Introduction

• This case is related to Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment by claiming that it is unconstitutional and invalid.

Facts

• A batch of petitions challenging the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 and Central Educational Institutions Act, 2006 were clubbed together and brought to the constitutional bench on the Supreme Court.
  • The Central Educational Institutions Act, 2006 provided the reservations in Central Institutes of higher education to members of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (SC/ST) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).
• The petitioners challenged reservation to the extent of 27% of the total number of seats for the “socially and educationally backward classes of citizens”
  • The petitioners contended that the admission to educational institutions should be based purely on merit and to allow the State to prefer a student with lesser merit over those who would have otherwise got admission, is ex facie discriminatory.
• The petitioner claimed the amendment violated Basic Structure doctrine.
• They further contended that there is a lack of criteria for identification of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and SEBCs.
• Also, the concept of creamy layer is applicable to Article 15 and Article 16 and non-exclusion of creamy layer in the Act is illegal.

Issues Involved

• Whether the 93rd Constitutional Amendment is valid or not?
• Whether Creamy layer be excluded from SEBCs?
• Whether there are some parameters under the law for determining the Creamy layer?
• Whether Article 15(5) is constitutionally valid?
• Whether exclusion of minority educational institutions from Article 15(5) violates the Article 14 of Indian Constitution?
• Whether the delegation power to determine of backward class is constitutionally valid?

Observation

• The Court observed that the 93rd Amendment would be ultra vires and invalid if the creamy layer is not excluded.
  • The Court said that the identification of the creamy layer should be decided by the Government and there are no strict guidelines regarding the same.
  • The court also held that the rule of the prohibition of creamy layer applicable to OBC’s.
• The Court further observed that imposing reservations on unaided institutions violates the Basic Structure by stripping citizens of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on an occupation.
  • However, the 93rd Constitutional Amendment is valid to the extent of its application upon state-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions.
• The court further said that the minority educational institutions are separate classes, and they are protected by the other constitutional provisions.
  • Hence, they are not unconstitutional.
• The court held that Articles 14 and 15 have their separate impacts and do not violate each other, hence they are constitutionally valid.

Conclusion

• While commenting upon the need of reservation the court said in this case that, “Reservation is one of the many tools that are used to preserve and promote the essence of equality, so that disadvantaged groups can be brought to the forefront of civil life”.
• The Court held that the 93rd Constitutionally valid and as far as the creamy layer concerned it should be considered for OBCs not for SC/STs.

Notes

Article 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth -

Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for 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.