Ashoka Kumar Thakur VS. Union Of India & Ors

Extract

---

Ashoka Kumar Thakur VS. Union Of India & Ors

The Judgement Information System CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ashoka Kumar Thakur RESPONDENT: Union of India and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2006 (With WP (C) Nos. 269/2006, 598/2006, 29/2007, 35/2007, 53/2007 Contempt Petition (C)No.112/2007 in WP ) No.265/2006, 336/2007, 313/2007, 335/2007, 231/2007, 425/2007 and 428/2007) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. The issues involved in the present writ petitions have far reaching consequences and in essence pose several questions of seminal importance. In essence, they raise questions which have no easy answers. The complexity can be gauged from the fact that on one hand the petitioners have questioned the logic of providing reservations/quotas for a class of people whom they described as "unidentifiable" or "undetermined" while the respondents justify their action by labelling them as measures taken for upliftment of vast majority of people who have suffered social humiliation and sneer for the social backwardness. Complex questions like whether the expressions 'class' and 'castes' are synonyms, whether reservations provide the only solution for social empowerment measures, alleged lack of concern for the economically weaker group of citizens are some of the basic issues which need to be addressed. It has been emphatically highlighted by the petitioners that when the ultimate objective is classless and casteless in Indian democracy, there is no question of unendingly providing the reservation and that too without any definite data regarding backwardness. In essence, they contend that these measures perpetuate backwardness and do not remove them. On the epicenter of challenge is the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 (in short the 'Act') and the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). Interestingly, both the petitioners and the respondents rely strongly on certain observations made by this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (Suppl. 3) SCC 217 (commonly known as 'Indra Sawhney No.1') 2. When the writ petitions were placed before a Bench of two Judges, considering the importance of the matter they were referred to be heard by a larger bench and certain questions which arise for consideration were formulated. That is how these cases are before this Bench.

3. Arguments have been advanced by both the sides as to whether Constitution contemplates casteless society. While the respondents submit that the Constitution really does not think of a casteless society, it prohibits untouchability in the background of Article 17. It has to be noted that both in Articles 15 and 16 the stress is on non-discrimination on the ground of castes. The Preamble of the Constitution also throws light on this aspect. Ultimately if the social status of a man goes in the higher direction because of his education, the difference in status gets obliterated. Education is a great levellor. In that sense, the ultimate object is that every Indian citizen should have the social status which is not inferior to another and that would be obliteration of the difference in status. The ultimate objective is to see that no person gets discriminated because of his caste. If that be so, it would not be right to say that the ultimate objective is not the casteless society.

4. Various Articles of the Constitution of India and the Preamble provide an insight to the monumental document i.e. the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law in addition to equal protection of law. Article 15(1) mandates that there shall not be any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex, race, or place of birth. Article 16(1) makes the fundamental right of equality specific relating to job opportunities. Article 16(2) significantly speaks of government employment by providing that no citizen shall be ineligible only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or any of them or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State.

Article 16(4) is an important provision which empowers the State permitting the provision for the reservation of appointments and posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services of the State. The stress is on backwardness of the citizens and inadequate representation in the services under the State.

5. If one takes a walk on the pathway relating to the views expressed by this Court in the matter of reservation or quotas for the other backward classes one comes across many milestones. Some of them were noted extensively in Indra Sawhney No.1. They are: The State of Madras v. Sm.

Champakam Dorairajan & Anr. (AIR 1951 SC 226), Minor A Peeriakaruppan v. Sobha Joseph (1971 (1) SCC 38), The State of Andhra Pradesh ...

See the full content of this document

---