Tag: reservation

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Cases Nos. 270 and 271 of 1951

Equivalent citations

1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525.

Petitioner

State of Madras

Respondent

Champakam Dorairajan

Date of Judgment

09/04/1951.

Bench

• DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
• KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)
• FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
• SASTRI, M. PATANJALI
• MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
• BOSE, VIVIAN
• MUKHERJEA, B.K.

Subsequent Action(s)

Enactment of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India.

Facts of the Case

In the 1950s, there prevailed a quota/reservation policy for admission to academic institutions in Madras. There were around 4 engineering and medical colleges each that were upheld by the State. In the engineering colleges and medical colleges, which were financed and upheld by the state where the entire number of seats was 330 spots and 395 spots, respectively 17 spots were preoccupied/reserved for those pupils who were from other domains, and 12 spots were secured for voluntary assignment by the State, and the remaining place for 4 groups of communities in the State in which 6 spots were booked for non-Brahmins, 2 spots allotted for backward classes, 2 seats allotted for Brahmins, 2 seats assigned for Harijans, 1 assigned for Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians, 1 allotted for Muslims, and 20% assigned for women. The assignment was designed on different schemes which were based on educational qualifications and marks secured by the applicants who were from specific communities of the state. The quota system was pursued even after the introduction of the Constitution.

Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin, was not able to acquire admission into the Medical College in spite of her proficient marks because she belongs to a Brahmin. So, she appealed to the Madras High Court under Article 226 referring to the contravention of her fundamental right of not getting into the medical college. And she also claimed a breach of her fundamental rights under Article 15 (1) and Article 29 (2) and asked the court to repeal the Communal Government Order, by a mandamus writ. C. R. Srinivasan also appealed a petition in the Madras High Court which includes her not getting into an Engineering College in spite of her eligibility. She secured 369 marks out of 450 marks. She also alleged for the matter of the Writ of Mandamus to repeal the Communal G.O.

Issue(s) of the Case

1. If the Communal Government Order 1921 provided by the State of Madras Constitutionally licit or not?
2. If the State can create quotas or reservations for seats in the academic institutions hinged on caste or religion?

Arguments raised by Appellant

The appellant focused on the point of the proviso of Article 46 which states that a state has to promote the academic and economic interests of fragile sections, generally the SCs and STs, and secure them from any type of social prejudice. Therefore, Article 46 provides the privilege to the state to sustain the Communal Government Order by reserving a place for various communities that are affiliated to the state. Consequently, the Communal G.O. is legitimate and permissible in law. So, there is no infringement of the Constitution for which the candidates failed to get into the colleges according to their proficiency and their fundamental rights are not infringed at the same time. In this instance, the proviso of Article 46 revokes the provisos of Article 29(2). It was expressed that Article 46 comprised Part IV of the Indian Constitution concerned with the Directive Principles (DPSP) where Article 37 simply speaks that “The provisos carried in Part IV shall not be implemented by any court, but the principles therein placed down are notwithstanding fundamental in the administration of the country and it shall be the obligation of the State to execute these principles in making laws.”

Arguments raised by Respondent

The defendant asserted that the Communal Government Order under the proviso of Article 46 is an understandable infringement of the Fundamental Rights. The respondent also attached that Caste need not be a hindrance for qualifying students to persuade into a college upheld by a state. Reservation according to the Caste-based is an infringement of Article 16(1). It was stated that Article 29 was not objected at admission to academic institutions rooted in religion, caste, or race. Article 15(1) and Article 29(2) got infringed as the state was biased against and contradicted admission into a college on the footing of caste.

Judgment

The High Court of Madras flattened the Communal G.O. since the quota system which is rooted in caste and opposed the Constitution of India. Both the petitions were concerned with Article 226 of the Constitution which is the grounds behind the infringement of the fundamental right to persuade into a college. After that, the state of Madras filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Madras High Court’s where the Supreme Court supported that the grading in the Communal G.O. furnished by the Madras government hinged on religion, caste, and race understandable infringement of the Constitution of India and also an infraction of Article 29(2) in Part III of the constitution which secured the fundamental rights to the Indian citizens. The Court deemed that the State cannot acquire a particular place to allow admission to the applicants rooted in their religion, caste, and race which is infringing the proviso of Article 16 (2). Refusing admission on the bases of caste is a violation of Article 15(1). The provisos of Communal G.O. were introduced by the court which was declared invalid under Article 13 of the Constitution. The court gave a decision in support of Champakam Dorairajan. But an issue appeared “Do Fundamental Rights are superseding DPSP?” Therefore, the court held that in this case which is in an essential dispute between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, “It will always on every occasion the Fundamental Rights that will triumph”.

Analysis

The case not only secured and safeguarded the Fundamental Rights of the Indian citizens but also the Indian Parliament responded to the verdict of the case at the same time with the idea of amending and altering the laws which were imminent in dispute with DPSPs. This case guided the First Amendment to the Constitution of India. The First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 was sanctioned to affix Clause 4 to Article 15. Article 15(4) was executed by the constitution. So, to authorize the state to create any specific provisos for the enhancement of backward classes.

Also, under Article 15(4), The Government can allot seats for the candidates of backward classes in government institutions or the institutions which are accruing help from the state. But it doesn’t permit the state the privilege to assign quotas to private institutions. Further, reforms were linked to the freedom of trade and business, the land reform measures, and freedom of speech which were granted by Article 19(1)(g). Article 19(1)(g) is a theme of sensible restrictions that the state may levy in matters of the general public. Thus, it is legitimate in nature. Prior to this case, there was an inherent dispute between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs since there was no transparency as to which would be more prevailing – Fundamental Rights or DPSPs in the instance of a dispute. But after this case, there is an explanation that “Fundamental Rights are prevailing over the DPSPs”.

Conclusion

It was a milestone case in which the Supreme court of India presented a chronicle judgment. It steered to the First
Amendment. This case revealed the eminence of Fundamental Rights and in what manner Fundamental Rights and
DPSPs are covered. If there is any violation in the fundamental right of a person owing to any direction at that time
the specific order will be examined as null and void like the present case where the Communal Government Order which was infringing the Fundamental Rights of Champakam Dorairajan who repudiated admission to an academic institute on basis of reservation was flattened by the court. This case also spotlighted the need for evolving different laws in the constitution which are infringing the Fundamental Rights of the people of India. Fundamental Rights are eternally superior and eminence for the citizens of the country as it grants them basic privileges which aid them to live with peace and freedom.

This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed BA LLB from Agra College and is doing a diploma in
Corporate Law from Enhelion.

INTRODUCTION

The reservation policy is the process of arranging in advance some percentage of seats for backward divisions of the society, scheduled caste, and tribes, in government institutions, jobs, etc. However reservation policy in India is an old-fashioned policy that has been carried out since ancient times, the theory of this policy is from the time when untouchability and ‘Varna’ systems were dominant in society (even though they still are) and when Hindu civilization was divided into 4 classes of Hindus:

1. The Brahmas
2. The Kshatriya
3. The Vaishya
4. The Sudra

Some communities belonged to no category and they were called untouchables. These were deemed to be impure and excluded from the other 4 classes. They were not permitted to inhabit the village and they had no social privileges. In some areas of the countries, people were convinced that even if their silhouette falls on the individual who belongs to one of the four classes, the person got impure. The savage system of the society was based on the theory of purity and impurity. It was an unbearable approach that was stalked and had a bad impact on the evolution of the people who were called untouchables. The design of reservations back at that time to be allowed to those castes of individuals was to furnish them with equal status and occasions in society and to raise them socially.

The pre-independence era blemished the dawning of reservation policy with the beginning of the Government Act of 1919. There were many mends in this act that were initiated by the Indian government at that time which conveyed many affairs of the minority. But the post-independence period had a particular scenario and the reservation policy attained even more admiration than in the pre-independence era. There was a formal presentation of the constituent assembly by Dr. BR Ambedkar who designed certain reservation articles and policies in the Indian Constitution devoted to the same purpose.

PROVISIONS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

• Article (15) (4) provisos for the evolution and growth of backward classes

Article 15(4) was instigated as an exception to Article 15(1) and (2) and was affixed with the first Constitutional amendment 1951 in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Champakam Dorairajan¹. A judgment was taken by the judge in this case which altered Article 15 and introduced a discrete clause for the improvement of socially and educationally backward classes of the society including scheduled castes and tribes. Article 15(5) was affixed by the Constitutional 93rd amendment Act 2006 that provided for the provisos for reservation of backward classes in private academic institutions. This was presented through a three-judge bench decision of Supreme Court cases T M Pai foundation vs. the State of Karnataka, Islamic academy vs. the State of Karnataka and, P A Inamdar vs. the State of Maharashtra.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992, nine-judge bench)- The court held that Article 16(4) is an authorizing provision and liberal in character while investigating whether a luscious lawyer should be prohibited from the horizon of reservation. The specification, the court noted, is an origin of reservation for allotments in services for people of backward classes.

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999, five-judge bench)- This case linked to the reservation in promotions and in case the reserved candidates, who get promotion would be authorized to claim rank over general candidates who earn a promotion at precedent in time.

• Article 16

Another article was proposed for the reservation of posts in public employment on the grounds of inhabitancy under Article 16(3) which was an exception to Article 16(2) that forbids prejudice on grounds of inhabitancy. Article 16(4) was also proposed for reservation for backward classes in public employment. Some other articles that veil the reservation policies are

1. Article 17 deals with the abrogation of untouchability.
2. Article 39A, the directive principles of state policies that guarantee equal justice to all.
3. Article 45 enforces an obligation on the state to maintain quality of living.
4. Article 332, 342 also proposed special provisos for divergent classes of people, like SC, ST, minority, etc.

While the reservation has been a vital part of the Indian legal system, a large number of people are opposed to the idea of the reservation which always triggers controversy. The chief purpose is not to inculpate reservation for minorities but to conquer the deficiency of job openings that have been produced because of the policies, especially on the basis of caste reservations.

BACKGROUND

Reservations, these days are rooted in caste is something which is opposing society and its interest. This sort of reservation is escalating hatred in society and generates an intuition of inequality between each other which is totally inconsistent with the purpose of reservation. A few years ago there was a reservation that was given to the Jain community on minority grounds but on the other side Jain community was regarded to be one of the richest sections in India and yet reservation was allocated to them. There is always a proverb that the caste system is inferior and some people are against it but at the same time, others are okay with it. This behavior is nothing but two sets of rules and hypocrite. The Government of India should take up this issue and give it a prime concern and remove this peril. The feasibility of abolition of reservation on the grounds of caste is a tough task, to eliminate it in one go is not possible but it surely can be eliminated over a span of 10 to 15 years. An expectation of bold commitment to these measures from the government for the elimination of the reservation is hoped from the society at large. Many analysts argue that the policies of the caste-based reservation have only been the critic lines in the Indian caste system and there are some politicians who have boldly elevated their concerns against the system asserting that it is not helping the reason for which it was meant and the founding father of the country didn’t visualize reservation system been arrange in a way in order to win votes.

Today events have come up to such an extent that each community senses that they have been maltreated and the requests have been refused because of this so-called caste-based reservation. Contemplating the fact of Dr. Ambedkar said that castes reservation should have been terminated in 1960 but we are still staggering under it in 2020. The key lectures of Dr. Ambedkar can be deliberately read and perceived that the allocation (quota) based on scientific social research is what sounds better with the perception of India which he thought were the reservation advantages would reach those populations that actually need it and not one who can go up on a ladder without creating efforts for it. In a simpler sense, people who have already achieved the ‘creamy layer’ do not require such kind of reservation in 2020. Unfortunately, this is not the process of working in India nowadays. Everyone can just babble about slashing down the caste-based reservation policies but when it comes to enforcing such things the big issue that lies is that 70% of the population of India belongs to the resort category and this is the figure from the 2011 report.

Therefore if any pass is taken to abolish the caste-based reservation it would clearly mean going against 70% of the population and the political party will venture not to go to that length. Therefore, it is required that Indians who wish to see the end of caste-based systems clearly go against it themselves because reservations do not solve the purpose of it. But it must also be acknowledged that it is not a utopia because there are a number of countries that have carried out this step, for example, the Bangladesh reservation system in government jobs was permanently abolished when the number of students trooped to the capital Dhaka to protest. Therefore, India should proceed towards a system free from caste where any person assures a seat in a college or government job only on the grounds of his or her merit and without any restrictions of the caste-based reservation.

ARGUMENTS OFFERED BY RESERVATIONISTS

1. Reservations are a bureaucratic demand in India.
2. Although Reservation policies do erode the grade of education but quite fair action has aided many people if not everyone from under-privileged groups to flourish and hold top spots in the leading industries of the world.
3. Even though Reservation policies do erode the standard, they are required to give social justice to the most underprivileged and vulnerable which is their human right.
4. Meritocracy is illogical without fairness. Basically, all people must be derived to a similar level, whether it uplifts a section or ease up another, despite merit.
5. Reservations have solely decelerated the procedure of “Rich becoming richer and Poor becoming poorer”.

ARGUMENTS OFFERED BY ANTI-RESERVATIONISTS

1. Intellectuals and philanthropists accept that reservation will segregate India. Reservation is tantamount to internal division because apart from being a form of caste discrimination, it also builds walls against inter-religious and inter-caste marriages. Most voters are discriminating against the newly created minority.
2. Caste Based Reservation only sustains the idea of caste in society and does not undermine it as a factor of social thought, as visualized by the constitution. Reservation is a means to fulfill narrow political ends.
3. Fair treatment can be given at a more broad level taking into account many factors of prohibition such as economic conditions, caste, gender, education, etc. The global plan of Fair treatment would be more helpful than reservations in directing concerns of social justice.
4. Assigning quotas is a type of discrimination which is conflicting with the right to
   equality.
5. As per the Mandal commission, 52% of the Indians come under the OBC category, while as per the National Sample Survey (1999-2000), this static is only 36% (32% excluding Muslim OBCs).
6. This scheme of the government has already provoked an increase in brain ooze and may annoy further. Graduates and undergraduates will initiate moving to overseas universities for higher education

EWS RESERVATION

The Central Government of India recently instigated EWS Reservation. 10% quota is given for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) between the General Category candidates in educational institutions and government jobs. This is implemented in the Indian Constitution (103rd Constitution Amendment Act, 2019) by including clauses for the same.

CONCLUSION

Therefore the reservation policy acquired in India with a sight to raise specific caste of people should be executed for the same reason only and not pull away the rights of people of the general class. Because the very purpose of presenting reservation is fading its essence in the 21st century. However, it is urgent to maintain the point and originality of the reservation policy, and not providing prejudice means two people reached the stairs of profit without even taking it.

REFERENCES

1. 1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525.

---

This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed her BA LLB from Agra College and is doing a diploma in Corporate Law from Enhelion.