Case Brief: Ashol Kumar Thakur v. Union of India

FACTS

The constitution’s Article 46 stated that the state must protect against social inequality while also advancing the economics and educational opportunities for the less fortunate members of society. The Supreme Court of India ruled in P.A. Inamdar and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2005) that the state’s reservation policy does not apply to unaided private educational institutions serving minorities and non-minorities. In comparison to unaided educational institutions, state-maintained or aided educational institutions in India have a small number of seats. The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted by Parliament in 2006 with the aim of promoting the educational interests of the weaker segments of society and placing private unaided educational institutions under the state’s reservation policy.

This amendment expands the state’s authority to enact unique laws. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 added Article 15(4), which mentioned educational advancement but omitted the phrase “admission to the educational institutions.” Article 15(5), which refers to “admission to the educational institution,” was added by the 93rd Amendment Act. Thus, the amendment act’s scope is expanded by the addition of clause 5 to Article 15. This gives the state legislature and parliament the authority to enact suitable legislation pertaining to the reservation. 

The Kalekar Commission was established in 1955 in accordance with Article 340 of the Constitution. Finding the standards by which the identification of OBCs would be feasible is one of the commission’s goals, but the Kalekar commission was unable to provide a workable solution for that issue. The Mandal Commission was established in 1980 and, after considering social, economic, and educational backwardness, compiled a list of 3743 backward castes. The Mandal Commission also makes recommendations, and one of these addresses’ reservations. Specifically, the commission suggests allocating 29% of seats in educational institutions and government jobs to people of color. Prime Minister V.P. Singh put this recommendation into practice in 1990.

India saw some significant nationwide protests after this implementation. There were two main reasons why people thought this was unreasonable. Two things should be noted: first, OBCs are not a backward class; in fact, they are quite powerful and possess a significant amount of land in rural India, and second, this implementation would be the first step towards a legally based caste system.

Following the 93rd Amendment Act, the Central Educational Institutions (reservation in admission) Act was approved by the parliament in 2006. In Central education institutions, 15% of the seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs), 7.5 % for Scheduled Tribes (STs), and 27% for Other Backward Classes, according to Section 3 of this act.

Following this legislation’s passage, many writ petitions were filed contesting various provisions of the Central Education Institution Act and the constitutionality of the 23rd Amendment Act. Originally, a bench of two judges was established to hear these writ petitions, but due to the significance of the case, all petitions were referred to a constitution bench.

ISSUES 

Is the fundamental framework of the Indian constitution violated by the Ninety-Third Amendment Act?

Is Article 14 of the Constitution violated by the minority education institution’s exclusion from Article 15(5)?

Should the Creamy layer be excluded when evaluating socially and educationally backward classes under section 2(g) of the Central Educational Institution (Reservation in Admission) Act?

ARGUMENTS 

The constitutionality of the 23rd Amendment Act is the first matter on which the court is debating. The petitioners contended that the 93rd Amendment Act is in violation of the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andra Pradesh (1993) decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in the T.M.A Pai Foundation case (2002), which clarified the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution with regard to private education institutions and placed these institutions within the definition of “occupation.” In P.A. Inamdar and Ors v. the State of Maharashtra (2005), the court determined that private educational institutions that do not receive government support are entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(g). Additionally, the court held that private educational institutions are not covered by the state’s reservation policy and that this reservation is not justified under Article 19(6). The court further ruled that any attempts by the State to regulate the cost of attendance or reserve seats in private educational institutions would amount to the nationalization of education and would be an unjustifiable infringement on the rights of private educational institutions guaranteed by Article 19 of the constitution. 

 In P.A. Inamdar and Ors v. the State of Maharashtra (2005), the court determined that private educational institutions that do not receive government support are entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(g). Additionally, the court held that private educational institutions are not covered by the state’s reservation policy and that this reservation is not justified under Article 19(6). The court further ruled that any attempts by the State to regulate the cost of attendance or reserve seats in private educational institutions would amount to the nationalization of education and would be an unjustifiable infringement on the rights of private educational institutions guaranteed by Article 19 of the constitution. 

Part III’s fundamental rights cannot be understood in a vacuum; fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy are of equal significance. It is dependent on the state and its economic resources that the Directive Principle of State Policy was progressively transformed into fundamental rights.

Another query arising from the 93rd Amendment Act is the validity of the exclusion of minority educational institutions from Article 15(5). Regarding this matter, the petitioner contended that the 93rd Amendment Act transgresses the equality principle, namely by excluding minority educational institutions on the basis of their religion, which is against Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

The arguments put forth by the respondent on this matter were that Article 15(5) allows the state to create special provisions for the advancement of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC), particularly with regard to admission to an educational institution, and that the inclusion of minority institutions in Article 15(5) is not necessary because the right of minority educational institutions was protected under Article 30 and the constitution contains a comprehensive set of provisions for the protection of institutional rights.

Another argument about Article 15(5) brought before the court was that Articles 15(4) and 15(5) contradict one another. The petitioners contended that Article 15(4) provides legislative authority to create reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) following the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951) ruling. Also, Article 15(5) allows reservations in aided or unaided educational institutions, except minority education institutions. However, this provision is covered by Article 30 of the Constitution, which, in the petitioner’s attorney’s opinion, makes it impossible for state legislatures to grant reservations to the less fortunate members of society, even in aided minority educational institutions.

Additionally, it was claimed that since the phrase “nothing in the Article” appears in Article 15(5), Article 15(4) includes it. Consequently, Article 15(5) is non-operative and in conflict with Article 15(4).

Petitioners also contest the constitutionality of the Central Education Institutions Act on several grounds, chief among them being the validity of the definition of “backward class” based on “caste.” Additionally, it was claimed that this legislation contravenes the constitutions’ Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g). Using “caste” as a basis for class identification is against Article 15 of the Constitution.

Respondents contended that the ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1999) established that caste could serve as a foundational element and a significant determinant in identifying socially and economically disadvantaged segments of the populace. Another significant case is M.R. Balaji v. the State of Mysore (1962). In this case, it was decided that while caste may play a role in determining a group’s social backwardness, it cannot be the only factor; other considerations such as the group’s occupation or place of residence must also be considered. It was decided in the case that the classification of social classes under Article 15(4) cannot be based solely on caste.

JUDGEMENT

In this instance, 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 many instruments you can advocate for is reservation, and it is the state’s responsibility to take proactive steps to improve the lot of the weaker segments of society. The Indian Constitution’s Article 46 requires the states to safeguard the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe as well as the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of society from 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 doctrine has considered changes in human behavior and affairs, requiring the basic structure to be adjusted in accordance with societal changes. The main components of the fundamental structure are the more expansive equality principles found in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution; however, those articles should only undergo minor revisions if they do not contravene Article 14. The basic structure is not violated by the 93rd Amendment Act of 2005. modern emphasis on and modification of the equality principles found in Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution

ANALYSIS

A casteless society is a noble dream of our constitution’s founding fathers. In the current case, the Ashok Kumar Thakur case makes it clear that the identification of socially and economically backward solution classes or other backward classes cannot be solely based on the case. Reservation is a tool of upliftment for the weaker section temporarily; if reservation becomes permanent or constitutional for a long time, it produces a society based on castes. National and state laws are in place to address the issue of SEBS or OBCs.