1

DAILY
CLASS NOTES
Indian Polity

Lecture – 15
Article 16, Article 17,
Article 18, Article 19
 2

Article 16, Article 17, Article 18, Article 19

Article 16 (4):
 It empowers the State to reserve seats in favour of socially and educationally backward class of citizens
in public employment.
 Article 16 (4) is called an enabling clause because without Article 16 (4) the State cannot reserve seats for
the backward class in public employment. But Article 16 (4) does not confirm a fundamental right of the
backward class of citizens for reservation in public employment.
 Under Article 16 (4) various conditions must consider by the State to reserve seats in favour of the backward
class of citizens.
a. The said class of citizens shall be educationally and socially backward.
b. The backward class of citizens should not be adequately represented in government employment.
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case (1992):
 In this case the Supreme Court clarified the legal position on reservation policies. It is also known as Mandal
Case.
1. The Court held the reservation of 27% of seats in favour of OBC as Constitutionally valid. However, it
directed the State to identify the creamy layer among OBC and remove them from availing the
benefits of reservation.
2. The reservation of seats in favour of backward classes shall not exceed 50% ordinarily, under any
extraordinary circumstance it can exceed 50% (as reservations are given to females and differently-
abled apart from SCs or STs).
3. The reservation for backward classes is provided only at the entry level.
 In this judgement the Supreme Court ruled that 10% of seats reserved by the Narasimha Rao
Government for economically backward class of citizens among the forward community as unconstitutional
and void because the Constitution provides the reservation only on the basis of social and educational
backwardness and not for financially backward classes.
Policy of Reservation in Promotion:
 Both the State and the Central Government have introduced reservation of seats in favour of STs and SCs in
public employment to provide for faster promotional avenues.
 In the Indra Sawhney case (1992) the above policy was declared as unconstitutional and void on the ground
that under Article 16 (4) State is empowered to provide reservation to backward classes only at entry
level at the time of recruitment only and not subsequent to recruitment.
 The Parliament enacted the 77 th Constitutional Amendment of 1995, which introduced Article 16 (4) (a),
it empowers the State to provide reservations for SCs and STs in promotion provided that these two
communities are not adequately represented in public employment in the opinion of the State.
M. Nagraj vs Union of India Case (2006):
 In this case the Supreme Court held that such re servation policy is Constitutionally valid. However, it
should fulfill the following requirements:
 3

1. SCs and STs community shall be socially and educationally backward.

2. SCs and STs communities are not adequately represented in public employment.
3. Such a reservation policy doesn’t affect overall efficiency in administration.

Vertical Reservation:
 Rules regarding vertical reservation were given by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney Case (1992).
 In this case the Supreme Court stated that overall reservation in favour of Backward classes shall not
exceed 50% except in exceptional conditions.

Tamil Nadu Reservation Policy (Exception to the above rule):

 Tamil Nadu is the only State where the percentage of seats reserved for backward classes exceeds 50%
and it is 69%.
 This policy became unconstitutional and void when the rule of vertical reservation was introduced by the
Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney Case and the Tamil Nadu Government was forced to scale down
this reservation policy to 50%.
 But the Tamil Nadu Assembly enacted the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act 1994, under which 69% of seats are
reserved for the backward classes.
 This Act was placed under the 9th Schedule by the Parliament which was not subject to Judicial review at
that time.

NOTE: Article 31-B was introduced to the Constitution by the First Constitutional Amendment 1951 and it
says that acts placed under the 9 th Schedule are not subject to Judicial Review.

IR Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu Case (2007):

 The Supreme Court in IR Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu Case (2007) held that any acts placed under the
9 th Schedule before 24 th April 1973 (the date on which Doctrine of Basic Structure was innovated) are
not subject to Judicial Review. In other words, these are not subject to the Doctrine of Basic Structure
and cannot be challenged in the Court of law.
 Therefore, all the acts which were placed under 9 th Schedule on or after 24 th April 1973 are subject to the
Doctrine of Basic Structure and subject to Judicial Review.
 This pronouncement of the Supreme Court made Tamil Nadu Reservation Act 1994 subject to Judicial
review.
Carry Forward Policy:
 It is being followed by the Central and the State Governments in favour of SCs and STs in case of public
employment.
 Under this policy, the unfilled vacancies due non-availability of suitable candidates are carried forward
to the following year and filled only by SCs and STs community.
 Since, this carry-forward policy may violate the rule of vertical reservation of 50% that is why Article
16 (4) (B) was introduced by the Parliament through the 81 st Constitutional Amendment Act 2000.
 4

 It authorises the State to follow the carry forward policy and such a policy will be valid even if it exceeds
50% reservation.
Article 16(5):
 It authorizes the State provided by law prescribing religion as a ground of qualification in certain categories
of public employment such as Hindu temples; Hindu Religious Endowment Department; Waqf board;
Urdu and Arabic schools etc.
 Such posts can be reserved only for Indian citizens belonging to a particular religious group.
Article 17:
 It abolishes untouchability in all forms . It is one the Fundamental Rights that is given in absolute terms
without any exception.
 Under Article 35, the Parliament enjoys the power to provide by law punishment for the practice of
untouchability.
 The Parliament enacted the Untouchability Offences Act 1955 which was later amended and renamed as
Civil Rights Protection Act 1976 which prescribes punishment for the practice of untouchability.
Article 18:
Article 18 (1):
 It prohibits the State from conferring title except in the nature of military or academic distinction.
 Example: One has excelled in academics can be provided PhD or D.Lit., etc. or Army personnel can be given
Paramveer Chakra, etc.
 Under Article 18 (1) it prohibits only the State from conferring title but a private person is not prohibited
by conferring titles to someone.
 The Constitution doesn’t define what is title, but title is understood as a recognition conferred by the State
which creates artificial social hierarchy in the country for example Raibahadur.
Constitutionality of National Award:
 Padmashri, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna are called National award.
 The awards were established in 1954 by the President’s Order.
 They are conferred by the President on the Republic Day every year without any distinction based on
race, religion, caste, sex, place of birth, etc.
 They can be conferred on foreigners and even after death of the person.
 They are conferred in order to recognise meritorious services being rendered to society or country.
 However, an awardee is not to use these awards for prefixing or suffixing before or after his name.
Balaji Raghavan vs Union of India Case (1996):
 In this case the Supreme Court held the Constitutionality of these awards and recognised them in the form of
military or academic distinction.
 Thus, they are not titles as per Article 18 (1). The Court further held that the right to equality does not mandate
that merit should not be recognised. So, they are now called awards and not titles.
 5

Article 18 (2):
 It prohibits Indian citizens from receiving titles from a foreign State.
Article 18 (3):
 It prohibits the foreigners who are in service of the Indian State from receiving title from any foreign State
without the permission of the Indian President.
 This is to ensure loyalty of a person to the Indian State.
 Neither the Constitution nor the Parliament has provided any punishment for the violation of Article
18.
 It is merely declarative in nature.
Article 19:
 It guarantees six democratic rights to citizens. These rights are called as democratic rights because they are
considered to be essential for the healthy functioning of democracy.
Article 19 (1) (a):
 It guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.
 It has been described by the Supreme Court as an inalienable adjudicate to right to life under Article 21 i.e.,
something which cannot be separated from Article 21.
 It enhances the quality of life and makes life more dignified.
 This right has several meanings; it means the right of a citizen to express his own view and opinion freely and
openly.
 It can openly express one’s own view without any fear and restriction by the government. It also means the
right of the citizens to choose any conceivable medium to express his view.
 One can express his expression and opinion by signal, by speaking, by holding banners or even by
observing silence.
 It allows citizens to express the views of foreigners under Article 19.
 The right to freedom of press and publication mentioned under Article 19.
 This right is implicitly provided under Article 19 (1) (a). This right is given not only to press but also TV,
Media, Radio, etc.
 It also includes the right to have access to information. Nobody can be prevented from having access to
information.
 The Right to Information (RTI) is implicit under Article 19 (1) (a). RTI Act, 2005 merely regulates the right
already given to us under Article 19 (1) (a).
 The right to have political dissent i.e., to have a different political view also comes under this Article. It
strengthened democracy.
 According to the Supreme Court rights given under Article 19 (1) (a) are not limited to geographical
land, political boundaries.
 An Indian citizen continued to enjoy these rights even while travelling abroad.
Grounds on which these rights have restricted:
1. On the grounds of maintenance of public order, morality and decency.
2. In the interest of the security of India.
 6

3. In the interest of maintaining friendly relations with foreign states.

4. In case of defamation and contempt of court.
Article 19 (1) (b):
 It guarantees the right to have peaceful assembly. It also includes the right to hold meetings and take out
a procession.
 However, the assembly shall be peaceful and without arms restrictions can be improved in the interest of
maintenance of public order, morality and decency.
Article 19 (1) (c):
 It guarantees the right to form associations. The Supreme Court said that it includes the right to join or not
to join; continue or not to continue with association.
 The right to form association includes the right to form cultural, political, social and economic association.
 It is right to form political associations and trade unions. But according to the Supreme Court the right to
form a trade union does not confirm a fundamental right to strike.
 The Supreme Court in CPMB Bharat Kumar Palicha and other cases stated that ‘Bandh’ is illegal because
Bandh includes compulsory closing down of offices, disturbance to public transport systems.
 It interferes with the freedom of movement of people, freedom of speech and expression and right to life
because daily wage workers are not allowed to work.
 According to the Supreme Court Hartal is not illegal because it does not include an element of force.
 The right to form an association can be restricted by Parliament by law to require forces and police forces.
 The Parliament can enact the Army Act, Air Force Act, Navy Act, Police Act, etc. under which the right to
form political association has been denied to these forces. These forces cannot form trade unions and therefore
they cannot go for strike.










