What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > What vision of equality does our Constitutio...

Join the Discussion on the App

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.

Article 15(1) states:

“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

And, Article 16(1) states:

“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”

These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.

At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.

Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.

Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.

Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?

a)
Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.
b)
No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.
c)
Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.
d)
Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 18

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answe...

Fundamental Rights can only be claimed against either the State or the institutions performing Public Functions. Since, Mr. Z is neither, Right to equality cannot be claimed from a private person.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. If the reliance on the arguments forwarded by the Group-subordination theorists is considered, can the Government bring in a law to provide all the people of SC/ST communities with a free annual foreign trip?

View answer

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. The Delhi Government is planning to bring in a new scheme that seeks to provide the women of the State with free bus transit facility, to ensure their safety at the odd hours. The scheme is motivated by the results of a government survey, which revealed that substantial number of the women in state do not have financial autonomy and struggle for their daily expenditure in their male-dominated households. Mrs. X questions this scheme in court as violative of right to equality. Which of the following school of ideology is Mrs. X most likely to belong from?

View answer

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. The author of the passage is least likely to agree with which of the following statements?

View answer

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Article 14 of the Indian constitution provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws in the Territory of India. Article 14 uses two expressions 'equality before law', which implies the absence of any special privileges in favour of individuals and the subject of all classes to the ordinary law, and 'equal protection of the law,' which implies equal treatment in equal circumstances.'Equality before law' means that among equals, the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to prosecute and be prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all. Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of person arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons. Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification of persons for the purpose of achieving specific ends, but the classification should be reasonable.Article 15 of the Constitution of India states:Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth–1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, place of residence or any of them.2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to:(

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice What vision of equality does our Constitution commit us to? The answer has been contested repeatedly throughout the fraught legal history of Articles 15 and 16.Article 15(1) states:“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”And, Article 16(1) states:“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”These two articles are remedial in nature, that is, they seek to remedy, through law, historical wrongs – in this case, the wrong of discrimination. How, exactly, do they propose to do this? To fix ideas, let us start by proposing two tentative definitions. A colour-blind vision of equality is one that treats all classifications based on certain prohibited bases as inherently suspect, and in need of a compelling justification. This theory argues that the historical wrong in question was sorting people by the colour of their skin, their sex, or their caste, and treating them in an inferior manner on that ground. Race, sex, caste etc. are simply irrelevant to our worth as persons – hence, the term “colour-blind”.At the heart of the colour-blind theory is not simply a distaste of classifications, but the idea that citizens must be treated as individuals, and not as members of groups. Thus, one of the concerns that is standardly expressed by supporters of the colour-blind theory is that reservations and affirmative action – that classifies on the basis of groups – will serve only to perpetuate a society in which people are characterized and defined by their affiliation to and membership of stipulated social groups.Against the colour-blind theory of equality stands the group-subordination theory. The group-subordination theory holds that insofar as our society has been historically rife with discriminatory forms of injustice, such injustice has been meted out to groups qua groups – to women, to “lower-castes”, (at different stages and at different places) to Hindus or to Muslims. Insofar as individuals have suffered, they have suffered by virtue of their membership of these groups – as women, as Dalits, and so on. Thus, genuine, substantive equality can be achieved only by ensuring that historically subordinated groups are no longer subordinated.Thus, it is not enough for a Constitution to simply declare equality – if, because of a history of past discrimination and continuing non-legal present discrimination, minority groups are placed at a significant disadvantage qua minority groups, the government is permitted to take positive action to remedy that situation. One such action – the most famous and the most controversial – is affirmative action, i.e., Reservation.Q. Mr. Z, a huge proponent of group-subordination theory and a landlord in an area with high population of young-student, allows only Females students to occupy his residential PG hostels, owing to his “personal reasons”. Would this differentiation based on gender be a violation of Article 15(1)?a)Yes, females have long been suppressed in terms of public space and educational opportunities.b)No, females who can go to educational institutes are no more suppressed classes of the society, hence do not need affirmative actions and favours.c)Yes, the Right to equality cannot be claimed from private persons, but only against State and Public institutions.d)Yes, the women will have greater social barriers in looking for suitable residence, hence should be allowed.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam