The landmark decision in ashoka kumar thakur v union of india examined the complexities of social justice and reservations for India’s Other Backward Classes (OBC). This resulted from the National Sample Survey Organization contesting the Mandal Commission’s classification, which put 52% of Indians in the OBC category, and placing it at 42%.
ashoka kumar thakur v union of india Case Facts
- The Central Educational Institutions Act of 2006 and the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act of 2005 were the targets of a number of petitions that were combined and presented to the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench.
- Members of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (SC/ST) and socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) are entitled to reservations in Central Institutes of Higher Education under the Central Educational Institutions Act of 2006.
- The petitioners contested the allocation of 27% of all seats for the “socially and educationally backward classes of citizens” as reserved.
- The petitioners argued that admission to universities should only be granted on the basis of merit and that it is unfair for the State to provide preference to a student who has less merit than to those who would have been admitted regardless of merit.
- According to the petitioner, the modification went against the Basic Structure theory.
- They also argued that SEBCs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) cannot be identified due to a lack of criteria.
- Additionally, the idea of a creamy layer is covered by Articles 15 and 16, and it is against the law for the Act to leave this concept undefined.
ashoka kumar thakur v union of india Issues
- What is the constitutionality of the 93rd Amendment?
- In SEBCs, can the creamy layer be excluded?
- Does the law specify any criteria for identifying the creamy layer?
- Is article 15(5) of the indian constitution lawful?
- Does article 15(5) of the indian constitution exclusion of minority educational institutions violate article 14 of the indian constitution?
- Is it constitutionally permissible to provide authority to identify which class of people is backward?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners contended that the state had no duty to treat citizens who belonged to socially and educationally disadvantaged strata in a particular way going forward. The rights enumerated in article 14 of the indian constitution were breached by the state.
Respondent:
- The respondent contended that a bench consisting of a minimum of five judges ought to consider the significant legal matters and constitutional interpretations raised in the petition.
ashoka kumar thakur v union of india Judgment
- In this case, the court determined that the 93rd Amendment Act, 2005 of the Indian Constitution does not conflict with its fundamental provisions.
- In this case, the Union of India contended that discrimination in employment and education does not contravene the equality code of the fundamental structure of the constitution or its fundamental principles.
- One of the numerous instruments you can advocate for is reservation, and it is the state’s responsibility to take proactive steps to improve the lot of the poorer segments of society.
- The Indian Constitution’s Article 46 requires the governments to safeguard the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, in particular, as well as the educational and economic interests of the weaker parts of society against social injustice.
- Reservation is not against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution, which states that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth because it gives an additional advantage to those who, without such support, can only dream of attending a university.
- The Supreme Court noted that the Constitution’s basic structure theory has taken into account changes in human conduct and affairs, thus requiring the basic structure to be adjusted in accordance with societal changes.
- The main components of the fundamental framework are the more expansive equality ideals found in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution; nonetheless, those articles should only undergo minor revisions as long as they don’t contravene article 14 of the indian constitution.
- The basic structure is not violated by the 93rd Amendment Act of 2005. contemporary emphasis on and modification of the equality principles found in article 19(1)(g) of the indian constitution.
In this case, the court commented on the necessity of reservations, stating that they are one of many tools used to uphold and advance the fundamental principles of equality and elevate marginalized groups into the forefront of civil society. The Court ruled that the 93rd Amendment was lawful and that, in terms of the creamy layer, OBCs should be given preference over SC/STs.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf