Equality, reservation and education

In date order. The line above each judgment says what it did to an earlier case; Later says what became of it. Follow this case lights up the judgments it is linked to in this chapter.

1. 1951

   The Communal G.O. case

   State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

   Decided 9 April 1951 · 7 judges · 1951 SCR 525

   Held. The Madras Government reserved seats in medical and engineering colleges by caste and religion through a Communal Government Order. The Court struck it down under Article 29(2), holding that the Directive Principles cannot override fundamental rights.

   Why it matters. Parliament answered with Article 15(4), inserted by the First Amendment, which allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.

   Later Answered by Sankari Prasad Singh Deo (1951) · The amending power and the basic structure · Answered by Indra Sawhney (1992)

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

2. 1992

   Answered Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

   The Mandal case

   Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

   Decided 16 November 1992 · 9 judges · [1992] Supp (2) SCR 454

   Held. The Court upheld 27 per cent reservation in central government jobs for socially and educationally backward classes, but required the “creamy layer” to be excluded, held that reservations should not ordinarily exceed 50 per cent, and held that reservation does not apply to promotions. It struck down a 10 per cent quota based purely on economic criteria.

   Why it matters. Indra Sawhney sets the framework for almost every reservation question since.

   Later Built on in Davinder Singh (2024)

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

3. 1993

   Built on Olga Tellis (1985) · Life and personal liberty

   The right to education case

   Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

   Decided 4 February 1993 · 5 judges · [1993] 1 SCR 594

   Overruled in part by T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002)

   Held. The Court held that every child has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of fourteen, flowing from Article 21 read with the Directive Principles. Beyond that age the right depends on the State’s economic capacity. It also framed a scheme for admissions and fees in private professional colleges.

   Why it matters. Its right to education led to Article 21A (2002). Its admission scheme was overruled in T.M.A. Pai.

   Later Overruled in part by T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002)

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

4. 1997

   The workplace harassment case

   Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

   Decided 13 August 1997 · 3 judges · (1997) 6 SCC 241

   Held. After the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, the Court held that sexual harassment at work violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21. In the absence of a law, it drew on CEDAW to lay down binding guidelines for employers until Parliament legislated.

   Why it matters. The guidelines governed workplaces until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. Vishaka is the classic example of the Court filling a legislative gap.

   Later Built on in Vineet Narain (1997) · Judges, public interest litigation and accountability · Built on in Anoop Baranwal (2023) · Elections and democracy

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)

5. 2002

   Overruled in part Unni Krishnan J.P. (1993)

   The private education case

   T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

   Decided 31 October 2002 · 11 judges

   Held. An eleven-judge bench held that the right to establish and run educational institutions is part of the right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g), and that private unaided institutions have autonomy over admissions and fees, subject to merit and a ban on profiteering. Minority status is to be judged State by State.

   Why it matters. It overruled the admissions and fee scheme of Unni Krishnan.

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

6. 2024

   Built on Indra Sawhney (1992)

   The sub-classification case

   State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

   Decided 1 August 2024 · 7 judges

   Held. By six to one, a seven-judge bench held that States may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes to give more weight to the groups that are most backward, provided the sub-classification rests on quantifiable and demonstrable data. It overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004).

   Why it matters. It builds on Indra Sawhney’s acceptance of sub-classification within backward classes.

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case