jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
and not to foreigners and foreigners (except enemy	aliens)	1. Prohibition of discrimination 1. Equality before law and equal
on grounds of religion, race, protection of laws (Article 14).	caste, sex or place of birth	(Article 15).
2. Equality of opportunity in 2. Protection in respect of	matters of public employment conviction for offences	(Article 16). (Article 20).
3. Protection of six rights 3. Protection of life and personal	regarding freedom of : (i) liberty (Article 21).	speech and expression, (ii)
assembly, (iii) association,	(iv) movement, (v) residence,	and (vi) profession (Article
19).	4. Protection of life and 4. Right to elementary	personal liberty (Article 21). education (Article 21A).
establish and administer detention in certain cases	educational institutions (Article 22).	(Article 30).
6. Prohibition of traffic in human	beings and forced labour	(Article 23).
7. Prohibition of employment of	children in factories etc.,	(Article 24).
8. Freedom of conscience and	free profession, practice and	propagation of religion
(Article 25).	9. Freedom to manage religious	affairs (Article 26).
10. Freedom from payment of	taxes for promotion of any	religion (Article 27).
11. Freedom from attending	religious instruction or	worship in certain educational
RIGHT TO EQUALITY	1. Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Laws	Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of	India. This provision confers rights on all persons whether citizens or	foreigners. Moreover, the word ‘person’ includes legal persons, viz,
statutory corporations, companies, registered societies or any other	type of legal person.	The concept of ‘equality before law’ is of British origin while the
concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ has been taken from the	American Constitution. The first concept connotes: (a) the absence of	any special privileges in favour of any person, (b) the equal subjection
of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary	law courts, and (c) no person (whether rich or poor, high or low, official	or non-official) is above the law.
The second concept, on the other hand, connotes: (a) the equality	of treatment under equal circumstances, both in the privileges	conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws, (b) the similar
application of the same laws to all persons who are similarly situated,	and (c) the like should be treated alike without any discrimination.	Thus, the former is a negative concept while the latter is a positive
concept. However, both of them aim at establishing equality of legal	status, opportunity and justice.	The Supreme Court held that where equals and unequals are
treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. While Article 14 forbids	class legislation, it permits reasonable classification of persons,	objects and transactions by the law. But the classification should not
be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. Rather, it should be based on an	intelligible differential and substantial distinction.	Rule of Law The concept of ‘equality before law’ is an element of the
concept of ‘Rule of Law’, propounded by A.V. Dicey, the British jurist.	His concept has the following three elements or aspects:	(i) Absence of arbitrary power, that is, no man can be punished
except for a breach of law.	(ii) Equality before the law, that is, equal subjection of all citizens (rich	or poor, high or low, official or non-official) to the ordinary law of
(iii) The primacy of the rights of the individual, that is, the constitution	is the result of the rights of the individual as defined and enforced	by the courts of law rather than the constitution being the source
of the individual rights.	The first and the second elements are applicable to the Indian	System and not the third one. In the Indian System, the constitution is
the source of the individual rights.	The Supreme Court held that the ‘Rule of Law’ as embodied in	Article 14 is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution. Hence, it cannot be
destroyed even by an amendment.	Exceptions to Equality The rule of equality before law is not absolute	and there are constitutional and other exceptions to it. These are
mentioned below:	1. The President of India and the Governor of States enjoy the	following immunities (Article 361):
(i) The President or the Governor is not answerable to any court	the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of	office.
(ii) No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued aga	the President or the Governor in any court during his term	office.
(iii) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or	Governor shall be issued from any court during his term of offic	(iv) No civil proceedings against the President or the Governor s
be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of	act done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or a	he entered upon his office, until the expiration of two months n
after notice has been delivered to him.	2. No person shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in	any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper (or by
radio or television) of a substantially true report of any	proceedings of either House of Parliament or either House of the	Legislature of a State (Article 361-A).
3. No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in	any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in	Parliament or any committee thereof (Article 105).
4. No member of the Legislature of a state shall be liable to any	proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote	given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof (Article
5. Article 31-C is an exception to Article 14. It provides that the	laws made by the state for implementing the Directive Principles	contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be
challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14.	The Supreme Court held that “where Article 31-C comes in,	Article 14 goes out”.
6. The foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambassadors and diplomats	enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings.	7. The UNO and its agencies enjoy the diplomatic immunity.
2. Prohibition of Discrimination on Certain Grounds	Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any	citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
The two crucial words in this provision are ‘discrimination’ and ‘only’.	The word ‘discrimination’ means ‘to make an adverse distinction with	regard to’ or ‘to distinguish unfavourably from others’. The use of the
word ‘only’ connotes that discrimination on other grounds is not	prohibited.	The second provision of Article 15 says that no citizen shall be
subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or condition on grounds	only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth with regard to (a)	access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public
entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, road and	places of public resort maintained wholly or partly by State funds or	dedicated to the use of general public. This provision prohibits
discrimination both by the State and private individuals, while the	former provision prohibits discrimination only by the State.	There are four exceptions to this general rule of non-discrimination:
(a) The state is permitted to make any special provision for women	and children. For example, reservation of seats for women in	local bodies or provision of free education for children.
(b) The state is permitted to make any special provision for the	advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes	of citizens or for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes4. For
example, reservation of seats or fee concessions in public	educational institutions.	(c) The state is empowered to make any special provision for the
advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes	of citizens or for the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes	regarding their admission to educational institutions including
private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the	state, except the minority educational institutions.	(d) The state is empowered to make any special provision for the
advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.	Further, the state is allowed to make a provision for the	reservation of upto 10% of seats for such sections in admission
to educational institutions including private educational	institutions, whether aided or unaided by the state, except the	minority educational institutions. This reservation of upto 10%
would be in addition to the existing reservations. For this	purpose, the economically weaker sections would be notified by	the state from time to time on the basis of family income and
other indicators of economic disadvantage.	Reservation for OBCs in Educational Institutions	The above exception(c) was added by the 93rd Amendment Act of
2005. In order to give effect to this provision, the Centre enacted the	Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006,	providing a quota of 27% for candidates belonging to the Other
Backward Classes (OBCs) in all central higher educational institutions	including the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian	Institutes of Management (IIMs). In April 2008, the Supreme Court
upheld the validity of both, the Amendment Act and the OBC Quota	Act. But, the Court directed the central government to exclude the	‘creamy layer’ (advanced sections) among the OBCs while
implementing the law.	The children of the following different categories of people belong	to ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs and thus will not get the quota benefit :
1. Persons holding constitutional posts like President, Vice-	President, Judges of SC and HCs, Chairman and Members of	UPSC and SPSCs, CEC, CAG and so on.
2. Group ‘A’ / Class I and Group ‘B’ / Class II Officers of the All	India, Central and State Services; and Employees holding	equivalent posts in PSUs, Banks, Insurance Organisations,
Universities etc., and also in private employment.	3. Persons who are in the rank of colonel and above in the Army	and equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force and the
Paramilitary Forces.	4. Professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers, artists, authors,	consultants and so on.
6. People holding agricultural land above a certain limit and vacant	land or buildings in urban areas.	7. Persons having gross annual income of more than ₹8 lakh or
possessing wealth above the exemption limit. In 1993, when the	“creamy layer” ceiling was introduced, it was ₹1 lakh. It was	subsequently revised to ₹2.5 lakh in 2004, ₹4.5 lakh in 2008, ₹6
lakh in 2013 and ₹8 lakh in 2017.	Reservation for EWSs in Educational Institutions	The above exception (d) was added by the 103rd Amendment Act of
2019. In order to give effect to this provision, the central government	issued an order (in 2019) providing 10% reservation to the	Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in admission to educational
institutions. The benefit of this reservation can be availed by the	persons belonging to EWSs who are not covered under any of the	existing schemes of reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs. The
eligibility criteria laid down in this regard is as follows:	1. Persons whose family has gross annual income below ₹8 lakh	are to be identified as EWSs for the benefit of reservation. The
income would include income from all sources i.e., salary,	agriculture, business, profession etc. and it would be income for	the financial year prior to the year of application.
2. Persons whose family owns or possesses any one of the	following assets are to be excluded from being identified as	EWSs, irrespective of the family income:
(a) 5 acres of Agricultural land and above.	(b) Residential flat of 1000 sq.ft. and above.	(c) Residential plot of 100 sq.yards and above in notified
municipalities.	(d) Residential plot of 200 sq.yards and above in areas other	than the notified municipalities.
3. The property held by a family in different locations or different	places / cities would be clubbed while applying the land or	property holding test to determine EWS status.
4. Family for this purpose would include the person who seeks	benefit of reservation, his/her parents and siblings below the age	of 18 years as also his/ her spouse and children below the age
Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters	of employment or appointment to any office under the State. No	citizen can be discriminated against or be ineligible for any
employment or office under the State on grounds of only religion, race,	caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence.	There are four exceptions to this general rule of equality of
opportunity in public employment:	(a) Parliament can prescribe residence as a condition for certain	employment or appointment in a state or union territory or local
authority or other authority. As the Public Employment	(Requirement as to Residence) Act of 1957 expired in 1974,	there is no such provision for any state except Andhra Pradesh5
and Telangana5a.	(b) The State can provide for reservation of appointments or posts in	favour of any backward class that is not adequately represented
in the state services.	(c) A law can provide that the incumbent of an office related to	religious or denominational institution or a member of its
governing body should belong to the particular religion or	denomination.	(d) The state is permitted to make a provision for the reservation of
upto 10% of appointments or posts in favour of any economically	weaker sections of citizens. This reservation of upto 10% would	be in addition to the existing reservation. For this purpose, the
economically weaker sections would be notified by the state from	time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of	economic disadvantage.
Mandal Commission and Aftermath	In 1979, the Morarji Desai Government appointed the Second6	Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of B.P.
Mandal, a Member of Parliament, in terms of Article 340 of the	Constitution to investigate the conditions of the socially and	educationally backward classes and suggest measures for their
advancement. The commission submitted its report in 1980 and	identified as many as 3743 castes as socially and educationally	backward classes. They constitute nearly 52% component of the
population, excluding the scheduled castes (SCs) and the scheduled	tribes (STs). The commission recommended for reservation of 27%	government jobs for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) so that the
total reservation for all ((SCs, STs and OBCs) amounts to 50%.7 It	was after ten years in 1990 that the V.P. Singh Government declared	reservation of 27% government jobs for the OBCs. Again in 1991, the
Narasimha Rao Government introduced two changes: (a) preference	to the poorer sections among the OBCs in the 27% quota, i.e.,	adoption of the economic criteria in granting reservation, and (b)
reservation of another 10% of jobs for poorer (economically backward)	sections of higher castes who are not covered by any existing	schemes of reservation.
In the famous Mandal case8 (1992), the scope and extent of Article	16(4), which provides for reservation of jobs in favour of backward	classes, has been examined thoroughly by the Supreme Court.
Though the Court has rejected the additional reservation of 10% for	poorer sections of higher castes, it upheld the constitutional validity of	27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions, viz,
(a) The advanced sections among the OBCs (the creamy layer)	should be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation.	(b) No reservation in promotions; reservation should be confined to
initial appointments only. Any existing reservation in promotions	can continue for five years only (i.e., upto 1997).	(c) The total reserved quota should not exceed 50% except in some
extraordinary situations. This rule should be applied every year.	(d) The ‘carry forward rule’ in case of unfilled (backlog) vacancies is	valid. But it should not violate 50% rule.
(e) A permanent statutory body should be established to examine	complaints of over-inclusion and under-inclusion in the list of	OBCs.
With regard to the above rulings of the Supreme Court, the	government has taken the following actions:	(a) Ram Nandan Committee was appointed to identify the creamy
layer among the OBCs. It submitted its report in 1993, which was	accepted.	(b) National Commission for Backward Classes was established in

and not to foreigners and foreigners (except enemy

aliens)

1. Prohibition of discrimination 1. Equality before law and equal

on grounds of religion, race, protection of laws (Article 14).

caste, sex or place of birth

(Article 15).

2. Equality of opportunity in 2. Protection in respect of

matters of public employment conviction for offences

(Article 16). (Article 20).

3. Protection of six rights 3. Protection of life and personal

regarding freedom of : (i) liberty (Article 21).

speech and expression, (ii)

assembly, (iii) association,

(iv) movement, (v) residence,

and (vi) profession (Article

19).

4. Protection of life and 4. Right to elementary

personal liberty (Article 21). education (Article 21A).

establish and administer detention in certain cases

educational institutions (Article 22).

(Article 30).

6. Prohibition of traffic in human

beings and forced labour

(Article 23).

7. Prohibition of employment of

children in factories etc.,

(Article 24).

8. Freedom of conscience and

free profession, practice and

propagation of religion

(Article 25).

9. Freedom to manage religious

affairs (Article 26).

10. Freedom from payment of

taxes for promotion of any

religion (Article 27).

11. Freedom from attending

religious instruction or

worship in certain educational

RIGHT TO EQUALITY

1. Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Laws

Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality

before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of

India. This provision confers rights on all persons whether citizens or

foreigners. Moreover, the word ‘person’ includes legal persons, viz,

statutory corporations, companies, registered societies or any other

type of legal person.

The concept of ‘equality before law’ is of British origin while the

concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ has been taken from the

American Constitution. The first concept connotes: (a) the absence of

any special privileges in favour of any person, (b) the equal subjection

of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary

law courts, and (c) no person (whether rich or poor, high or low, official

or non-official) is above the law.

The second concept, on the other hand, connotes: (a) the equality

of treatment under equal circumstances, both in the privileges

conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws, (b) the similar

application of the same laws to all persons who are similarly situated,

and (c) the like should be treated alike without any discrimination.

Thus, the former is a negative concept while the latter is a positive

concept. However, both of them aim at establishing equality of legal

status, opportunity and justice.

The Supreme Court held that where equals and unequals are

treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. While Article 14 forbids

class legislation, it permits reasonable classification of persons,

objects and transactions by the law. But the classification should not

be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. Rather, it should be based on an

intelligible differential and substantial distinction.

Rule of Law The concept of ‘equality before law’ is an element of the

concept of ‘Rule of Law’, propounded by A.V. Dicey, the British jurist.

His concept has the following three elements or aspects:

(i) Absence of arbitrary power, that is, no man can be punished

except for a breach of law.

(ii) Equality before the law, that is, equal subjection of all citizens (rich

or poor, high or low, official or non-official) to the ordinary law of

(iii) The primacy of the rights of the individual, that is, the constitution

is the result of the rights of the individual as defined and enforced

by the courts of law rather than the constitution being the source

of the individual rights.

The first and the second elements are applicable to the Indian

System and not the third one. In the Indian System, the constitution is

the source of the individual rights.

The Supreme Court held that the ‘Rule of Law’ as embodied in

Article 14 is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution. Hence, it cannot be

destroyed even by an amendment.

Exceptions to Equality The rule of equality before law is not absolute

and there are constitutional and other exceptions to it. These are

mentioned below:

1. The President of India and the Governor of States enjoy the

following immunities (Article 361):

(i) The President or the Governor is not answerable to any court

the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of

office.

(ii) No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued aga

the President or the Governor in any court during his term

office.

(iii) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or

Governor shall be issued from any court during his term of offic

(iv) No civil proceedings against the President or the Governor s

be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of

act done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or a

he entered upon his office, until the expiration of two months n

after notice has been delivered to him.

2. No person shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in

any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper (or by

radio or television) of a substantially true report of any

proceedings of either House of Parliament or either House of the

Legislature of a State (Article 361-A).

3. No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in

any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in

Parliament or any committee thereof (Article 105).

4. No member of the Legislature of a state shall be liable to any

proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote

given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof (Article

5. Article 31-C is an exception to Article 14. It provides that the

laws made by the state for implementing the Directive Principles

contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be

challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14.

The Supreme Court held that “where Article 31-C comes in,

Article 14 goes out”.

6. The foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambassadors and diplomats

enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings.

7. The UNO and its agencies enjoy the diplomatic immunity.

2. Prohibition of Discrimination on Certain Grounds

Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any

citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

The two crucial words in this provision are ‘discrimination’ and ‘only’.

The word ‘discrimination’ means ‘to make an adverse distinction with

regard to’ or ‘to distinguish unfavourably from others’. The use of the

word ‘only’ connotes that discrimination on other grounds is not

prohibited.

The second provision of Article 15 says that no citizen shall be

subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or condition on grounds

only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth with regard to (a)

access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public

entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, road and

places of public resort maintained wholly or partly by State funds or

dedicated to the use of general public. This provision prohibits

discrimination both by the State and private individuals, while the

former provision prohibits discrimination only by the State.

There are four exceptions to this general rule of non-discrimination:

(a) The state is permitted to make any special provision for women

and children. For example, reservation of seats for women in

local bodies or provision of free education for children.

(b) The state is permitted to make any special provision for the

advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes

of citizens or for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes4. For

example, reservation of seats or fee concessions in public

educational institutions.

(c) The state is empowered to make any special provision for the

advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes

of citizens or for the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes

regarding their admission to educational institutions including

private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the

state, except the minority educational institutions.

(d) The state is empowered to make any special provision for the

advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.

Further, the state is allowed to make a provision for the

reservation of upto 10% of seats for such sections in admission

to educational institutions including private educational

institutions, whether aided or unaided by the state, except the

minority educational institutions. This reservation of upto 10%

would be in addition to the existing reservations. For this

purpose, the economically weaker sections would be notified by

the state from time to time on the basis of family income and

other indicators of economic disadvantage.

Reservation for OBCs in Educational Institutions

The above exception(c) was added by the 93rd Amendment Act of

2005. In order to give effect to this provision, the Centre enacted the

Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006,

providing a quota of 27% for candidates belonging to the Other

Backward Classes (OBCs) in all central higher educational institutions

including the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian

Institutes of Management (IIMs). In April 2008, the Supreme Court

upheld the validity of both, the Amendment Act and the OBC Quota

Act. But, the Court directed the central government to exclude the

‘creamy layer’ (advanced sections) among the OBCs while

implementing the law.

The children of the following different categories of people belong

to ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs and thus will not get the quota benefit :

1. Persons holding constitutional posts like President, Vice-

President, Judges of SC and HCs, Chairman and Members of

UPSC and SPSCs, CEC, CAG and so on.

2. Group ‘A’ / Class I and Group ‘B’ / Class II Officers of the All

India, Central and State Services; and Employees holding

equivalent posts in PSUs, Banks, Insurance Organisations,

Universities etc., and also in private employment.

3. Persons who are in the rank of colonel and above in the Army

and equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force and the

Paramilitary Forces.

4. Professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers, artists, authors,

consultants and so on.

6. People holding agricultural land above a certain limit and vacant

land or buildings in urban areas.

7. Persons having gross annual income of more than ₹8 lakh or

possessing wealth above the exemption limit. In 1993, when the

“creamy layer” ceiling was introduced, it was ₹1 lakh. It was

subsequently revised to ₹2.5 lakh in 2004, ₹4.5 lakh in 2008, ₹6

lakh in 2013 and ₹8 lakh in 2017.

Reservation for EWSs in Educational Institutions

The above exception (d) was added by the 103rd Amendment Act of

2019. In order to give effect to this provision, the central government

issued an order (in 2019) providing 10% reservation to the

Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in admission to educational

institutions. The benefit of this reservation can be availed by the

persons belonging to EWSs who are not covered under any of the

existing schemes of reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs. The

eligibility criteria laid down in this regard is as follows:

1. Persons whose family has gross annual income below ₹8 lakh

are to be identified as EWSs for the benefit of reservation. The

income would include income from all sources i.e., salary,

agriculture, business, profession etc. and it would be income for

the financial year prior to the year of application.

2. Persons whose family owns or possesses any one of the

following assets are to be excluded from being identified as

EWSs, irrespective of the family income:

(a) 5 acres of Agricultural land and above.

(b) Residential flat of 1000 sq.ft. and above.

(c) Residential plot of 100 sq.yards and above in notified

municipalities.

(d) Residential plot of 200 sq.yards and above in areas other

than the notified municipalities.

3. The property held by a family in different locations or different

places / cities would be clubbed while applying the land or

property holding test to determine EWS status.

4. Family for this purpose would include the person who seeks

benefit of reservation, his/her parents and siblings below the age

of 18 years as also his/ her spouse and children below the age

Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters

of employment or appointment to any office under the State. No

citizen can be discriminated against or be ineligible for any

employment or office under the State on grounds of only religion, race,

caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence.

There are four exceptions to this general rule of equality of

opportunity in public employment:

(a) Parliament can prescribe residence as a condition for certain

employment or appointment in a state or union territory or local

authority or other authority. As the Public Employment

(Requirement as to Residence) Act of 1957 expired in 1974,

there is no such provision for any state except Andhra Pradesh5

and Telangana5a.

(b) The State can provide for reservation of appointments or posts in

favour of any backward class that is not adequately represented

in the state services.

(c) A law can provide that the incumbent of an office related to

religious or denominational institution or a member of its

governing body should belong to the particular religion or

denomination.

(d) The state is permitted to make a provision for the reservation of

upto 10% of appointments or posts in favour of any economically

weaker sections of citizens. This reservation of upto 10% would

be in addition to the existing reservation. For this purpose, the

economically weaker sections would be notified by the state from

time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of

economic disadvantage.

Mandal Commission and Aftermath

In 1979, the Morarji Desai Government appointed the Second6

Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of B.P.

Mandal, a Member of Parliament, in terms of Article 340 of the

Constitution to investigate the conditions of the socially and

educationally backward classes and suggest measures for their

advancement. The commission submitted its report in 1980 and

identified as many as 3743 castes as socially and educationally

backward classes. They constitute nearly 52% component of the

population, excluding the scheduled castes (SCs) and the scheduled

tribes (STs). The commission recommended for reservation of 27%

government jobs for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) so that the

total reservation for all ((SCs, STs and OBCs) amounts to 50%.7 It

was after ten years in 1990 that the V.P. Singh Government declared

reservation of 27% government jobs for the OBCs. Again in 1991, the

Narasimha Rao Government introduced two changes: (a) preference

to the poorer sections among the OBCs in the 27% quota, i.e.,

adoption of the economic criteria in granting reservation, and (b)

reservation of another 10% of jobs for poorer (economically backward)

sections of higher castes who are not covered by any existing

schemes of reservation.

In the famous Mandal case8 (1992), the scope and extent of Article

16(4), which provides for reservation of jobs in favour of backward

classes, has been examined thoroughly by the Supreme Court.

Though the Court has rejected the additional reservation of 10% for

poorer sections of higher castes, it upheld the constitutional validity of

27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions, viz,

(a) The advanced sections among the OBCs (the creamy layer)

should be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation.

(b) No reservation in promotions; reservation should be confined to

initial appointments only. Any existing reservation in promotions

can continue for five years only (i.e., upto 1997).

(c) The total reserved quota should not exceed 50% except in some

extraordinary situations. This rule should be applied every year.

(d) The ‘carry forward rule’ in case of unfilled (backlog) vacancies is

valid. But it should not violate 50% rule.

(e) A permanent statutory body should be established to examine

complaints of over-inclusion and under-inclusion in the list of

OBCs.

With regard to the above rulings of the Supreme Court, the

government has taken the following actions:

(a) Ram Nandan Committee was appointed to identify the creamy

layer among the OBCs. It submitted its report in 1993, which was

accepted.

(b) National Commission for Backward Classes was established in