Reservation in Education system in India

What does Reservation Mean :

Reservation is an act of withholding certain things for being enjoyed by the particular person/community and no other person/community has the right to enjoy the reserved thing.

The Rationale for Reservation :

The reason for incorporating the provision of reservation in the constitution of India was to promote social justice i.e. there shall be no discrimination against any person on ground of backwardness and equal opportunity shall be provided to every person. The constitution framers never intended to include the provisions of reservation for the elimination of poverty.



Is the Right to Education a fundamental right?

Right to Education was not a part of fundamental rights till 1992. It was a part of directive principles of state policy under Article 45 which provides, 

"The State shall endeavor to provide, within ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years"[i]

In 1992, interestingly it was not the parliament which makes Right to Education a fundamental right but the Honorable Supreme Court in the landmark "Capitation fee case" held that Right to Education is a fundamental right under Article 21.[ii]

It took nearly a decade after this judgment for the parliament to bring the amendment in the constitution for incorporating "Right to Education" as a fundamental right. This was done by the 86th amendment, 2002. Following changes were made by this amendment in the constitution:



  • Inclusion of Article 21-A, It makes it mandatory for the states to provide education to the children between the age of six to fourteen years by appropriate law.
  • Amendment in Article 45, So that it read as follows, "The State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years."[iii]   

 

  • Inclusion of Clause (k) in Article 51-A which cast a fundamental duty on the parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education of child/ward between the age of six to fourteen years.

Sadly this amendment was enforced after 8 years of its enactment, in the year 2010.  But in my view, this amendment was really enforced after the enactment of Right to Education Act, however in a negligent manner. So, in the present scenario right to education is a fundamental right.


Reservation in Educational Institutions :

In the original constitution, there was not any express provision for the reservation of seats in educational institutions. Governments used the dictum of the directive principles of state policy for the formulation of reservation policies for educational institutions. Reservation in Educational Institutions can be segregated in the following manner:   

  • In 1951, Madras Government issued an order for reserving the seats of government medical and engineering institutions for certain caste, the honorable supreme court struck down this order for violating Article 15(1).[iv] To overturn this decision clause (4) was inserted in Article 15 in the constitution by the 1st amendment in 1951 which enables the state for making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Thereafter reservations were made in educational institutions including the reservations in private educational institutions by invoking this clause.[v]
  • Honorable Supreme court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1993[vi] famously known as "MANDAL CASE" capped the reservation limits up to 50% of total seats and for reservations for backward classes concept of the creamy layer was introduced. Howsoever court permitted the reservations beyond 50% for the people living in far-flung areas. 
  • Till 2003 Reservations were made by governments in private educational institutions. But in 2003 Honorable Supreme Court in T.M. Pai Foundation v. Union of India[vii] held that the state cannot make the reservation of seats in admissions in privately run educational institutions. This position was reiterated by the court in 2005 in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra[viii]. To overturn these decisions, Parliament in 2005 added clause (5) in Article 15 by the 93rd amendment. This clause enables the states to make any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or 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.[ix] The validity of this amendment was upheld by the honorable Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India.[x]



  • Reservations for the persons with benchmark disabilities are made mandatory through Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 32) for the educational institutions receiving aid from the governments. This Reservation shall be a minimum of 5% of total seats.



  • Till 2019, Social and Educational backwardness was the sole criterion for the reservations. But by 103rd amendment states were enabled to make reservations for the economically weaker section of the society. This reservation will be additional 10% to the existing reservations i.e. 50% (as stated by supreme court in "MANDAL" case) + 10% = 60% of the total seats. The petition challenging this amendment is pending before the Honorable Supreme Court.     

We have to understand two facts clearly that;

  • All the provisions in the constitution are merely enabling provisions and governments are not bound to make reservations.
  • It is not the Caste which is the basis of reservation but it is the backwardness of the class which forms the basis of reservation.

CONCLUSION



Despite being the limit of 50% quota in reservations provided by the honorable supreme court, Various state governments have made reservations exceeding this limit for the political gains. 

In 2016 Haryana Government made an order for reservations for the jats and other five groups transcending the existing 50% limit, this order was struck down by Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

Recently In 2019, Madhya Pradesh Government passed an ordinance to increase the cumulative quota to 63%. A petition is pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging this increased reservation. 

Position of the reservation quota will be more clear after the verdict of honorable Supreme Court in the petition pending before it assailing increased reservation for the economically weaker sections.

While Concluding this Article here I am Providing the details of reservation quotas in premier Institutions like IIT's and IIM's.



General – Economic Weaker Sections (GEN-EWS)

-         10%



Other Backward Classes (OBC-NCL)

-         27%



Scheduled Caste (SC)

-         15%



Scheduled Tribes (ST)

-         7.5%



Benchmark Persons with Disabilities                   

(PWD)

  

-         5%









 


[ii] Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858

[iv] State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226

[vi] Indra Sawhney vs Union Of India & Others AIR 1993 SC 477

[vii] T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355

 

[viii] P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 8 SCC 139

[x] Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India WP (civil) No. 265 of 2006 decided on April 10, 2008.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does it end?  The struggle of LGBTQ in India With the recent verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India which Partially Struck down the 158 year old archaic colonial provision i.e. Section 377 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) as being violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.  Indians got their third major freedom i.e. Freedom of choice after this historic verdict. While two previous freedoms were procured earlier viz. freedom from colonial era in 1947 when India become independent and another one economic freedom when LPG (Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization) was introduced in 1991.   The interesting fact is that England which burdened Indians with this archaic rule has decriminalized homosexuality in 1960's by "Sexual Offenders Act, 1967".  Section 377 of the IPC states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal inter­course against the
Read more

Elephant killed in Kerala: What punishment may be given?

Image
On the eve of "World Environment Day" (June 5), While I am writing this article a Heart Wrenching tragedy is reported from Kerala wherein a pregnant elephant was brutally murdered by some locals. It is alleged that some locals fed her a pineapple stuffed with crackers that caused the death of the elephant. Here in this column, I will discuss the legal aspects that deal with the killing of wild animals .   What does the Constitution say?   Article 48-A of the Indian Constitution casts a  duty on the state to protect, safeguard, and improve the forests and wildlife of the country.  Article 51-A (g) a fundamental duty has been imposed on every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures .  (Both the provisions were added in the constitution by 42nd amendment, 1976 during Emergency Era )   What do  other laws say?    Section 428 of the Indi
Read more

PANDEMIC AND LAW

With the outbreak of coronavirus (officially termed as COVID-19 by WHO) the certain regulations are needed to be understand.   The international provision through which WHO has declared COVID-19 as the pandemic it is the  International Health Regulations,2005.  Now if we discuss the constitution of India public health has been dealt under Article 47 which directs the state to   " to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health as among its primary duties".   Also the honorable supreme court in Parmananda katara's   case ruled that "Right to health is an integral part of right to life enshrined under article 21 of Indian constitution". Thus, it is a moral and constitutional obligation of state to protect the populace of its country from the pandemic.  WHO suggested various ways to contain this pandemic among them isolation is thought to be best in pursuance of which our government has taken a very courageous step t
Read more