Right to equality is a fundamental right provided in the Article 14,15,16,17 and 18 of the Indian constitution. It also prevents discrimination on various grounds and treats everybody as equal.
Ar 14-The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Ar 15-The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Ar 16-There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Ar 17-Abolition of untouchability.
Ar 18-Abolition of all titles except military and academic
(Courtesy: Right to equality-Art 14-18 by byju’s)
Passage
Both direct and indirect forms of discrimination militate against India’s constitutional vision of equality. The verdict in Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. (1971).was notably applied by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in the Delhi High Court’s 2018 judgment in Madhu vs. Northern Railway. There, the Railways had denied free medical treatment to the wife and daughter of an employee which they would otherwise have been entitled to under the rules. The Railways contended that the employee had “disowned” his family and had had their names struck off his medical card. The court held that to make essential benefits such as medical services subject to a declaration by an employee might be “facially neutral”, but it produced a disparate impact, particularly on women and children.
But while this case concerned discrimination by the state, entry barriers to goods such as housing, schools and employment tend to function in the realm of private contracts. The Constitution, though, is markedly vocal on this too. Article 15(2) stipulates that citizens shall not on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment. Yet, on occasion, this right, which applies horizontally, inter se individuals, comes into conflict with the rights of persons to associate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups. This is why every time a case of discrimination is brought, the party that discriminates claims that he possesses a liberty to do so, that he must be free to act according to his own sense of conscience. The Supreme Court, in 2005, in Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society vs District Registrar Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Others, endorsed one such restrictive bond, when it ruled in favor of a bye-law of a Parsi housing society that prohibited the sale of property to non-Parsis. This right to forbid such a sale, the Court ruled, was intrinsic in the Parsis’ fundamental right to associate with each other. But in holding thus, the judgment, as Gautam Bhatia points out in his book, The Transformative Constitution, not only conflated the freedom to contract with the constitutional freedom to associate, but also overlooked altogether Article 15(2).
At first blush, Article 15(2) might appear to be somewhat limited in scope. But the word “shops” used in it is meant to be read widely. A study of the Constituent Assembly’s debates on the clause’s framing shows us that the founders explicitly intended to place restrictions on any economic activity that sought to exclude specific groups. For example, when a person refuses to lease her property to another based on the customer’s faith, such a refusal would run directly counter to the guarantee of equality.
An overruling of the verdict in Zoroastrian Cooperative, while desirable, is unlikely, however, to serve as a panacea. India is unique among democracies in that a constitutional right to equality is not supported by comprehensive legislation. In South Africa, for example, a constitutional guarantee is augmented by an all-encompassing law which prohibits unfair discrimination not only by the government but also by private organizations and individuals.
(Courtesy: ”The need for an anti-discrimination law” by The Hindu published on 15 June 2020)
Questions:
1. The author in the above passage specifically talks about which article?
a. Art 15(1)
b. Art 15(2)
c. Art 15(3)
d Art 15(4)
Ans b.
Rationale: The author specifically talks about Art 15(2) which states that No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public
2. “But while this case concerned discrimination by the state” Whats ‘this’ case which author is talking about?
a. Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society vs District Registrar Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Others
b Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. (1971)
c. Madhu vs. Northern Railway.
d. Nota
Ans c
Rationale:. But while this case concerned discrimination by the state, entry barriers to goods such as housing, schools and employment tend to function in the realm of private contracts In the Madhu vs Northern Railway case.
3. Article 15(2) stipulates that:
a) citizens shall not on grounds only of religion, race, caste, creed, or place of death be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment.
b) citizens shall not on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment.
c) citizens shall not on grounds only of originality, gender, caste, sex, or place of birth be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment.
d) citizens shall not on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth be denied access to shops, public cafes, mortuary and places of worship
Ans b
Rationale: The words are jumbled and if you read the passage carefully you may see that the answer is b only.
4. Why according to the author ‘every time a case of discrimination is brought, the party that discriminates claims that he possesses a liberty to do so, that he must be free to act according to his own sense of conscience’?
a. As this right which applies horizontally, inter se individuals, comes into agreement with the rights of persons to associate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups.
b. As this right which applies horizontally, inter se individuals, comes into conflict with the rights of persons to associate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups.
c. As this right which applies vertically, inter se individuals, comes into conflict with the rights of persons to associate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups.
d. As this right which applies horizontally, inter se individuals, comes into conflict with the rights of persons to dissociate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups.
Ans ‘b’
Rationale: This right, which applies horizontally, inter se individuals, comes into conflict with the rights of persons to associate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups. This is why every time a case of discrimination is brought, the party that discriminates claims that he possesses a liberty to do so, that he must be free to act according to his own sense of conscience.
5. ‘An overruling of the verdict in Zoroastrian Cooperative, while desirable, is unlikely, however, to serve as a panacea’. What should be the reasoning of the author behind this statement?
a. As in India we don’t have an all-encompassing law which prohibits unfair discrimination not only by the government but also by private organizations and individuals.
b. India is unique among democracies in that a constitutional right to equality is not supported by comprehensive legislation.
c. Both a and b
d. Neither a nor b
Ans c
Rationale: An overruling of the verdict in Zoroastrian Cooperative, while desirable, is unlikely, however, to serve as a panacea. India is unique among democracies in that a constitutional right to equality is not supported by comprehensive legislation. In South Africa, for example, a constitutional guarantee is augmented by an all-encompassing law which prohibits unfair discrimination not only by the government but also by private organizations and individuals. We can conclude from this that the answer is c.
