Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India

CASE BRIEF

In particular, it was a class or group of people labeled historically inferior caste or low status, and these people were believed to lack equal status in society. Since independence, all governments have endeavored to eradicate this social evil from our society. The founders of our Constitution want a classless and classless society for India. Our Constitution provides provisions in the legislature and services and education to properly represent the vulnerable parts of society.


Restraint is one of the means to end raising the weaknesses of society. Some argue that reservations can create reservation discrimination and affirmative action, while isolating parts of society from education and other established institutions and running them at the starting point of the race with others.

FACTS

In the case of the In P.A. Inamdar and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors , the Supreme Court of India ruled that private educational institutions for unsupported minorities and non-minorities do not fall under the state's reservation policy. In India, government-maintained or supported educational institutions have very limited locations within educational institutions compared to unsupported educational institutions. In 2006, Congress enacted the 2005 Constitution, placing unsupported private educational institutions within the state's reserved policies and providing educational benefits to the vulnerable parts of society.


This section mentioned advances in education, but did not include the term «admission to an educational institution.» Article 93 of the Constitutional Amendment added Article 15, which referred to the term «admission to an educational institution.» Therefore, adding Article 5 to Article 15 will significantly expand the scope of the revised law.

The Commission recommends seat reservations for educational institutions and 29% of OBC government jobs. In 2006, Congress passed a law on central educational institutions under Article 93 of the US Constitutional Amendment. Section 3 of this law provides for reservations of 15 percent for Scheduled Castes, percent for Scheduled Tribes, and 27 percent for other rear classes of central educational institutions.


ISSUE

The Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India revolves around the validity of the Central

Education Institutions Act and the Constitutional Act, which incorporates clause into Article

15. First, the constitutionality of the rules of the Central Educational Institution, especially Section 2 of the Law, concerns the identification of socially and educationally disadvantaged classes.

Another question concerns the constitutional validity of the 93rd Amendment Act, which is a question of whether this law violates the basic structure of the Constitution. In provisions such as 14, 15 and 29, admission to an educational institution must be based on merit, and this amendment will add to other provisions of the Constitution, especially the basic applicable provisions.


The petitioner's defense lawyer has determined that this law and amendment is the power of the Constitution. And under this issue, a question arises like the constitutionality of Article 15.

ARGUMENT

A Pai Foundation case clarified the Article 19 of the constitution with respect to private education institutions and put this institution in the ambit of «occupation» overruled the Unni Krishnan, J. .

In the case

In Maharashtra, courts have the right to protect private institutions without government support under Article 19, which are subject to the government's reservation policy. This is out of scope and Article 19 does not justify this reservation. The court also said that if the state began to determine the tariff system or land reservations for private educational institutions, it would be equivalent to nationalized education. This constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the rights of private educational institutions under Article 19 of the Constitution.


Respondents argue that positive action aimed at promoting the educational and economic interests of disadvantaged people is absolute. They also argue that the provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted in a free way and as a whole, not in a way that reflects the other provisions of the Constitution. Also, Article 38 should endeavor to minimize income inequality and eliminate status inequality, and under Article 46, the State should provide education and economic benefits for SCs and STs. For this issue, the petitioner argued that the ninetythird amendment act violates the principle of equality, such exclusion of minority educational institutions based on religions is a violation of Article 15 of the constitution.

Respondent arguments on this issue were that Article 15 enables the state to make special provisions for the advancement of Scheduled Caste , Scheduled Tribes , and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes especially for admission in an educational institution. And the inclusion of minority institutions in Article 15 is not necessary because under Article 30, the right of the minority educational institution was protected and there is the whole set of the provision in the constitution for the protection of the right of minority institutions. There was another issue about Article 15 which comes before the court that Article 15 and Article 15 are mutually contradictory. Identification of the lower class by "caste" that violates Article 15 of the Constitution.


In this case, Article 15 for classifying social backwardness was not accepted by caste alone. This was mentioned in Article 340, which authorizes the President of India to establish a committee to report on the cases of the lower classes of the Indian Territory. In addition, Article

15, added by the First Amendment in 1951, refers to the term "backward" in social and educational terms, and Article 16 also refers to lower class citizens. There are many state committees dealing with junior class issues, and the most logical way to do this is because the junior class decision is very time consuming and parliament cannot handle it alone.


JUDGMENT

The bench found that none of the unsupported individual private educational institutions filed a single petition for the 93rd Amendment Act, which violates the basic structure of the

Constitution. The court does not want to go into the question of whether 93th of the Constitutional Amendment violates the "basic structure" of the Constitution for non-contributed private educational institutions. The principle of equality is very important to any human society, which is set out in Articles 14, 15, and 46 of the Constitution and is considered an element of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. increase. After considering the above reasons, the court ruled that if the constitutional amendment was shortened or changed, it could be regarded as violating the "basic structure" of the constitution, and the constitution complies with the change.

I decided that I was able to do it. Adapt the dimensions of human society.


Therefore, the petitioner's objection to questioning the constitutionality of the Article 93

Amendment Act is irrelevant, and this amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Article 30 The GG grants minority institutions its own rights, and because this classification is constitutional, the court did not consider it to support this plea. It has been pointed out that national and state committees dealing with junior class issues have detailed guidelines based on the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, and the Commission is a junior class identified based on caste. It was also pointed out that it does not just cover. It is clear that caste is not only considered, but also includes other criteria for the purpose of determining the socially and economically disadvantaged class, and does not violate Article 15 of the Constitution.


Note that this identification exercise is based solely on "caste" if the "creamy layer" principle has not been applied to the determination of the junior class. The creamy class is excluded so that the lower class can be properly identified socially and economically, and the court also ruled that not excluding the SEBC creamy class could violate Article 15 of the Constitution. Was given. This concept applies only to identify the lower classes socially and economically. The petitioner has also expressed concern over the over-delegation of authority to the union government to determine the lower ranks.


On this issue, the court has stated that "backward class" is not a new word orconcept, but is mentioned several times in the Constitution, andmany national and state committees in countries whose main purpose is to deal with it. I ruled that there is. It is intended to address the issue of the junior class, the Commission has set guidelines, and the court also provides if worthless castes or groups or persons aresocially and economically enrolled in the backward class. Anyone said that they were completely free to challenge their admission through the judiciary. Therefore, it is not said that there is excessive delegation to the Indian Union or that it has widespread authority, and that it is a central educational institution. The challenge fails because of excessive delegation of authority.



This article is written by Shreyansh Prakash of Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Recent Posts

See All

Heading – John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher Citation –John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher (1868) UKHL 1, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 Names Of Judges Involved in the Judgment – L