Divergent views exist in India about reservations for public employment and educational institutions. Both those who oppose reservations and those who support them have filed numerous petitions and protests with the Supreme Court and individual High Courts. Both sides make different arguments. Some claim that reservations may lead to positive or reserve discrimination, while others contend that it is unfair to exclude a certain segment of the population from mainstream services like education in the hopes that they will eventually be freed and placed at the forefront of the race, where they must then compete with others.
ashoka kumar thakur v uoi Case Facts
- Discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth was outlawed by the Indian constitution.
- India established through a constitutional amendment that the government could create specific provisions to enhance the access of scheduled tribes, scheduled classes, and socially and educationally disadvantaged classes to higher education institutions.
- The goal of the amendment was to right historical wrongs, such as those pertaining to higher education possibilities and access.
- Government initiatives to increase access to higher education in 2006 led to the reservation of around half of the seats in universities for scheduled tribes, educationally disadvantaged classes, and scheduled classes.
- All other students might occupy the remaining half of the seats. The Indian government (defendant) imposed reservation and quota systems in higher education, which Ashoka Kumar Thakur (plaintiff) contested as unconstitutional.
- According to Thakur, the reservation and quota systems for higher education amount to discrimination that is against the Indian constitution.
ashoka kumar thakur v uoi Issues
- What is the validity of the 93rd amendment to the Constitution?
- Should the creamy layer be left out in SEBCs?
- Does the law specify any criteria for identifying the creamy layer?
- Is article 15(5) of indian constitution lawful under the constitution?
- Does article 15(5) of indian constitution’s exclusion of minority educational institutions violate article 14 of the indian constitution?
- Is it constitutionally permissible to provide excessive delegation to identify which class of people is backward?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners contended that certain citizen classes cannot be treated as socially and educationally disadvantaged groups of citizens forever. The rights outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution were there violated by the State.
Respondent:
- The reply contended that since the petitions involved important legal and constitutional interpretation issues, a bench of at least five judges need to hear them.
ashoka kumar thakur v uoi Judgment
- The Court noted that if the creamy layer is not excluded, the 93rd Amendment would be extra vires and unconstitutional.
- The Court held that there should be no specific standards on the identification of the creamy layer; instead, the Government should make that decision.
- The court further decided that OBCs are subject to the creamy layer ban rule.
- The Court further noted that by depriving persons of their fundamental freedom to continue their employment under Article 19(1)(g), placing reservations on unassisted institutions breaches the Basic Structure.
- Nonetheless, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution is enforceable with respect to state-maintained and federally assisted educational institutions.
- The court went on to state that minority educational institutions are distinct classes that are safeguarded by other parts of the constitution.
- Thus, they do not violate the Constitution.
- The court determined that Articles 14 and 15 are constitutionally valid because they have independent effects and do not conflict with one another.
It is evident from the ashoka kumar thakur v uoi case that “caste” alone cannot be used to determine whether a person is SEBC or OBC. It is significant to note that Article 15(4) does not discuss the caste; rather, it merely discusses classes. They would be mentioned in Article 15(4) if it were added into the constitution with the intention of considering “caste” as one of the components of social and educational backwardness. The constitution’s goal is to support the growth of underprivileged classes and prioritize societal interests over those of individuals or groups that have made progress in both social and educational spheres.
This case also dispels some uncertainty regarding the union government’s categorization of other castes or socially and economically inferior classes. The petitioners thought that the union government was being over delegated in this case. This is important to talk about. For the purpose of managing SEBC or OBC concerns, both national and state commissions are in operation. India is a tremendously diverse country, as is well known; each region has its own traditions and customs, and certain castes are treated differently depending on where they live. Having a single list of SEBCs or OBCs for every state or region is exceedingly challenging.
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
