Ashok Thakur V Union of India (2008)

Name of Author- Tushar Rana, UPES, Dehradun

Edited by – Sulesh Choudhary

ABSTRACT

The Ashok Thakur v. Union of India verdict of the Supreme Court in 2008 is yet another milestone in this journey toward social equality within Indian society. The landmark case upheld constitutional changes permitting reservations for the underprivileged in educational institutions, aiming to provide better opportunities to socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. It also went on to emphasize the requirement for exclusion of the creamy layer from these benefits, so that the help reaches those who need it. It also called for periodic reviews so that the policies remain relevant and effective. This judgment hence has been pretty seminal in the shape it has given to India’s educational landscape, with this equipoise between social justice and merit. It questions what lies beneath the Court’s judgment, the implications of its decision, and how it tries to balance fairness and excellence in education.

Keywords – Supreme court, Social equality, Educational Reservations, Underprivileged Groups, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Creamy Layer exclusion.

CASE DETAILS:-

INTRODUCTION

The landmark case of Ashok Thakur v UOI (2008) tells the intense issue of reservations in educational institutions in India. Supreme Court of India heard this case and involved the constitutional validity of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment and Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. Article 15 Clause 5 is added by the 93rd Amendment allowing the state to make a reservation in admission into educational institutions including private schools or colleges whether or not aided by the government. The legislation’s goal is to encourage social equality and equal opportunities for all citizens but faces various difficulties due to its effect on the right to equality and liberty of private institutions. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case significantly balanced the principles of social justice, equal opportunities and equality in India’s educational system.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, Petitions challenging the Constitution (93^rd Amendment)Act,2005 and Central Education Institutions Act, 2006 came together and brought to the constitutional bench on the Supreme Court.  The CEI Act, 2006 tells that members of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) and Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (SC/ST) in Central Institutes of Higher Education. The petitioner challenged the reservation to the extent of 27% of the total number of seats for the “socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The petitioners argued that admission to educational institutions ought to be determined solely by merit and that the State ought to have the authority to give preference to a student who has less merit over those who would have otherwise got admission, which is ex-facie discriminatory. According to the petitioner, the amendment went against the Doctrine of  Basic Structure. They further argued that SEBCs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) cannot be identified due to a lack of criteria. Also, the concept of creamy layer applies to Article 15 and Article 16 and the non-exclusion of creamy layer in the Act is illegal.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the expressions ‘class’ and ‘castes’ are synonyms?
• Whether reservations provide the only solution for social empowerment measures?
• Whether the legislature have enacted the valid part if it had known that the rest of the statute was invalid?
• Whether the action taken by the Government be upheld after judicial scrutiny?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Learned counsel for petitioners has highlighted these decisions to show what should be the method in matters related to social empowerment.
• It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings of huge financial burden questions have no place in the parliamentary debate.
• Petitioners submit that some members of selected backward classes are highly competent socially as well as economically and educationally. It is also submitted that they represent the forward section of the selected backward class as forward as another forward class member and that they take full advantage of the benefits of reservations meant for that class. These Persons are not backward and with them, a class cannot be treated as backward. It is also pointed out that since Jayashree almost every decision has accepted the validity of this submission.
• One of the significant issues that is highlighted by Mr P.P Rao was that in some cases the matriculation standard of education was considered to be the reliable measure for measuring backwardness. It is also submitted that at least half of the people belonging to a specific caste have reached the matriculation level of education, they cannot be viewed to be educationally backward any longer. It has moreover been highlighted that the move of emphasis from primary and fundamental education to higher education is against the sacred order making education necessary in terms of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.
• It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners whether the concept of strict scrutiny is a measure of judicial scrutiny as highlighted by the conditions in India. It is submitted that the label is not relevant.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Learned Counsel for the respondent had stated that there are several cases where applications were made for inclusion they have been turned down.
• Respondents have contended the concept of the creamy layer may have connected for Article 16(4) but is insignificant so far as Articles 15(4) and 15(5) are concerned. It is submitted that Article 16(4) is relatable to inadequate representation in government services and in that context, the Supreme Court has decided that the economically well-off individuals within the socially and educationally backward classes should not be included in the reservation benefits. But this logic doesn’t apply to the current issue, which involves admissions to educational institutions. Before we can discuss whether it’s a good idea to exclude the ‘creamy layer,’ we need to understand what this term means. It’s important to look at what the Court has said about this concept in various past cases.
• According to the respondent, the argument of ‘creamy layer’ is a ruse, a scheme to remove the benefits of the reservation for the backward classes. It is also submitted that no member came forward from the backward classes with regards to this plea and that it will become the members of forward classes to raise this point.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

• Article 15(4) – This article talks about the power to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for SCs and STs.[1]
• Article 15(5) – This was added by the 93rd Amendment. It lets the state make special provisions for the advancement of SEBCs, SCs, and STs when it comes to admissions in educational institutions, including private ones, but not minority institutions.[2]
• Article 14 – It talks about everyone being treated equally under the law.[3]
• Article 19(1)(g) – It gives every citizen the right to practice any profession.[4]
• Article 21 – It talks about the protection of life and Personal Liberty.[5]

Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006

• This law mandates that a certain percentage of seats in central educational institutions like IITs and IIMs must be reserved for SCs, STs, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

JUDGEMENT

The Court noted that if the creamy layer is not excluded, the 93rd Amendment would be ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The Court held that there should be no strict guidelines regarding the identification of the creamy layer; instead, the Government should make that decision. The court further decided that OBCs are subject to the creamy layer prohibition rule. The Court further noted that by taking away citizens of their fundamental right to continue their occupation under Article 19(1)(g), placing reservations without assistance institutions violates the Basic Structure. Nonetheless, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution is enforceable concerning state-maintained and legally assisted educational institutions. The court further said that the minority educational institutions are separate classes, and they are protected by the other constitutional provisions. Hence, they are not unconstitutional.

The court held that Articles 14 and 15 have their separate impacts and do not violate each other, hence they are constitutionally valid.

CONCLUSION/COMMENTS

“Reservation is one of the many tools that are used to preserve and promote the essence of equality so that disadvantaged groups can be brought to the forefront of civil life,” the court stated in this case when discussing the necessity of reservations.

The Court ruled that the 93rd Amendment was lawful and that, in terms of the creamy layer, OBCs should be given preference over SC/STs.

ENDNOTES

[1] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art 15(4).

[2] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art 15(5).

[3] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art 14.

[4] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art 19(1)(g).

[5] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art 21.