Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
by Parmanand Singh
My distinguished colleague Professor M.P. Singh deserves great praise for his
incisive analysis of the constitutional issues involved in acknowledging a
fundamental right to affirmative action . Professor Singh maintains that the
1
constitutional scheme as well as judicial decisions support the notion that every
member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can claim preferential
treatment as a matter of fundamental right to equality. The great merit of his rights
thesis is that it enables the members of the intended beneficiaries to resort to courts
to compel the Government to provide compensatory benefits as a matter of right.
His paper is particularly interesting in the wake of Mandal according legitimacy
2
and binding power to job reservations for OBCs. It is interesting in this context to
note that though he advances several super-classification arguments in favour of
the SCs and STs being accorded fundamental rights, he does not seem to have any
valid reason not to apply the same arguments in favour of the OBCs as well.
forcing all the political parties to resist the Centre's directive to eliminate the
creamy layer from the OBCs. With too much of politicisation of the reservation
issue and political abuse of this device, one has to move with great circumspection
in acknowledging a right to reservation. One cannot overlook that Articles
15(4) and 16(4) have been placed under several limitations especially in respect of
3 4
a firm evidence of clear and legitimate identification of the backward groups.
In Mandal the Court has clearly ruled that reservations in promotions are
2
constitutionally impermissible. The Court has also advised the Government not to
make any reservations in higher positions and in specialized areas. For instance, no
reservations should be provided in technical posts in research and development
institutions, in specialities and superspecialities in Medicine, Engineering and other
such areas. Similarly university professorship and higher echelon positions in
Defence, Space Science and Nuclear Research have to go by merit alone.
Reservations in these kinds of jobs are seen as inconsistent with the values of
efficiency that are needed in such professions and services.
decision of the Supreme Court in Mandal , Articles 16(4) and 15(4) have been
2
that Article 16(4) was itself a fundamental right granted to the SCs and STs. The
Supreme Court rejected it and ruled that this clause imposed a duty on the State to
make reservations but "Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers a
discretionary power on the State to make reservation" . This proposition was
7
reaffirmed in all subsequent decisions. In 1988, in P & T SCs and STs Employees'
Welfare Assn. v. Union of India the Supreme Court categorically ruled that it was
8
not open for a member of SCs/STs to move a court to compel the Government to
provide job reservations because Article 16(4) was merely an enabling provision. It
was, however, held that in providing reservations the Government cannot be
allowed to discriminate between SCs/STs of one department with those working in
other departments. Finally, in Mandal all the nine Judges uniformly agreed that
2
Articles 16(4) and 15(4) are couched in enabling language and represent an
empowerment of the State to pursue the goals of substantive or genuine equality . 9
None of these Judges even indirectly indicate that these clauses can themselves be
construed as aspects of the fundamental right to equality and thus be enforceable in
a court of law.
individual claims which operate as 'trumps' over collective goals. If a right is truly
a right, it must have some weight to 'trump' policy considerations. But
compensatory discrimination is thought of as serving a policy of increasing caste
harmony by eliminating visible and institutionalised prejudices and increasing
economic equality by removing some of the obstacles that keep the members of
backward classes in an economically and socially disadvantaged position. Dworkin
argues that a right is a matter of principle and thus every citizen has a right not to
be discriminated against on racial grounds and has a right to be treated with equal
concern and respect. It is submitted that the underlying argument in Dworkin's
theory has adequately been embodied in the non-discrimination clauses of Articles
15 and 16. The rights theory of Professor Dworkin may help Professor Singh in
justifying preferential treatment but not for justifying a fundamental right to
reservation. The justification debate that takes place in America is of little
relevance in India in view of a clear constitutional policy of compensatory
discrimination as signified by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) .
12
The main argument advanced by Professor Singh in defence of his rights thesis is
that since Articles 16(4) and 15(4) are no more treated as exceptions to the rest of
the provisions, they themselves are fundamental rights. Surprisingly, Professor
Singh dismisses the characterisation of these clauses as exceptions in pre-
Thomas cases as mere 'impressions' gathered on a plain reading of these clauses .
13 14
But how can one eat the words used in these clauses just to support a particular
theory of rights? The words "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision" in Article 16(4) and "Nothing in Article 15 or Article 29(2)
shall prevent the State from making any special provision" in Article 15(4) clearly
establish that these clauses constitute authorising provisions for implementing the
directives contained in Article 46. Whereas Article 15(4) empowers the State to
pursue all kinds of equalising measures in all its dealings Article 16(4) is limited
only to the device of reservations. Exceptional character of Article 15(4) was noted
in Balaji as against excessive reservations and as against public interest involved in
preserving and maintaining efficiency in professional and technical education. A
percentage limitation was indicated as a broad policy to strike a reasonable balance
between the individual claims of meritocracy and collective claims based upon
redressal of historic wrongs. This position remains unchanged even after Mandal.
It is true, that in Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 16(4) was not an
exception to Article 16(1) but an emphatic statement that equality of opportunity
could be carried to the extent of making reservations. But Thomas nowhere
acknowledges a fundamental right to affirmative action.
Justice P.B. Sawant in D.D. Employees' Union to remark: "This country has so far
18
education as an aspect of the right to life and then in the next breath added that
meaningful realisation of this right would depend on the economic capacity and
development of the State. In Unni Krishnan the Supreme Court quickly realised
15
that the prevailing political economy in India could not sustain a fundamental right
to education at all levels and then limited the right to education up to the level of
primary education. The point is that since most of the reconceptualised beneficial
rights do not promise enforcement through judicial process their status is no better
than the Directive Principles of State Policy. Therefore, Professor Singh's
contention that right to affirmative action should be aligned with other beneficial
rights read by the courts in the Constitution is devoid of any merit.
We agree with Professor Singh that the idea of correlativity between rights and
duties is a controversial one, at least in the area of constitutional rights. Hohfeld
thought of rights (i.e. claims, powers, liberties, immunities) against specific
persons and not against the State. But social or economic rights can exist even if
they are inadequately protected or enforced through courts. Likewise, the value of
equality can be protected by promulgation of constitutional policies and goals. The
Indian Constitution imposes an obligation on the State to pursue the goals of
substantive equality on the guidelines indicated by the directive principles
contained in Articles 38 and 46. Performance of this obligation has been facilitated
by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which explicitly permit the State to depart from formal
equality in distributing opportunities and careers in the society. These clauses in
effect support the argument of Professor Ronald Dworkin when he asserts:
"Government must not only treat people with concern and respect but with equal
concern and respect. It must not distribute goods or opportunities unequally on the
ground that some citizens are entitled to more because they are worthy of more
concern." The policy of reservation creates an obligation on the State to treat
20
everyone with equal respect and concern and in this sense this policy serves
the principle of equal treatment. But this policy does not create any corresponding
individual right in favour of the members of the beneficiary groups.
Asserting a right is quite different from suggesting that something would be on the
whole desirable or good. Rights have special normative force. This special
normative force is the result of invoking rules that we already accept and are
committed to, rather than simply appealing to general moral considerations. If
people are to claim 'rights' (like right to reservation) that are not recognised or
conferred by any positive or actually accepted rules, their claims are vacuous. Only
if we restrict the idea of rights to rights conferred by positive rules can the concept
of a right have any definite content and value. In our submission, the claims
advanced in the guise of right to reservation should be accepted as social or
collective goals or as matters of policy rather than acknowledged as fundamental
rights. In short, Professor Singh's thesis reading fundamental right to reservation in
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is highly controversial and problematic even from the
point of view of legal as well as social justice.
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(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 restaurants, 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.
(3) * * *
(4) Nothing in this article or in 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 the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes. Return to Text
(3) * * *
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of
any backward classes of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is
not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(5) * * *
Return to Text
Text
17. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545. Return to Text
18. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4
SCC 99. Return to Text
19. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666.Return to Text
20. Ronald Dworkin: "Taking Rights Seriously", at pp. 272-273.Return to Text