Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).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 > Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees eq...

Join the Discussion on the App

A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.

Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.

“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.

It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.

The recent SC ruling can be summarized as

a)
State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.
b)
Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.
c)
Both (a) and (b).
d)
Neither (a) nor (b).

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

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 14

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equ...

Both (a) & (b) are correct as the SC held that reservation in promotion is not a fundamental right and also the state has no responsibility to collect quantifiable data to ascertain the need of it either.

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

It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Article 16(1) of the Constitution reads: “16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”Which of the following, if held by the Supreme Court in a future case, will weaken the Supreme Court’s position in the current case the most?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Article 16(1) of the Constitution reads:“16 (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”Which of the following, if held by the Supreme Court in a future case, will weaken the Supreme Court’s position in the current case the most?

View answer

It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Suppose Article 16(5) of the Constitution reads- 16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.Further suppose that The Government passes a law saying that the Chairmanship of the National Commission of Religious Minorities shall be limited to people from these communities.Is this law violative of Article 16?

View answer

It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Which of the following most accurately sums up the position of the author about the judgment?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Which of the following most accurately sums up the position of the author about the judgment?

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

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).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 Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).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 Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).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 Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.A five-judge apex court bench, as early as 1962 in the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore had ruled that Article 15(4) is an “enabling provision”, meaning that “it does not impose an obligation, but merely leaves it to the discretion of the appropriate government to take suitable action, if necessary”.Five years later, in 1967, another five-judge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India reiterated this position, holding that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. The apex court has now re-iterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights to claim reservations in promotion. It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required for appointment and promotions to public posts, it said.“It is settled law that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” it observed. However, if the state government does want to exercise this discretion and provide reservations, it would have to first collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.It further ruled that since Article 16(4) and 16 (4A) do not provide a fundamental right, courts cannot issue a direction to the state government to provide reservations. It clarified that since the state government had decided not to provide reservations, it did not have to collect quantifiable data at all.The recent SC ruling can be summarized asa)State governments have no responsibility to collect quantifiable data if they do not want to provide reservation in the first place.b)Decision to provide reservation in promotion is a subjective one and the courts cannot direct state governments to provide for the same.c)Both (a) and (b).d)Neither (a) nor (b).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam