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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.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. With which of the following statements, a colour-blind theorist is least likely to disagree with?a)Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which only considers women as the victim of domestic violence and not men.b)Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defined Rape as a crime committed necessarily by a man, necessarily against a woman.c)Promotion of Police Officers in the Cadre, on the basis of their efficiency and performance on the field.d)33% Reservation of women in Parliament by Women Reservation Bill, 2010.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.