Two People Opposed To Upper Caste Reservation: A new clause was added in Article Fifteen. Sixthly inserted Collis says that nothing in these Articles, Clause I of Article 19, Clause II of Article 29 shall be a bar to the special consideration given to bringing forward any economically backward persons. The sixth clause included in Article sixteen also says the same. This clause is included to consider those who are outside the reserved categories mentioned in Clause IV.
Chief Justice YU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhatt spoke about the historical responsibilities of the Constitution. The changes brought about by this amendment will be vague and will result in the complete exclusion of the socially and educationally backward and these changes will not address caste discrimination in any way. It should also be understood that two people who say all this with exact clarity are only a fading hope in the judiciary. While Justice Dinesh Maheshwari says that none of these changes will in any way affect the concepts of equality in the Constitution, the same bench in U.U. Lalit and Rabindrabhat say that this is against the concept of equality and the basic principle of non-discrimination.
Even if the provision of reservation for the economically backward is accepted for the sake of argument, it is unconstitutional to include only the economically backward belonging to the forward communities. If people belonging to other categories also get this consideration, it will become a double benefit, according to the advocates of economic reservation. But Ravindra Bhatt in his judgment quoting Article 15 (1) (4) and Article 16 (1) (4) says: Reservation provided by the Constitution to socially backward classes should not be treated as a free pass.
The verdict, written by YU Lalit and Ravindra Bhatt, ends with Chembakam talking about Dorairajan. Chembakam approached the Madras High Court after he was denied college admission due to caste discrimination. It later reached the Supreme Court and today led to the inclusion of the fourth clause in Article 15 so that there is no barrier to reservation for all socially backward sections. The fact that a judge specifically remembered Chembakam Dorairajan in a case considering this 103rd Amendment which undermines it, shows how important history is to us in ensuring the representation of the people.
Such constitutional institutions do not need to have many names to remember history. It is today’s political responsibility to put together every sentence that corresponds to the social realities. The history of the oppressed needs to be constantly written to recognize that the arguments for economic reservation are not so naive.
