This article is written by Advocate Devshree Dangi. It talks about the scope of various equality rights under the Constitution of India. This article is a summary of a milestone case, i.e., the State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976), before the Supreme Court, concerning reservation policies and their scope. The present case discusses the interpretation of the equal rights of opportunities in public employment and their connection with the special rights of backward classes, specifically, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  

“Equal opportunity is a hope, not a menace.” – Supreme Court of India 

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction 

The present case is a significant legal milestone that holds crucial importance in connection with the reservation policies, specifically made for State Government employment in India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted the scope of various Articles concerning the reservation and clarified that the State Government has the right to make policies to ensure equality among the citizens of India. When it comes to equality, it shall be reflected in the laws to achieve its objective. This case revolves around a controversy that occurred when the Kerala State Government passed a Rule concerning the appointment of individuals in subordinate services of the State. The Rules were challenged on the grounds of being violative of certain provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court explained in detail the scope of all the Articles that came into question with respect to their scope. Also, it highlighted the right of the States to make laws concerning the reservation.

Historical background 

This entire controversy dates back to the implementation of the Kerala State and Subordinate Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), specifically Rule 13A in line with Article 309 of the Indian Constitution in 1958. The mandated Rule requires certain qualifications and departmental tests for the appointments to various positions within Kerala State Subordinate Services. Subsequent to this Rule, an amendment took place in January 1972. It introduced Rule 13AA to facilitate the individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST”) for two more years to clear such tests as mentioned under Rule 13A. The controversy occurred when the State granted promotions to certain individuals even though they had not made it to the prescribed criteria. In this controversy, the constitutional validity of these Rules was questioned on the grounds of their contradiction with Articles 16 and 46 of the Indian Constitution. These Articles deal with the right to equal opportunity in connection with the employment and promotions of the educationally and economically weaker sections of society respectively. Ultimately, this case served as a critical event in the legal discourse around reservation policies in India.

Power of State to make rules on reservation under the Constitution

Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution

Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution acts as an important exception to the general principle of non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 15(1). Article 15(1) prevents the State or anyone from discriminating against any citizen on grounds like religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth whereas, Article 15(4) empowers the State with special provisional actions by which the State can make policies for uplifting the disadvantaged section of the society. The policies like reservations in State Government jobs and educational institutions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes. These policies help these disadvantaged sections of society by providing them with opportunities and the State achieves its goal of forming an equitable society.

Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India empowers the State to make laws on reservation-related matters under Article 16(4). It talks about the equality of opportunity in terms of appointment in public employment for the citizens of India. This Article also enumerates the provision which says that the State can frame laws for appointments in public employment in favour of certain backward categories such as scheduled caste and scheduled tribes.   

Article 46 of the Indian Constitution

Article 46 of the Indian Constitution directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of backward classes, specifically the SC and ST. It imposes a duty on the State to protect these classes from social injustice and discrimination.

Article 309 of the Indian Constitution

Under this Article, the States are empowered to make laws in relation to the recruitment and service conditions for the people who represent the Union or State. This Article strengthens the States to make laws on such matters but it shall be in line with the provisions of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These Articles provide equality provisions which assure the citizens of India with exclusive equal protection without discriminating against them on the grounds of caste, race, religion, place of birth, sex, descent or residence.  

Article 335 of the Indian Constitution

Article 335 of the Indian Constitution intends to promote opportunities for disadvantaged or weaker sections of society such as SC and ST in the State Government sector. As per this article, it is mandatory for the State to consider claims of the members of SC and ST candidates in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, but it is provided that the candidate should have the basic qualifications required for the post the candidate has applied for. Thus, Article 335 promotes State Government jobs for SC and ST candidates while ensuring that the appointments for the specific positions are based on the merits of the candidate, this helps in maintaining a balance between reserved and general category candidates.

Understanding Rules 13(a), 13A and 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules

The listed Rules belong to the Rules framed for the subordinate services of the Kerala State. These Rules regulate the service conditions for the State Government employees, specifically the State’s subordinate services. Let’s discuss what these Rules talk about: 

Rule 13(a)

This Rule sets the eligibility criteria for the appointments to any service or post within Kerala State’s subordinate services. According to this Rule, specific qualifications and certain designated special tests were mandated for the appointment and employment of individuals in subordinate services of the State. This simply means that a person will only be qualified for the appointment in said subordinate services if he possesses or has passed such designated tests as required under this Rule.

Rule 13A

For the promotion from the lower division clerk to the next higher post of upper division clerk, it was mandated by the State for the employees to pass certain departmental tests. 

This Rule outlines a set of provisions concerning the appointment and temporary exemption of persons belonging to backward classes, specifically the SC and ST. It says that the State State Government can allow the appointment of a service member of an employee belonging to SC and ST to a category, grade, or post no matter whether they have passed the required departmental tests or not. However, these employees should otherwise be qualified and suitable. Also, it is provided that in a case where certain new tests are introduced a temporary appointment can be made within two years from their introduction. 

Subsequently, it provides the employees with a temporary exemption to pass such departmental tests for a period of two years for their further promotions. However, this Rule came with a condition that the employees have to pass those departmental tests within the provided two years and if they fail to do so, they would be reverted to the lower post. Moreover, such employees would not be eligible for further employment under this Rule ever. A proviso to this Rule provides the members of SC and ST with an additional 3 years extension beyond the specific period provided to pass the mentioned tests. 

In case new tests of high standards are introduced, all the employees will be given extended time to pass those tests. Also, the penalties for not passing such tests will be held off until the period ends. This Rule contains provisions for civil servants returning from military duty during emergencies who will be given temporary exemptions from passing the departmental tests. Additionally, an extension of four years will be given to them upon resuming civilian roles.

Rule 13AA

It came into force on January 13, 1972. This Rule allows the State State Government to exempt the members of the SC and ST who are already in service from passing certain tests as required under Rule 13 and Rule 13A. The State Government can determine any specific period under this Rule to be granted to the backward classes.  It can be executed through an official order by the government. The exemption under this Rule exclusively denies its application in matters concerned with the promotions of executive staff below the rank of Sub-Inspectors within the Police Department. 

Facts of State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas (1976) 

1. By the time, the State of Kerala was formed, i.e., November 1st, 1956, various state governments had already framed certain regulations concerning the standard of qualifications for individuals belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. For the very first time, on June 14, 1956, the Travancore-Cochin State Government made directions concerning the qualification standards for examinations relating to various tests.
2. The State Government in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes directed that such qualification standards should be lower for people belonging to these classes as compared to others. Subsequently, another State Government on June 27, 1958, ordered the extended period of exemption from passing the tests by two years for individuals belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.
3. The period of exemption for these classes was further extended to three years on January 2, 1961. On January 14, 1963, two new tests were introduced, a unified account test (lower) and a test in-office procedure. These new tests replaced the old tests. Again, the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes were given extra time to clear these tests. A circular dated February 9, 1968, was issued in order to grant the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes a period of seven years from January 14, 1963, to pass the unified tests. Again, an order dated January 13, 1970, extended the time for these people belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes by another year, expiring on January 14, 1971. Subsequently, an order dated January 14, 1971, extended this period further.
4. It was brought to the notice of the State State Government of Kerala that a large number of State Government employees belonging to SC and ST were facing difficulties in their promotion due to the requirement of such qualification tests. Then, the State Government came up with Rule 13AA under the Rules on 13 January 1972 which granted exemption to the State State Government employees belonging to SC and ST from passing the required tests for the period of two years.
5. The dispute arose when the promotions took place within the Registration Department of the State following these exemptions. Allegedly, one of the respondents was not promoted despite passing all the tests by November 2, 1971. Whereas many lower division clerks belonging to the SC and ST were promoted even when they hadn’t passed the tests.
6. In response to this, the respondent on 15^th March 1972 filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Kerala. The Respondent argued that such Rules giving additional exemptions to the employees belonging to the SC and ST are violating Article 16 of the Constitution.
7. The Respondent had submitted before the High Court that out of 51 vacancies for the post of Upper Division Clerks in the year 1972, 34 were filled up by the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes members who didn’t even possess any qualifications. And only 17 posts were filled up by the qualified ones.
8. The High Court upheld the contentions of Respondent and acknowledged that the application of Rule 13AA is indeed violating Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. The Court ordered to strike down the said Rules.
9. The matter was then appealed before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court of Kerala. 

Issues raised in State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas (1976)

1. Whether the impugned Rule which provides for temporary exemptions from passing the required tests to the employees belonging to SC and ST contradicts the right of equal opportunity in public employment provided within the Constitution. Does it extend to the other specific Rules and orders that grant such exemptions?
2. Whether the classification of employees belonging to SC and ST for temporary exemptions from passing the said tests fall within the ambit of constitutional mandates under Article 16?
3. Whether there is a need of re-interpreting the equality provisions within the Constitution?
4. Whether there is a need to examine the scope of Articles 16, 46 and 335 of the Constitution of India?
5. Whether Article 46 of the Constitution should be taken into consideration even when it is not enforceable by the Courts?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioners

1. The Petitioners argued that equality of treatment doesn’t prohibit reasonable classification. They drew attention to the provisions of Article 14 that permit classification but prohibits class legislation. The Petitioners stated that for such classification to be permissible, it shall be based on an intelligible differentia (there must be a valid and reasonable basis for certain acts). Furthermore, this difference must have a coherent concern for the object sought to be achieved by the statute or policy in dispute. The Petitioners emphasised that the principle of classification is a significant factor in ensuring fairness and equity in the law.
2. The Petitioners referred to the case of All India Station Masters’ & Asstt. Station Masters’ Assn. v. General Manager, Central Railway, among others (1959) and further pointed out that the Courts have many times recognised the principle of reasonable classification concerning Article 16(1). The Petitioner through this case argued that the legitimate means of addressing different classes of employment categories should be acknowledged.
3. With regard to the question of whether or not the principle of reasonable classification as stated above can be extended to allowing preferential treatment for people based on their backward classes, including SC and ST, the Petitioners contended that under Article 16(4), the provisions for preferential treatment of such backward classes including SCs and STs are provided which allows the reservation of posts for employees belonging to these classes. The Petitioners argued that the language of Article 16(1) doesn’t warrant any preferential treatment for these categories but Clause (4) to this Article allows and permits reservation for appointments or posts in favour of the individuals belonging to backward classes including SCs and STs.
4. The Petitioner argued that it should not be appropriate to complicate things in the Constitution especially when dealing with the matters of fair opportunities in employment. They contended that including new classifications under Article 16(1) might disturb the principle of equality. It may empower the State to favour certain segments of the population in case of public employment.
5. Additionally, it was argued by the petitioners that if it was allowed to give preferential treatment to backward classes including SCs and STs under Article 16(1), then there would have been no requirement to include Clause 4. Simply Clause 4 then, seems unnecessary. And therefore, the Court would decline to adopt an interpretation that makes any provision of the Constitution redundant and superfluous.
6. The Petitioners in favour of justifying the concessions cited Article 46 of the Constitution. This Article comes from the Directive Principles of the State Policy under the Constitution which directs the State to promote the interests of weaker sections of the society including SCs and STs. The petitioner argued that the exemption given to the members of such classes from passing the tests aligns with the directive principles for the States under the Constitution and thus it doesn’t violate the principle of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1).
7. The Petitioner contended that Rule 13AA doesn’t fall under the ambit of reservation as outlined under Article 16(4) and the High Court erred in making an order to strike down the Rule on the grounds of exceeding the permissible limits mentioned under Article 16(4).  
8. One of the main arguments presented by the Petitioner was that the Scheduled castes and tribes are not just a caste, but represent a distinct class with a privileged status under the Constitution because it has historical reasons. It was contended by the Petitioner that Article 16(1) doesn’t restrict the State from making reasonable classification for the people belonging to SCs and STs by providing concessions but it shall not compromise the efficiency of services. 

Respondent

1. The Respondents contended that concessions provided to the employees belonging to backward classes including SCs and STs allowed them to secure promotions without passing the required tests as per the Rules. It resulted in their promotion before the respondent.
2. The Respondent argued that such exemptions may violate the principle of equality provided under Article 16(1).
3. They further challenged the statements of the State that the Rules in question are legal and valid. The respondent in this regard argued that Article 14 allows a wide range of classifications and they are rational and in line with the objective. Similarly, Article 16 which specifically deals with the right of equal opportunities in public employment, creating favoured classes for the same except as specifically allowed under Article 16(4) would contradict the motive of Article 16(1).
4. The Respondent contended that Rule 13AA exceeds permissible limits and causes discrimination among the employees belonging to the other castes and those belonging to the backward classes including SCs and STs.

Views and opinions of different judges 

The present case is significant, in this case, a seven-judge bench of the Court, with a majority of 5:2 upheld the validity of an amendment made by the State State Government of Kerala. The amendment was concerned with the service rules that exempted the members of SC and ST from passing the departmental tests for their promotions. It was held by the majority of judges that Article 16(4) is not merely an exception but a fundamental aspect of equality rights as outlined under Articles 14 and 16(1). The Court emphasised that action taken for providing preferential treatment to the backward classes does not contradict the broader principles of equality under Articles 14, 16(1) or 16(2).

Chief Justice A.N. Ray

Justice Ray who headed the bench believed that the classification of classes of persons belonging to SC and ST is just and reasonable. He was of the view that granting exemption to such classes to ensure their equality of treatment and equal opportunities in terms of public employment is justified. Various Constitutional provisions give a mandate to the State to give special treatment to these classes. He opined that Articles 14, 15, and 16 are interconnected and enumerate provisions for equality rights. They supplement each other. He stated that Article 16 comes from an objective of ensuring equality under Article 14. These Articles allow reasonable classification linked with achieving the objective of ensuring equality. In matters concerning employment, if there exists any discrimination, it should serve legitimate aims to ensure fairness and equality. He explained that Article 16 permits flexibility as to how the employees are classified and treated specifically in matters of employment and appointments upholding the principles of equality. 

Justice Ray further explained that the principle of equality must be based on reasonable grounds to avoid violation. It simply means that the concept of equality has limitations due to various situations and thus it can’t be treated the same. The people having similar circumstances shall receive equal treatment. Further, for making any classifications in matters of employment, there must be significant differences between groups so that it could be justified to treat them differently. He stated that such classifications must have the objective of achieving equality and it shall have a rational basis. He interpreted the concept of equality within Article 16(1). He stated that equality of opportunity of employment within Article 16(1) is the right to equal opportunity between members of the same class and not between the members of separate or independent classes. He also made it clear that as stated in the case of Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh And Others (1965), SC and ST don’t fall within the ordinary meaning of castes. 

He criticised the decision of the High Court about the excessive or exorbitant nature of the Rules in question. He opined that the promotions made in the services are not as extensive as claimed and do not fall short of constituting 50% of the total number of posts available. Rule 13AA and related orders are not just implemented in line with Article 336 but also with the directive principles as given under Article 46. 

Justice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew

Justice Mathew outlined the concept of equality of opportunity specifically in matters concerning employment for members of SC and ST. He opined that equality can be truly achieved by ensuring that access to limited posts for employment is not restricted based on factors that inappropriately avoid any section of society. But, it also involves framing of standards for such employment that ensure and offer an equal opportunity for people from all backgrounds to qualify. He highlighted that, for the people belonging to the SC and ST, their social, educational, and economic conditions may be different from those of others. He suggested that to achieve the main objective of the principle of equality, it is necessary to implement such compensatory measures to bridge the gaps between SC and ST, and other classes. These measures may include actions to be taken to ensure the representation of SC and ST adequately in public service roles. The State must not compromise the minimum criteria required for administrative efficiency and effective governance.

Justice M. Hameedullah Beg

Justice Beg highlighted the decision of the High Court which was against the Rules and orders that provided benefits to the people belonging to SC and ST. The High Court believed that such Rules fell outside the purview of Article 16(4). Justice Beg opined that such reasoning is unsubstantiated and the burden of proving the constitutionality of unwarranted discrimination was on the Respondent which he failed to do. He emphasised that once an individual is employed in a certain grade as a State Government employee, the background they came from becomes less important. For the purpose of promotion, all of them form a single class regardless of their backgrounds. He further stated that there must be specificity and clarity in the actions taken to achieve the objectives of Article 16(4). It must be straightforward and spelt out and should not be implied. He interpreted this using the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”, which means that when one thing is expressly stated, it is to the exclusion of others.

He further explained that Article 16(4) is a balance of two significant constitutional aspects- the need for equal opportunity in public services as mentioned under Article 16(1) and the duty of the State as provided under Articles 46 and 335. The main objective of these provisions is to uplift economically, educationally, and socially backward groups to ensure social justice. He opined that it is crucial to ensure fairness and equality in State Government employment. Still, it doesn’t go beyond what is specifically allowed in the Constitution to achieve the principle of equality. 

He stated that taking or passing a test earlier doesn’t make anyone better regarding promotion matters in State Government employment. When any employee belonging to any backward class or SC and ST gets a temporary promotion supported by any law, the post stays reserved for them for a limited period. If they do not achieve any specified criteria within a given time, they get reverted to their previous position. If they succeed, they get confirmed for that position. In his view, the impugned Rules and orders were justified with a view of implementing a policy of partial or conditional reservation that fulfils the duties of the State as outlined under Articles 46 and 335.

Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer

Justice Iyer said that the Indian Constitution is a visionary document that aims to reshape society from a mediaeval hierarchical society into a modern and egalitarian democracy. Its provisions are beyond a mere legalistic approach that requires an in-depth understanding rooted in social science to grasp its transformative motive. 

He stressed that the preamble of the Indian Constitution emphasises on the need for a justice-oriented community. Directive principles under Article 46 direct the State to uplift the interests of marginalised groups, specifically the SC and ST. This ensures safeguarding them from social injustices. Avoidance of such provisions leads to the violation of Article 46 which is a duty of the State. It undermines the economic and social progress of the people of such classes and their representation in State Government services. He pointed out that two crucial parts of the Constitution, the Directive principles and the fundamental rights should be considered together. He said that Articles 46 and 335 must be considered important when understanding Articles 16(1) and 16(4). Articles 14 and 16 which outline the provisions for equality rights aim to reduce inequality and by adding provisions like Article 16(4), it doesn’t make everything exactly equal. Simply, relaxing the mandatory requirement for backward classes, specifically SC and ST can help boost the economic and social progress of such classes that have been ignored for a long time. 

Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali

Justice Fazalali opined that Rule 13AA which provides exemptions to the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes from passing a certain test required for promotion in the State services is justified. He upheld its validity and stated that it constitutes a reasonable classification under Article 16(4). He reasoned that this Rule provides a temporary concession to such backward classes with the intent to uplift and advance their interests and enable them to compete with the strong sections of the society. But, he also suggested that such reservations or exemptions must not compromise the efficiency of the services and destroy the principles of equality. 

Judgement in State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas (1976)

The judgement is based on various provisions of the Indian Constitution that play a significant role in ensuring equal rights and opportunities in public employment. The present case revolved around the privileges and preferential treatment for backward classes, specifically the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The Court highlighted that the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 16 which commonly provide equality rights, supplement each other. The Court declared Rule 13AA of the Rules and two orders, Exhibits P-2 and P-6 valid and set aside the judgement of the High Court of Kerala in which it ordered to strike down these Rules and orders. The Court stressed that the reasonable classification is necessary for ensuring fairness and equality and certain compensatory measures may be required to elevate the interests of backward classes, specifically the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. However, the Court opined that such measures shall not compromise the efficiency of the services. The Court was of the view that equality of opportunity shall not be given only to a particular section of the society but it should be given to all the citizens irrespective of their classes. The classification must be rational and should be in a close nexus with the objective intended to be achieved. The State should not discriminate against any individual at the cost of others. The Court interpreted the equality provisions under the Constitution and explained that the State policies concerning public employment must be implemented in line with the principle of equality and social justice.

The Court highlighted that while interpreting the provisions of Article 16(1) and 16(2), it is important to emphasise Article 46 which directs the State to take measures to uplift the interests of backward classes, specifically the SC and ST. Additionally, the Court considered Article 335 which provides for the provisions dealing with reservations within the State services to be more specific in this regard. The Court stated that Article 335 should not be ignored or diluted while considering the scope of Articles 16(1) and 16(2).

The Court stated that the decision of the High Court regarding the denial of benefits to employees belonging to backward classes solely because it fell outside the purview of Article 16(4) seems incomplete. The burden of proving the unjust discrimination against them was on the respondent which they hadn’t fulfilled.  Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.  

Dissenting opinion 

Justice Hans Raj Khanna opined that the finding of the High Court regarding various promotions that violated Article 335 of the Constitution was reasonable. He stated that it is crucial to maintain standards of efficiency for employees in public employment. Also, the promotion of individuals who haven’t passed the required tests while not promoting those who have passed such tests is unlikely to be conducive to efficiency. It is important to note that reserving seats for members of backward classes must not come at the cost of efficiency. It is outlined under Article 335 and recognized by the Constitution. It requires that the claims of these backward classes should be taken into consideration consistently to ensure the efficiency in the administration of appointments in the State or the Union. He stressed that the reservation of posts in public employment for a particular section of society confers a special benefit, making the equality of opportunity ineffective under the State. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain a balance between the interests of such backward classes and others and to ensure that the efficiency of the administration is not compromised. 

Key points to remember 

Equality is violated only if it based on unreasonable grounds 

The judgement analyzes the importance of understanding the concept of equality. The Court stressed that each provision under the Constitution has been included with utmost care and considering the interests of all the sections of the society. The equality provisions under the Constitution don’t contradict each other and hence, the equality is said to be violated only when there exists any unreasonable ground. In the present case, the provisions of Article 16 were said to contradict each other. In this regard the Court interpreted the provisions of the said Article and explained that a guaranteed right to equal opportunity in public services with a provision which provides privileges to SC and ST is a positive approach to achieve the principles of equality. 

Understanding SCs and STs 

The Court interpreted the grounds of discrimination under Article 16(2). It was explained by the Court that the word “Caste” in Article 16(2) doesn’t include SCs and STs. The SC and ST are recognized under Article 366(24). It explains that SC and ST are the castes which by the virtue of the notification of the President are deemed to be SC and ST. 

Article 16(4) not an exception to Article 16(1)

Justice Mathew expressed his view on Article 16(4) being an exception to Article 16(1). He stated that it would be a narrow understanding of the said Articles. The equality should not be focused on numeric equality but it should include the social, economic, and educational background of individuals belonging to SC and ST. Article 16(4) should be seen as an affirmative action and not as an exception to Article 16(1).

Interpretation of “Weaker sections”

The Court interpreted the term “weaker sections” and stated that it specifically includes SC and ST under Article 46 of the Constitution. Now, every “backward class” doesn’t fall within the ambit of “weaker sections”. It specifically refers to those severely depressed categories who are economically and educationally comparable to SC and ST. 

Critical analysis of State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas (1976)

Reservation has been an engrossing topic of debate since the formation of the Constitution of India. Various amendments had taken place regarding the reservation policies that played a vital role in shaping the nation on the principle of equality. This case served as the nuanced exploration of the delicate balance between equality and affirmative actions, specifically, the reservation policy of the State concerning public employment. This case highlighted the need for an appropriate interpretation of equality provisions under the Constitution of India. The question revolved around the provisions of Article 16 regarding equal opportunity rights in public employment. Allegedly, the Rules implemented by the Kerala State for the subordinate services contradicted the provisions of Article 16(1). The Confusion was whether the Rules that provide extra time to the backward classes, specifically the SC and ST to pass the mandatory departmental tests are violative of Article 16(1). And if yes, then what is the scope of Article 16(4) which imposes a duty on the State to make laws to uplift such backward classes? So, the answer is, Article 16(2). Article 16(1) provides equal opportunity rights in public employment in the State. It draws special attention to the fundamental principle that every Indian citizen should be given an equal chance to present themselves for State Government positions based solely on merit, without any discrimination. 

Subsequently, Article 16(2) sets the grounds of discrimination, which exclusively states that no person should be discriminated against on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. For the Rules and orders in question, it is crucial to note that they do not merely aim at eliminating discrimination based on caste but also consider the interests of the weaker section. The provisions outlined under these Rules focus on other constitutional safeguards to ensure that every citizen of India has equal rights and opportunities. 

In addition to this, Article 16(4) comes up with a nuanced view. It acknowledges that certain sections of society, the backward classes, specifically the SC and ST, have historically gone through severe social and economic discrimination. Therefore, it sets out provisions of reservations in public employment to address the representation of these undervalued communities in State Government services. 

Many times, it is argued that Article 16(4) contradicts the equal opportunity rights as given under Article 16(1). But the reality is, that it complements this right by ensuring reservations for disadvantaged and underrepresented groups. It seeks to tackle the historical injustices and ensures that each section of society has equal and fair access to opportunities. 

The concept of Article 16(4) is not limited to providing reservation to the backward classes; neither has it compromised the principle of equality. Rather, it is an affirmative action to realise true equality by elevating those segments of society that have been historically marginalised. It aims to create a society where every individual can contribute equally and meaningfully in the nation’s progress. 

Article 16(4) doesn’t conflict with Article 16(1), rather it reinforces the objective of equality provisions as outlined under the Constitution by ensuring that no section of society is left behind due to long-term discrimination and disadvantages. 

No provision under the Constitution can be held redundant, specifically when it comes to reservation-related provisions. This serves an important purpose in realising the foundational principle of equality. 

Conclusion 

The present case underscores an in-depth analysis of the equality provisions under the Constitution focusing on public employment. The concept of equality extends far beyond removing discrimination. It extends to social justice and equal growth. The perspective that guaranteed equal rights to all the citizens of India and the privileges granted to the backward classes contradict each other is incorrect. The accurate interpretation of these provisions is that they complement each other. Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity rights and on the other hand Article 16(4) endeavours to achieve the objective behind it. Simply, no provision under the Constitution is unnecessary. They should be interpreted appropriately to understand the intent of their inclusion under the Constitution. The Court opined that the Rules and orders in question are valid and justified. These Rules and orders made it mandatory to pass certain departmental tests for all State Government employees within the subordinate services of the State. It was an affirmative action to ensure the efficiency of State services and was justified under Article 335 of the Constitution. All the State Government employees were given two years time to pass such tests and subsequently, the State Government of Kerala had taken into consideration the interests of employees belonging to backward classes and made an order to grant them extra time to pass such tests. This was challenged before the Court but the positive approach to this action is that it was again justified under Articles 16(4), 46, and 335 of the Constitution. There’s no question left behind after the comprehensive interpretation by the Supreme Court of India in this regard.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are the present criteria for deciding on the reservation of backward classes? 

Under the Indian Constitution, there are several provisions concerning the reservation of backward classes. Under Article 16(1), there can be a reasonable classification based on their objective of ensuring fairness and equality in public employment. Reservation is quite a profound concept and can’t be limited to a specific policy deciding the criteria. The only thing which can be said is that according to the Constitution of India, every State while making any policy or law to decide the reservation must bear in mind that it shall be in line with the Constitutional aspects and limitations. The State shall ensure to consider the interests of the weaker sections and backward classes while maintaining the efficiency of the services.

What is the ground for challenging the discrimination within the purview of Article 16? 

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal opportunity rights in public employment and Article 16(2) sets the grounds of discrimination such as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. The discrimination can exclusively be challenged on such grounds. It can also be challenged if the principle of equality of opportunity is violated, particularly in cases where certain preferential treatment is granted to a group of people without a reasonable basis. Further, it can be challenged if the efficiency of any public service is compromised. 

Is there any scope for the State to give preferential treatment to certain groups or classes?

Various provisions under the Constitution provide privileges to backward classes, specifically the SC and ST. These provisions include Articles 15(4), 15(5) 15(6), 16(4), 16(4A) , 16(6), 46 and 335. These provisions under the Constitution ensure that no section of society shall be left behind due to any disparity. All these provisions have certain limitations which ensures that such preferential treatments shall not be given at the cost of efficiency. Every provision that guarantees equal rights and gives preferential treatment to certain groups of people has an objective to achieve the principle of equality and social justice. 

Does Article 16(4) violate the Right to equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16(1)?

No, Article 16(4) doesn’t violate the Right to equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16(1). The Supreme Court in the present case has made it clear that the provisions of the Constitution regarding equal opportunity Rights and the provisions granting preferential treatment to backward classes aren’t contradictory. Instead, they complement each other. One ensures equal opportunity rights in public employment and the other one makes sure that no section of society is ignored and discriminated against. 

Can Article 46 be applied in justifying the exemptions provided by Rule 13AA?

Yes, the Supreme Court in the present case emphasised that the provision outlined under Article 46 should be taken into consideration while justifying the exemptions provided by Rule 13AA. The rationale behind it is that Article 46 is nothing but a directive principle enshrined under Part IV of the Constitution. It states that the State shall take measures to uplift the interests of the backward people specifically, those of SC and ST. It is more specific toward the formation of such a law which provides special rights to these classes. 

How did differing opinions of the judges clarify  the issue of quantitatively limiting reservations?

In the present case two out of 7 judges opined that there is no general rule of  50% limit on reservations. However, in the case of Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union Of India (2022), it was distinguished and the Court emphasised the significance of reservation percentage to be reasonable and balanced. It was highlighted that there’s a strict need to elevate the interests of the weaker sections while considering the interests of other citizens of India.