C Basavaraju Reservation Under The Indian Constitution
C Basavaraju Reservation Under The Indian Constitution
C Basavaraju Reservation Under The Indian Constitution
Author(s): C. Basavaraju
Source: Journal of the Indian Law Institute , APRIL-JUNE 2009, Vol. 51, No. 2 (APRIL-
JUNE 2009), pp. 267-274
Published by: Indian Law Institute
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Law Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Indian Law Institute
4. Whether the 50% rule laid down by the Supreme Court9 is relevant
today?
As the Constitution has not fixed any limit for providing reser
the Supreme Court in Balaji v. State of Madras, 12 has held t
government order reserving 68% of the seats available for admissio
engineering, medical and other technical colleges is unconstitutio
ultra vires the equality provision. The court observed that t
reservation fixed by the government was excessive and unreasonab
affects the merit candidates. However, the court fixed the ceiling
50% for reservation in educational institutions and in providing
employment. But it is unfortunate that the 45 year old 50% rule is
vogue though population of SC / ST and OBC has substantially chan
economic resource of the state has enormously increased.
In T. Devadasan v. Union of Indiai the question, which came be
the Supreme Court, was whether the 50% rule of reservation laid
applicable to those posts which were carried forward for next year
the present case, as a result of the application of carry forward r
reservation of vacancies went upto 64%. This was challenged as
unconstitutional, as it would destroy the right guaranteed under articles 16
(1) and 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down the carry
forward rule as unconstitutional and declared it invalid and observed thus:14
25. The said amendment has inserted art. 15 (5), which provides that "nothin
Article 15 or sub clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 would prevent the State f
making any special provision for the Advancement of any socially and educatio
backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribes in so
far as such special provisions relate to their admission to the educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided by the State Ministry Educational Institutions referred to in
clause (1) of the Article 30 to be excluded".
IV Conclusion
C. Basavaraju **