would be made in addition to the existing reservations.
For this reason, the state would periodically alert the economically weaker sectors based on
family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage. It is incorporated by the 103rd
Amendment Act, of 2019.
The central government issued an order in 2019 to create a 10% reservation for the Economically
Weaker Sections (EWSs) in admission to educational institutions in order to give effect to
Article 15(6). EWS members who are not covered by any of the SC, ST, or OBC reservation
programmes now in effect are eligible for the benefit of this reservation. The criteria established
in this regard for eligibility are as follows:
Annual Salary: For the purpose of receiving reservation benefits, people must be classified as
EWSs if their family's gross yearly income is less than 88 lakhs. The earnings would be for the
fiscal year prior to the hearing or application and would include earnings from all sources,
including salaries, businesses, profits, and agricultural.
Possession of Asset: No matter the family's income, individuals whose families own or hold any
of the following assets are to be disqualified from being classified as EWSs: first, agricultural
land of 5 acres and above; second, residential flat of 1000 s.a. ft. and above; and third residential
plots in designated municipalities that are 100 square metres or more.
Determination of Property: When applying for the land or property holding test to assess an
individual's EWS status, any properties held by a family in various locations or cities will be
combined.
Definition of Family: In this context, the definition of family refers to the person making the
reservation request and his or her parents. Children under the age of 18 and siblings are all
regarded as direct family members of the person.
Article 16(4) expresses that: Any member of the underprivileged class in society may receive
preference for appointments or employment from the state, if it so determines. 4
The Supreme Court addressed the application of Article 16(4) in Devadasan v. Union of India.5
The "carry forward rule," established by the government to regulate the appointment of people
from underprivileged sectors to government positions, was in effect in this case.
On the grounds that the government cannot exercise its authority in a way that denies members
of classes other than backward classes reasonable equality of opportunity in sectors of public
employment, the Supreme Court deemed the "carry forward rule" illegal.
Article 16 (4A): It provides Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are given priority in matters
of promotion under Article 16 4A) owing to seat reservations.

4
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdfold/377558.pdf
5
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922.

https://www.livelaw.in/tags/janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-livelaw-sc-922
Article 16 (4B): Article 16(4B), also known as the "carry forward rule” allows for the carrying
over of vacant positions designated for SC/ST to following years.
Article 16(5) expresses that: A legislation may stipulate that a member of the organization's
governing body or the person holding a position associated with a religious or denominational
institution must be a member of that faith or denomination.6
In other words, a mosque can mandate that the preachers must follow Islam, while a temple can
specify that the priests may only be of the Hindu faith. Additionally, these regulations set by
such entities won't be viewed as violating Article 16.
The priority placed on Article 26's "Freedom to manage religion matters" above Article 16's
"Equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment" is evident from this, which shows
that Article 16(5) is a form of exception.
Article 16(6) expresses that: It expresses that a reserve of up to 10% of positions or
appointments may be set aside by the state for any categories of individuals who are
economically disadvantaged. In addition to the current reservation, a further one of up to 10%
would be established. Based on family income and other economic disadvantage factors, the
state would periodically inform the economically disadvantaged areas for this reason. 7
Mandal Commission8: The Second Backward Classes Commission was established by the
Morarji Desai Government in 1979 in accordance with Article 340 of the Constitution to
examine the social and educational conditions of the underprivileged classes and make
suggestions for improving them. The committee is also known as the Mandal committee since
Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal served as its chairman. The Mandal commission suggested that 27%
of government positions be reserved for members of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs),
bringing the overall reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs to 50%. In 1990, the V.P. Singh
government announced a 27% quota of government positions for OBCs after making these
proposals for ten years.
LANDMARK JUDICIAL CASES

1. Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors vs Union of India and Ors9

Facts
The All-India Quota (AIQ), which provides domicile-free, merit-based seats to medical students,
was created by the Supreme Court in 1986. Several State governments began reserving a large
proportion of seats in medical colleges for students domiciled in their own states, excluding

6
Constitution Of India, 1950
7
AIR 1993 SC 477
8
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1741815
9
Article 16- Constitution Of India, 1950
students from other states. Therefore, in Dr. Pradeep Jain v Union of India10,the SC placed a cap
on the proportion of undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) seats that a state government can
reserve for domicile students in medical colleges. The unreserved seats formed the AIQ. The
AIQ was created to be free from domicile reservations.

The lingering question, however, was whether the Union government could provide other kinds
of reservation (for SC/STs, OBCs, EWS, women and persons with disabilities) in the AIQ. In
2003, the Court clarified in three separate Judgments that the Union government was not
obligated to provide reservations in AIQ seats. Then, in Abhay Nath v University of Delhi11, the
SC held that 22.5% reservation (15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes)
should be included in AIQ.

While most State government colleges have reservations for students from the Other Backward
Classes (OBCs) for admissions under the State quota, this reservation did not apply to those
falling under the AIQ. Many States, particularly Tamil Nadu, took issue with this. They
demanded the implementation of OBC student reservations within the AIQ as well. The current
dispute arose in 2021.

On July 29th, 2021, the National Testing Agency issued an admission notice12 providing for 27%
reservation for OBC students and 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
students admitted under the AIQ, for both UG and PG medical courses. Four writ petitions were
filed challenging the AIQ scheme by general category doctors and students who wish to appear
for the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET) under the AIQ.

The petitioners argue that the 2021 Admissions Notice violates their fundamental rights and
amounts to ‘reverse discrimination’. They argued that the added reservation on the AIQ crosses
the 50% limit on reservations laid down in Indra Sawhney v Union of India.

Finally, the Court’s decision in Abhay Nath v University of Delhi ignores its past rulings on the
question of reservation in the AIQ scheme. One group of petitioners focused solely on the EWS
reservations. They note that the challenge to the Constitution (One Hundred and Third
Amendment) Act, 2019, is still pending before the Supreme Court. That petition challenges the
introduction of a new category of reservation like EWS, enabling reservations in higher
education and public employment based on economic status. The petitioners also argue that the
annual income limit of ₹8 lakh13 as a criterion to determine EWS status is arbitrary.

10
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/434106/
11
Constitution Of India, 1950
12

https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/19820_2021_34_1501_32837_Judgeme
nt_20-Jan-2022.pdf
13
Constitution Of India,1950
The 2021 NEET PG admissions suffered numerous delays due to successive waves of the
Coronavirus pandemic. At the brink of the Third Wave in January 2022, the examinations had
still not taken place. Resident doctors across the country staged protests and strikes—they
complained that without new admissions, they would be understaffed and overworked through
the Third Wave.

On January 7th, 2022, yet to hear detailed arguments on the validity of the EWS reservations
scheme, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna delivered an Order14 to facilitate the quick
completion of examinations. They stated that reservations were permissible within the All-India
Quota and could be notified by the Executive without the Supreme Court’s prior permission. The
Bench dismissed the challenges against OBC, noting that reservation is not antithetic to merit.

The question of EWS income limit and its validity was left to be decided after the third wave of
the pandemic. The Bench directed the Union government to complete the 2021 NEET
examination as per the July 2021 NEET notice, providing reservations to OBC and EWS
candidates.

The Bench’s reason for allowing the EWS reservations based on an untested and disputed criteria
there was no time to register students without the EWS category or in keeping with the Union’s
new and purportedly more accurate criteria, suggested by the Major Sinho Commission in
October 2021.
The hearings on the EWS income criteria remain pending. In these hearings, the Court will
assess whether the criteria were devised after collecting and analyzing credible and
contemporary data. So, while EWS reservation in the AIQ for PG NEET has been found
permissible, the Court is yet to decide the basis for this reservation.

Issues involved

(a) Whether the very concept of the reservation to the OBC community in AIQ Quota in PG
NEET compromises with merit and is detrimental to national interest?
(b) Whether providing reservations to OBC candidates under AIQ in State-run medical and
dental colleges is constitutional?

Judgement
The Supreme Court bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna has upheld the
Constitutional validity of the reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for PG and UG
medical and dental courses and noticed that while an open competitive exam may ensure formal
equality where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate.

Mandal Commission Report http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Mandal%20Commission

14

%20Report%20of%20the%201st%20Part%20English635228715105764974.pdf
However, widespread inequalities in the availability of and access to educational facilities will
result in the deprivation of certain classes of people who would be unable to effectively compete
in such a system.
The bench pronounced its decision upholding the constitutional validity of providing 27 per cent
quota to Other Backward Classes (OBC) in NEET All India Quota (AIQ) seats for UG and PG
medical and dental seats. The court pronounced a detailed order giving reasons for its January 7
judgment for allowing NEET counselling for 2021-22 admission for AIQ seats.

2. Indra Sawhney V. Union of India15

Facts
The First Backwards Class commission, commonly known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission,
was established in 1953 in accordance with Article 340 of the Indian Constitution (establishment
of a commission to study the status of backward classes), but its 1955 report was essentially
disregarded in 1961. The Second Backwards Class Commission (Mandal Commission),
established by the Janata Dal in January 1979 under the leadership of the then-prime minister
Moraji Desai, published its final report in December 1980 with recommendations on how to
advance SEBCs. In addition to the already-existing 22.5 percent reservation for SCs and STs,
this Mandal Commission Report advocated a government quota of 27 percent for the SEBCs.
However, the coalition Janata Dal administration was overthrown, and the Indira Gandhi-led
Congress government took office before this Mandal Commission Report could be implemented.
Now, the Congress administration took a while to execute this report before falling to the V.P.
Singh-led Janata Dal in 1989. After regaining power, the Janata Dal issued an Office
Memorandum (OM) to carry out the Mandal Commission Report in accordance with their
election promises. However, this plunged the nation into a chaotic period marked by violent anti-
reservation protests, during which many students set themselves ablaze in an act of protest.
A new Order in Motion was issued in 1991 by the P.V. Narasimha Rao-led Congress
government to implement the Mandal Commission Report with a few modifications, including
the introduction of the economic criterion in the granting of reservations by giving preference to
the poorer sections of the SEBCs within the proposed 27 percent quota and a further 10 percent
reservation grant to the economically disadvantaged. The Janata Dal fell again amid these
widespread disturbances. However, the widespread violence persisted, and India continued to
lose a great deal of people and property.
After a two-year battle in which the Supreme Court attempted to strike a balance between
judicial pragmatism and political opportunism, all writ petitions contesting the application of the
Mandal Commission Report were finally moved to itself on September 11th, 1990.
Issues Involved
 The scope and application of Articles 16(1) and 16(4).

15
2022 SCC Online SC 75
  Definite parameters for the term “backward class of citizens”.
 The criteria to identify the backward class of citizens.
 Type and size of the permitted reservations.
Judgement
On 16th November 1992 a 9-judge bench delivered a statement declaring that according to
Article 16(4), caste can be used to categorize disadvantaged classes of persons rather than only
economic status. According to article 16(4), economic criteria cannot be the exclusive
determinant of backwardness. Additionally, the identification process used to establish
backwardness should be objective rather than subjective in order to prevent the misuse of
authority. Article 16(4) is a stand-alone provision that does not deviate from Article 16(1). It is
exhaustive in nature when it comes to reservations for exclusively underprivileged groups.
Under Article 16(1), reservations and reasonable classifications are allowed for other categories.
The classes described in Article 15(4) that are socially and educationally backward are distinct
from those described in Article 16(4). The subclassification of backward classes into more
backward classes is permitted by Article 16(4).
For the purposes of reservation under Article 16(4), Creamy layers (socially advanced people)
can be and must be excluded from backward classes. Reservations cannot be made more than
50%, and this restriction should be true even when applying the carry-forward rule (which fills
open positions in the next year), the 50 percent ceiling should not be breached. Promotions must
be free of any reservations.

3. Janhit Abhiyan V. Union of India16

Facts
A significant case involving the constitutional rights of economically disadvantaged groups of
the population to job opportunities and places in educational institutions is Janhit Abhiyan v.
Union of India. A Supreme Court of India constitutional bench that of Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi, Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer heard the
case. The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which was approved by
the Indian Parliament, prompted the Supreme Court to hear the matter. The amendment added
Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, which provide 10% of seats in educational
institutions and job possibilities for members of the economically disadvantaged groups of
society.
The constitutionality of the amendment and the provision for reservations for economically
disadvantaged parts have been contested in a number of petitions. The Indra Sawhney case raised
several significant legal and constitutional issues, including whether the reservation for
economically disadvantaged sections violates the Constitution's fundamental principles and the
Supreme Court's 50% ceiling limit on reservations. The ruling in this case is noteworthy because
it confirms the constitutional legitimacy of the quota for members of economically

16
Article 16- Constitution Of India,1950
disadvantaged groups and offers recommendations for how the reservation system should be put
into place in India.
The case emphasizes how crucial it is to raise the economically underprivileged segments of
society and give them equal opportunity in both education and work while preserving the current
reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
Issues Raised
 Constitutionality of the Constitution (one hundred and third amendment) Act, 2019
 50% Ceiling limit on reservations
 Violation of basic structure
 Dilution of existing reservations

Judgement

The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act of 2019 and the 10% quota for
economically disadvantaged sectors, subject to the 50% reservation ceiling were affirmed by the
Supreme Court in the ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India. The Court recognized the
necessity of assisting the economically underprivileged groups and giving them equal
opportunity in both education and work. However, the Court emphasized the significance of
gathering information to guarantee that the reservation was carried out successfully and
efficiently.

The Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India ruling is noteworthy because it acknowledges the need to
improve the economically underprivileged parts of society and give them equal opportunity in
both education and work. Additionally, it clarifies the constitutional legitimacy of the 50%
reservation cap and the reservation for economically disadvantaged sectors. The judgement
emphasizes the significance of gathering measurable evidence to guarantee that the reservation is
carried out successfully and successfully. Overall, the decision strikes a compromise between the
need to strengthen the economically underprivileged groups and the need to guarantee that the
reservation system is administered properly and efficiently without eroding the already-existing
reserves for SCs, STs, and OBCs.