Article 15

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

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to

(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or

(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

(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 the 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 the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

 (6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—

     (a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and

     (b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) 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 the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.

Article 15 restricts discrimination on the ground of:

• Religion – It means that no person should be discriminated on the basis of religion from accessing any public place or policy by the state or any group.
• Race – Ethnic origin should not form a basis of discrimination. For example, a citizen of Afghan origin should not be discriminated from those of an Indian origin.
• Caste – Discrimination on the basis of caste is also prohibited to prevent atrocities on the lower castes by the upper caste.
• Sex – Gender of an individual shall not be a valid ground for discrimination in any matter. For example, discriminating transgenders, females, etc.
• Place of birth – A place where an individual is born should not become a reason for discriminating among other members of the country.

No discrimination against citizen15 (1)

• Emphasis is on the word “only” which means only discriminations rest solely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth then article 15 comes to play.
• If the discrimination is based on one or more of these grounds or any other ground then this article cannot be used.
• Discrimination in favor of caste is permissible or sex is permissible.
• Prohibition is against the state and not the private persons.
• State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairanjan: Classification of students cannot be done on the basis of caste or religion instead of merit. DPSP cannot override FR.
• Dp Joshi vs state of Madhya Pradesh: SC made clear that place of birth and place of residence is completely different, discrimination on the place of birth is used under article 15 but place of residence is not.

15(2) No Discrimination as to access to public places

• Clause (1) is only against the state but clause (2) is even valid against private persons.

15(3) Exception to article (1) (2) state has power of making special provisions for women and children

• Article 42 says that – just humane condition for women and maternity relief
• Section125 of CRPC – husband has to maintain his wife.
• 73^rd amendment – which made 1/3 reservation of seats in panchayats and municipalities under art 243-D and T.
• Revathi vs UOI: SC held that the word “for” in provision means that the state can make laws only on favor of women and children and no laws can be made against them.

15(4) Special provisions for backward classes

• State has power to make special provisions for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the schedule castes and the ST.
• This provisions only allows the state to make provisions It does not confer or compel state to make provisos, it only a enabling provision which means state can do it or not but it’s not obligatory to do it.
• Backward class is not identified anywhere but according to Article 340- president may by order appoint a Commission consisting of such persons as he thinks fit to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and on the basis of that report we can identify the classes to be considered as backward.
• Balaji vs state of Mysore: Court held that sub classification between backward classes was not justified like lower backward class, medium backward class.
• Indira sahwney vs UOI: Commonly known as mandal commission case. SC held that the caste can also be factor in determining the social backwardness and only property cannot be sole idea.

15(5) Special provisions relating to admission to educational institutions

• TMA pai foundation vs state of Karnataka: Court said that quotas on government aided or unaided minorities institutions could be impose for benefit of weaker section. The state was imposing forcibly that you reserve seats for st sc in miniority institutions.
• PA Imamadaar vs state of Maharashtra: held that state cannot impose its reservation policy on minority and non-minority unaided private institutions

Parliament was not happy with previous judgment, So to nullify the scope of this case: 93^rd amendment was laid down where art 15(5) inserted which specifically indicate that for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class on the basic of admissions whether aided or unaided by state. (Reservation must be given).

Parliament enacted Central Educational Institution Act 2006 giving 27 % reservation in higher institution for st sc. (this policy was later dragged in court case of:

• Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. UOI
• It excludes the creamy layer from enjoying the benefits of obc quota
• Reservation will be reviewed periodically
• 93 amnendment shall be held valid

The Supreme Court in the following cases has observed that every classification does not constitute discrimination in the first place. 

• In the case of Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, the state of Saurashtra set up special courts under Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance 1949, to adjudicate on the matters of Sec 302, Sec 307 and Sec 394 read with Sec 34  of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The contention brought before the court was that these provisions are discriminatory for the residents depending upon the territory.
• The court stated that all kinds of legislative differentiation are not discriminatory. The legislation did not refer to certain individual cases but to offences of certain kinds committed in certain areas and hence it is not discrimination.

We find that Article 15 Clause (3), (4) and (5) itself stands as an exception to Article 15 Clause (1) and (2). Article 15 Clause (3), (4) and (5) states that the legislature is free to formulate special provisions:

• For women and children,
• For the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
• Make provision relating to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions.

Rather, the term ‘PROTECTIVE DISCRIMINATION’ (also known as Positive Discrimination) is used by the legislators to justify reservation and is defined as the policy of providing an equal platform to the underprivileged and the suppressed classes and to lift their status in the society. This system of reservation works on the principles of intelligible differentia (difference capable of being understood). 

Mandal Commission

The Mandal Commission was established in India in 1979, by the Janata Party Government under Prime Minister Morarji Desalwith a mandate to investigate the conditions of the socially and educationally backward classes and suggest measures for their advancement. It was headed by Indian Parliamentarian Bindheswari Prasad Mandal.

In 1980, the commission’s report affirmed the affirmative action practice under Indian law whereby, members of lower castes (known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes and Tribes) were given exclusive access to a certain portion of government jobs and slots in government universities and recommended changes to these quotas, increasing them by 27% to 49.5%.

It was after 10 years in 1990 that the VP Singh Government declared reservation of 27% government jobs for the OBCs. Pursuant to Supreme Court ruling, Ram Nandan Committee was appointed to identify the creamy layer among the OBCs. It submitted its report in 1993, which was accepted. Government also established National Commission for Backward Classes in 1993, by an Act of Parliament. It considers inclusions in and exclusions from the lists of castes notified as backward for the purpose of job reservation.