Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Article 15 : Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. 

Article 15 provides for a particular application of the general principle embodied in Article 14  i.e. , Right to Equality. 

The Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 15 is available to citizens only. 

In case of  Kathi Ranning 🆚 State of Saurashtra 1952 SC , SC held that "when a law comes within the prohibition of Article 15 , it can't be validated by recourse to Article 14 by applying the principle of reasonable classification."

Article 15(1) : The State shall not discriminate any citizen on grounds of only religion , race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. 

Case : Sriniwas Ayer 🆚 Saraswathi Ammal 1952 , Mad. 

Held - The word 'discrimination' means to make an adverse distinction or to distinguish unfavourable from others. 

The word 'only' used in Article 15  (1) indicates that discrimination can't be made nearly on the grounds given in Article 15(1). It follows from this that discrimination on grounds other than these are not hit by Article 15 (1). 

Case : DP Joshi 🆚 State of Madhya Bharat 1955 SC, 

Held -A rule of the State Medical College requiring a capitation fee from non- Madhya Bharat students for admission in the college was held valid as the ground of exemption was residence and not the place of birth. 

Place of birth is different from residence. 

Article 15 (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 restaurant, hotels and places 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. 

Place of public resort - Places which are frequented by the public like a public park, a public road, a public bus, ferry, public urinal or railway, a hospital etc.

Note: Article 15(1) is available against State only while Article 15(2) is available against State as well as citizens. 

 

Article 15 (3) : Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children . 

 This clause is an exception of clause (1) &(2) of Article 15.

Establishment of National women commission 1992 was inspired by provision given in this clause. 

Inspired policy of State -

(1) The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

(2) The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 

Case : Dattatraya Motiram 🆚 State of Bombey, 1953 bom. 

Held - The reservation of seats for women in a college doesn't offend against Article 15(1).

Case : Muller 🆚 Oregon, 

Held - women's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions places her act a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence and her physical wellbeing an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigour of the race. 

Article 15(4): Special provision for advancement of Backward Classes

Clause (4) in Article 15 was inserted in Indian Constitution by Constitutional (1st Amendment) Act, 1951  due to decision in case of State of Madras 🆚 Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SC, SC held Government 

Order, to reserve seats in certain proportion on the basis of religion, race and caste, void because it classified students on the basis of caste and religion irrespective of merit. DPSP can't override the Fundamental Rights. 

Article 15 (4) provides -

"Nothing in this article or 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 SCs & STs".

Article 15 (4) is an enabling provision not obligatory. 

Case:MR Balaji 🆚State of Mysore, 1963 SC

Held -SC held that Article 15 (4) is only an enabling provision and doesn't impose any obligation on the State to take any special action under it. It merely confers a discretion to act if necessary by way of making special provision for backward classes. 

Case: Gulson Prakash 🆚 State of Hariyana, 2010 SC 

Held : SC held that a writ can't be issued to State to make reservation. Article 15 (4) is an exception but only makes a special application of the principle of reasonable classification. 

Case: A Periakruppan 🆚 State of Tamilnadu, 1971 SC

Held - The Government should not procede on the basis that once a class is considered as backward, it should continue as backward class for all the times. 

There can be reservation for persons belonging to areas which are socially and educationally backward. 

A rural area is not a class by itself and can't be considered to socially and educationally backward merely because it is a rural area.

 

Note - Backwardness as envisaged by Article 15 (4) must be both social and educational and not either social or educational. 

Article 15 (5) : The Constitutional (93rd Amendment ) Act, 2005 , inserted clause (5) in Article 15 with effect from 20/01/2006 to nullify the judgements of SC on the point of admission in educational institutions. It provides - 

"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 or 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".

Pre Amendment Cases: - 

Case: TMA Pai Foundation 🆚 State of Karnataka ,2003 SC 

Held - SC held that State could neither make reservation of seats nor any quota Or percentage of seats in admission in privately run minority or non minority aided educational institutions. 

Case : Islamic Academy 🆚 State of Kerala, 2003 SC 

Held -SC held that State could fix quota for admission but not the fees in minority educational institutions. 

PA Inamdar 🆚 State of Maharashtra, 2005 SC 

Held- SC overruled the Islamic Society case judgement and the position of TMA Pai Foundation case was reiterated by not allowing the State to make reservation of seats in admission in privately run educational institutions. 

Post Amendment Cases:-

Case: Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust 🆚 Union of India, 2014 SC

Held -SC held that clause (5) of Article 15 in so far as it treats unaided private educational institutions alike is not violative of Article 14 of Constitution. 

By excluding the minority institutions referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, the secular character of India is maintained and not destroyed. They are separate class and their exclusion from Article 15 (5) is not violative of Constitution. 

Obc reservation in higher educational institutions:-

Case : Indra Sawhney 🆚 Union of India, 1993 SC 

                          or

   Mandal Commission Case

Held - SC held that the sub-classification of backward classes into more backward and backward classes can be done but as a result of sub-classification the reservation can't exceed more then 50% . 

The distinction should be on the basis of degrees of social backwardness. 

Case: Ashok Kumar Thakur 🆚 Union of India, 2011 SC

Held- SC held the Constitutional (93rd Amendment) Act, 2006 providing 27% reservation in admission to OBC candidates in higher educational institutions constitutional. 

However, the court left open the question of reservation to these categories to private educational institutions. 

The court, however, held that the benefit of reservation could not be made available to creamy layer  candidates. The reservation must be revised in after evey five years. The creamy layer requirement would not apply to SCs & STs candidates. 

Article 15 (6) : The Constitutional( 103rd Amendment ) Act, 2019 has inserted clause (6) in Article 15 which is as follows-

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.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this article and article 16, "economically weaker sections" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.

Case: Basamma Pal 🆚 Kochin University, 1996 SC

Held - SC held that if the upper caste  lady got married with backward class person, she can't be entitled for reservation. 

                        

                          - Anjali singh &

                          -  Deepak kumar 

                  (University of Allahabad)