NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SEMESTER – III

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- II

SYNOPSIS

TOPIC OF PROJECT

REMOVAL OF ARTICLE 16 (4a)

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

MISS. KULDEEP KAUR ARYAN JAIN

(UNIVERSITY OF LONDON) 2019BALLB118

INTRODUCTION

Reservation as a concept is very broad. Different people understand reservation in a different

manner. One view of reservation as a generic concept is that reservation is an anti-poverty
measure. There is a different view which says that reservation is merely providing a right to
access and that is not a right to redressal. Some say that reservation is not a part of affirmative
action whereas others say that it is a part of affirmative action. Our constitution has incorporated
the word “reservation” in Article 16(4) and it is not there in Article 15(4). Therefore, the word
“reservation” as a subject of Article 16(4) is different from the word “reservation” as a general
concept. Reservation in promotion pertains to reservations granted to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) for promotions in public employment. It has been a bitterly
contested issue between the Supreme Court and Parliament. In 1992 the Court, in its Indra
Sawhney judgment, found that Article 16(4) does not allow for reservation in promotion. Then,
between 1995 and 2000, Parliament enacted a series of Constitutional Amendments that
legalized reservation in promotion.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Reservation is necessary for transcending caste and not for perpetuating it. Reservation has to be
used in a limited sense otherwise it will promote casteism in the country. Reservation is
underwritten by a special justification. Equality in Article 16(1) is individual-specific whereas
reservation in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) is enabling. The discretion of state is, however,
subject to the existence of “backwardness” and “inadequacy of representation” in public
employment. Backwardness has to be based on objective factors whereas inadequacy has to
factually exist.
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

 To study the nature and characteristics of provisions of Article 16 (4a).

 To study the history of Article 16 (4a).
 Critically examining the judicial interpretation of the article through case laws.
 To study the constitutional validity.
 To draw the conclusion over the mechanism prevailing in India and ascertain the ways in
which this mechanism could be bettered for the smooth administration in the instances
related to them.

HYPOTHESIS

Equity, Justice and Merit/efficiency are variables which can only be identified and measured
by the state. Therefore, in each case, a contextual case has to be made out depending upon
different circumstances which may exist state wise.

METHOD OF STUDY

This project is based on doctrinal method of data collection.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

* Jain M.P. (2004), “Indian Constitutional Law”, Fifth Edition Reprint, Wadhwa Publishers,
Nagpur.

* Brass, Paul, R (1994), “The Politics of India since Independence”, 2nd Edition Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
* Chandra, A. K (1965), “Federalism in India”, London: George Allen and Unwin

* Basu, D.D. (2004), “Shorter Constitution of India”, Wadhwa Publishers, Nagpur

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION
 PROPOSED AMENDMENT
 BACKGROUND
 ARGUMENTS
 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
 CONCLUSION
 BIBLIOGRAPHY