Chinmaya IAS Academy – Current Affairs Chinmaya IAS Academy – Current Affairs
Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a statement often used in the context of judicial cases that have been or are pending for long in courts of law. There could be several factors responsible for such a situation to arise. These include the complex nature of cases; a lack of judicial attention as far as the aggrieved party is concerned, and even a lack of resources/power/other kinds of support available to the aggrieved side. One such issue that has become a victim of such a state of affairs is reservation in the promotion of persons with disabilities.
The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, or the PwD Act, first recognised the right of the disabled person to be employed and promoted in government jobs on equal basis with others.
In order to ensure this, it introduced 3% reservation for the disabled in employment. The reservation of seats for the disabled existed in Groups C and D prior to the introduction of the PwD Act. Now, the Act extended reservation for the disabled in Groups A and B — a progressive step towards ensuring the dignity of and equality for the disabled at all levels including career advancement in government jobs. In addition to this, it also fixed the percentage of reservation of seats at 3%, which opened the gates of recruitment to disabled people in different sectors of the government.
It is important to note that the Court challenged the decision in the Indra Sawhney judgment by noting that Article 16(4) does not disable the Indian state from providing preferential treatment such as reservation to the backward classes of citizens under Article 16(1).
Article 16
Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment. It is one of the most important fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The article has four clauses, which are as follows:
Clause 1: There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Clause 2: No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
Clause 3: Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Clause 4: Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.
Article 16 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that there should be no discrimination in public employment on the basis of any of the grounds mentioned in clause 2. This includes discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. The State is, however, allowed to make reservations in public employment for backward classes of citizens.
Article 16 has been a powerful tool for ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment in India. It has helped to break down traditional barriers to entry into government jobs and has opened up opportunities for people from all backgrounds. The article has also been used to challenge discriminatory practices in the public sector.
Here are some of the key cases that have interpreted Article 16:
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India: This case upheld the constitutional validity of reservations in public employment for backward classes of citizens.
- Nagaraj v. Union of India: This case held that reservations in public employment must be based on objective criteria and must be subject to periodic review.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras: This case held that the State cannot discriminate against citizens on the basis of their place of birth in matters relating to public employment.
Article 16 is an important guarantee of equality in India. It has helped to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to succeed in public employment, regardless of their background.
