128

PART V

CHAPTER I

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATE ON

RESERVATION POLICY

The Constituent Assembly came into existence in December 1946.

But the birth of the Constituent Assembly was not without the birth

pangs.1 Though not a sovereign body in the beginning, the Constituent

Assembly assumed sovereignty later.2 Comparing the Constituent

Assembly of India with Philadelphia Convention (1787) and to the States-

General of France (1789) a scholar points out that the American and

French bodies constituted towards the end of eighteenth century were

“articulate only in the general way, while in India a strong political factor

had emerged by the time the Constituent Assembly was convinced. That

was the party system. It is in and through the political parties that the

socio economic forces in India had crystallized.”3

The Constituent Assembly worked for about three years in framing

the largest Constitution of the world. The ideals, about which the

Freedom Movement had spoken, were to be translated into Constitutional

provisions. One of them was the protection of the socially backward

communities. The rhetoric of establishing an egalitarian society found its

vociferous expression in the words of Nehru.4 At that time the issue of

reservation was pleaded, explained, accommodated and accepted with the

national spirit to assimilate sections of society including the intended

beneficiaries of the reservation policy into the main stream of national

life.

129

In the present context of affairs in regard to these unfortunate

countrymen of ours who have not had these opportunities in the past,

special attempts should be made, of course, in the educational and

economic field and even in the political field to see that they have a

proper place till they find their own legs to stand upon without the

external aid.5

The debate on the resolution moved by Nehru in the Constituent

Assembly regarding ‘aims and objects’ that later formed the Preamble of

the Constitution, clearly reveal the sentiments of different sections of the

people. Even though majority of the members wholeheartedly supported

the resolution Ambedkar had his own apprehensions. He said:

…I must confess that, coming as the Resolution does for Pandit

Jawaharlal Nehru who is reported to be a socialist, this Resolution,

although non-controversial is to my mind very disappointing. I should

have expected him to go much farther than he has done in that part of the

Resolution. As a student of History I should have preferred this part of

the Resolution not being embodied at all. When one reads that part of the

Resolution, it reminds one of the Declarations of the Rights of Man

which was pronounced by the French Constituent Assembly. I think I am

right in suggesting that after the lapse of practically 450 years, the

Declaration of Rights of Man and the principles which are embodied in it

has become part and parcel of our mental make up. I say they become not

only the part and parcel of the mental make-up of modern man in every

civilized part of the world, but also in our country which is so orthodox,

so archaic in its thought and its social structure hardly any one can be

found to deny its validity. To repeat it now as a Resolution does, is to say

the least, pure pedantry… The Resolution suffers from certain other

130

lacuna. I find that this part of the Resolution, although it enunciates

certain right, does not speak of remedies...6

Leaders of the Congress party were very articulate in upholding the

rights of the Depressed Classes and offer them adequate safeguards for

exercising those right. But doubts were also expressed regarding the

effectiveness of these measures.7 On the one hand a member from Madras

criticized separate electorate as an effective safeguard for Scheduled

Caste reservation:

…Even if the Harijans are given this percentage of Votes and this

kind of electorate system, the Harijans are in a position to withstand the

attractions that they will have to face at the time of elections. So many

parties can set up candidates and they can purchase the Harijans and put

up any candidate they desire, and any candidate can come up in the

Assembly and certainly he may not represent the community though he

may get percentage of votes that is desired by this system. As long as the

Scheduled Castes, or the Harijans, or by whatever name they may be

called, are economic slaves of other people, there is no meaning

demanding either separate electorate or joint electorates or any other kind

of electorates with this kind of percentage. Personally speaking I am not

in favour of any kind of reservations in any place whatsoever.8

On the other hand, a Harijan Member, Nagappa vociferously

argued for reservation for the ancient people who had been exploited by

those who came later and dominated them. Quoting the number of

Scheduled Caste members and their population in various parts of the

country, he tried to focus on the point that ‘reservation’ was essential

with regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

131

Unilike Scheduled Caste representatives, the Scheduled Tribes

representatives expressed their voice of dissent by asserting that they

being the original inhabitants need to be treated with dignity. Jaipal Singh

from Bihar said:

…If there is any group of Indian people that has been shabbily

treated, it is my people. They have been disgracefully treated, neglected

for the last 6000 years. The history of the Indus valley civilization, a child

of which I am, shows quite clearly that it is the new comers-most of you

here are intruders as far as I am concerned-it is the new comers who have

driven away my people from Indus Valley to the jungle fastness. This

Resolution (Resolution Regarding Aims and Objects, moved by Nehru) is

not going to teach Adivasis democracy. You cannot teach democracy to

the Tribal people; you have to learn democratic ways from them. They

are the most democratic people from earth. What my people require is not

adequate safeguards as Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru has put it. They require

protection from Ministers, that is the position today. We do not ask for

any special protection. We want to be treated like every other Indian…

the whole history of my people is one of continued exploitation and

dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India punctuated by rebellions

and disorder, and yet I take Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru at his word: I take

you all at your word that now we are going to start a new chapter, a new

chapter of Independent India where there is equality of opportunity,

where no one will be neglected. There is no question of caste in my

society. We are all equal. Have we not been casually treated by the

Cabinet Mission, more than 30 million people completely ignored? It is a

matter of political window dressing that today we find six tribal members

in the Constituent Assembly. How is it? What has the Indian National

Congress done for our fair representation? Is there going to be any

132

provision in the rules whereby it may be possible to bring in more

Adivasis and by Adivasis I mean not only men but women too.

Again he remarked:

…I think there has been juggling of words going on to deceive us. I

have heard of resolutions and speeches galore assuring Adivasis of a fair

deal. If history has to teach me anything at all, I should distrust this

Resolution, but I do not.9

The discussion went on to the question of representation in the

legislature and many expressed hope that the proposed Constitution

would guarantee equality and at the same time protect the rights of the

Depressed Classes.

But there are also voices of frustration. For instance H.J. Kandekar

came with his own experience. He said: “I remind you of the Poona Pact.

I place before you the example of my own province. In Central Provinces

where we constitute 25 per cent of the population and we are entitled to

28 seats, we are given only 20 seats in pursuance of Poona Pact. Where

have our eights seats gone?… Harijans cannot tolerate such injustice.

They should be given representation according to their numerical

strength.”10

Provision regarding ‘untouchability’ in the draft Constitution was

generally welcomed. Eventually the fundamental right of ‘not being

subjected to any discrimination’ came to be qualified by the provisions to

procure ‘protective discrimination’. According Nesiah to unlike Martin

Luther King, Ambedkar was in a position of authority for as the

Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution and Minister of

Law, ‘he was vested with both real and symbolic authority at the highest

level’. Hence he was able to intervene effectively for the emancipation of

133

Dalits. According to one member the inclusion of Ambedkar in the

cabinet showed that there was a change of heart on the part of the caste

Hindus.11

But later events revealed the fact that it was not really a change

of heart, but only a political expediency that made the Congress

leadership offer Ambedkar such a position. But the relevant question is

whether Ambedkar could or did exercise any real power.12

It would be

safer to say that his skill as a lawyer was utilized by the then Congress

Government.

Report on the Minority Rights, based on which the discussion on

political safeguard of the depressed classes was carried on. Sardar

Vallabhbhai Patel, who presented the Report said in conclusion:

On the whole this report is the result of careful sifting of facts on

both sides. One thing I wish to point out. Apart from representation in the

Legislature and the reservation of seats according to population, a

provision has been made allowing the minorities to contest any general

seats also. There was much controversy about it, both in the Advisory

Committee and in the Minorities Committee; but it has been passed by a

majority. There was also another point which was a matter of controversy

and that was on behalf of the Muslim League and a section of the

Scheduled Castes. The point was raised that a certain percentage of votes

should be considered necessary for a successful candidate. This was a

matter of controversy and amongst the Scheduled Castes themselves a

very large majority sent me a representation yesterday saying they were

against this. But in the Advisory Committee it was discussed and it was

thrown out by a large majority.13

134

Speaking on the Report. P.S. Deshmukh said that the report was

highly satisfactory; but at the same time he voiced the fear that the so-

called majority might be marginalized. He said:

I am content that no minority is going to try any more to deprive

others of what legitimately belongs of them. For many years past it was

the majority that has been tyrannized. Unfortunately, the so-called

majority is dumb and deaf and although many of us try always to speak in

their name, I have no hesitation in stating that we have completely failed

in translating our words into action…I, therefore, urge that at least when

the Minorities are content to have only their fair share of power in the

Cabinets and a reasonable proportion in Government Services, our rulers

will pay some more attention to the oppressed and neglected rural

population which has even under the sacred name of the Congress has

been more undone than assisted…Let this be borne in mind in

distributing power and posts among the various Hindu Communities and

let the policy of the ‘Devil-take-the hindmost’ cease, at least from now.14

On the other hand members form depressed classes, like S.

Nagappa and Jaipal Singh, demanded representation in proportion to their

population and representation in cabinets too. With regard to reservation

of seats in parliament and state legislatures, originally the Constitution

proposed a time limit of ten years. Though this was not agreeable to the

Scheduled Castes, they accepted the advice of the political masters. For

instance in the words of a member:

We almost all Harijan members of this House sat together and

Honorable Pandit Nehru was kind enough to explain to us that in our own

interest this will be the best thing. According to his advice we have come

to a decision on this point. After all this is a question that has to be

135

reopened by Parliament. If after ten years our position happens to be the

same as it is today, then, it is open to the Parliament either to renew it or

abolish it.

But even in the same Constituent Assembly speaking on the

minority report, Mahvir Tyaggi was highly critical. He observed that

giving reservation would not benefit even the so-called Scheduled Castes.

In fact Parliament considered this question from time to time and

extended the period of reservation in legislature.15

136

PART-V

CHAPTER – II

RESERVATION AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The affirmative action policies which were in place by 1947 have

since been strengthened and enlarged in a manner which Dr. B.R.

Ambedkar himself could hardly have foreseen. The Indian Constitution of

1950 is the foundation document for the affirmative action in the second

half of the twentieth century. The key provisions of the Constitution in

this respect are the following:

1. The Preamble

The Preamble of the Constitution places enormous emphasis on

justice, liberty and equality; all of which resonate positively with a

regime which emphasizes the well-being of the disadvantaged groups.

The Constitution sets out to provide … JUSTICE, social, economic and

political; LIBERTY of the thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and opportunity; and to promote among them all,

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and

integrity of the Nation…

The following remarks of Dr. Ambedkar on how this Preamble is

to be interpreted are revealing:

It means a way of life which recognizes Liberty, Equality and

Fraternity which are not treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a

union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat

the very purpose of Democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from

Equality and Equality cannot be divorced from Liberty, nor can Liberty

and Equality be divorced from Fraternity.

137

2. Articles 15 and 16

These Articles basically prohibit discrimination. It is obvious that

any provision for affirmative action will violate these provisions, so

clause 16(4) was inserted in the Constitution itself which declared:

“Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any

provision for the appointments and 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.” However, as this provision applied only

to services, the State faced legal action which it tried to introduce

reservations for educational advancement. The well-known case of

Champakam Dorairajan v. the State of Madras led to the incorporation of

the following provision as Article 15(4): “Nothing in this Article or in

Clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special

provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally

backward classes of citizen or for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes.”

These provisions are obviously of great significance. It is therefore

worth noting that while for a long time it had been the view that Articles

15(4) and 16(4) are “exceptions” to Articles 15(1) and 16(1). According

to this view, the claims of the backward classes could be projected only

through exceptional Clauses and not outside them. But, in the case of

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas,16

the Supreme Court by majority rejected

this notion of exception and said that the State was free to choose any

“means” to achieve equality for those backward classes. It is clear that the

Supreme Court has discarded the old way of thinking that Articles 15(4)

and 16(4) are exceptions to the equality guaranteed and declared that

these Articles are themselves aimed at achieving the very equality

broadly proclaimed and guaranteed in Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1).

138

3. Articles 38 and 46

These Articles are Directive Principles of State Policy as

distinguished from fundamental rights are justifiable. Article 38 runs as

follows:

i. The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by

securing and protecting as effectively as it may be a social order

in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all

the institutions of national life.

ii. The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities

in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status,

facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but

also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or

engaged in different vocations.

4. Article 46 reads:

The State shall promote with special care the educational and

economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular,

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them

from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

5. Articles 330, 332, 334:

Under these Articles, seats are reserved in both the Union and State

legislatures for a period of ten years for the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes. The period of reservation, however, has been

continually extended through a series of Amendments to the Constitution.

6. Article 335 States:

The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes shall be taken into account, consistently with the maintenance of

efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services

and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

139

It thus establishes the need for the efficiency of administration to

be kept in mind in the context of affirmation. The implication that a

policy of affirmative action led to an increase in railway accidents, for

instance, was rejected by the Supreme Court.

7. Article 340:

This Article is related to the appointment of Commissions to report

on the socioeconomic aspect of the life of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Two commissions have so far been

thus appointed, the First Backward Classes Commission under Kaka

Kalelkar in 1953 and the Second Backward Classes Commission under

B.P. Mandal in 1978. This second is none other than the well-known

Mandal Commission.

8. Articles 341 and 342:

Article 341 provides for the preparation of the lists of Scheduled

Castes and Article 342 provides for the preparation of similar lists for the

Scheduled Tribes.

9. Articles 366(24) and 366(25):

These Articles define the Scheduled Castes and Tribes in terms of

the aforementioned lists.

The primary ground on which Article 15(5) was challenged was

that it violates the Basic structure doctrine. Rajeev Dhavan, one of the

senior counsels appearing for the petitioners, argued that the use of

“notwithstanding” in Articles 15(3), 15(4) and 15(5) could not be

construed as “notwithstanding the declaration of equality principle.” A

further ground for challenge was that Article 15(5) directly conflicts with

Article 15(4) as both Articles exclude the remaining provisions of Article

140

15. Whereas Article 15(4) excludes Article 15 and Article 29(2), Article

15(5) excludes Article 15 and Article 19 (I) (g). Hence, it was argued that

Article 15(5) could not be read in conformity with the principles in

Articles 14 and 15, and thus violated the basic feature of the equality.

Observing that a Constitutional amendment which “moderately

abridges or alters the equality principle or the principles under Article

19(1) (g)”, Chief Justice Balakrishnan concluded that Article 15(5),

insofar as it dealt with state maintained and aided institutions, did not

violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Pasayat, Justice

Bhandari and Justice Raveendran all concurred on this issue. This

clarification on the standard of review that a court must apply in basic

structure review may be understood as an elaboration of the “damage or

destroy” standard which is central to the application of basic structure

review to all forms of state action.

On whether Article 15(5) was Constitutional in light of Article

15(4), the Court noted that both provisions operated in different fields.

The Chief Justice clarified the meaning of “nothing in this Article” in

Article 15(5) by observing that the ground in Article 15(1) alone would

be included in the phrase, and that it would not exclude Article 15(4).

While the court may agree that Articles 15(4) and 15(5) can be

harmoniously construed. They appear divided on this clarification of the

Chief Justice. In contrast to the Chief Justice, Justice Raveendran held

that the phrase “Nothing in this Article” in clause (3), (4) and (5) of

Article is referred to both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15. Justice

Pasayat merely stated that both provisions operated in different fields and

was silent on what was excluded by the non-abstante clause at the start of

Article 15(5). Justice Bhandari observed that as Article 15(5) was specific

to admission in educational institutions whereas Article 15(4) was

141

general. Article 15(5) would neutralize 15(4) with respect to reservations

in educational institutions.

It properly directed. It remains unconvincing because although the

court held that Article 15(5) did not negate Article 15(4), there is no dear

majority on the scope and ambit of the phrase “Nothing in this Article” in

Article 15(5).

Further basic structure review is about compliance with basic

features. Surprisingly counsels and the Court conduct this discussion as if

Article 15(5) had to be in conformity with other textual provisions of the

Constitution. As basic structure review is a model of judicial review

which ensure that state action does not damage or destroy basic features

or values in the Constitution of India 1950 but not confined to particular

expressions in the text to the Constitution. The court seems to be

misdirected in its analysis.

Private unaided educational institution has a fundamental right

under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on

any trade or business) with respect to the establishment and

administration of educational institutions. Disagreements relating to the

ratio of the case led to the Constitution of a five judge bench in Islamic

Academy of Education entrusted with the task of clarifying the judgment

in TMA Pai foundation.17

Subsequently, a seven judge bench was

constituted in PA Inamdar18

to assess the clarification in Islamic

Academy of Education and confirm the Ratio in TMA Pai Foundation.

PA Inamdar made in abundantly clears that the law as per TMA Pai

Foundation was that “neither can the policy of reservation be enforced by

the state nor can any quota or percentage of.

142

PART-V

CHAPTER-III

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING /

ENSURING RESERVATION

1. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 Art.15 (4)

Amendment of Article 15. To Article 15 of the Constitution, the

following clause shall be added:

"(4) Nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall

prevent the State from making any special provision for the

advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of

citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."

2. The Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1956 Art. 330

Amendment of Article 334.-In Article 334 of the Constitution, for the

words "ten years" the words "twenty years" shall be substituted.

3. The Constitution (Sixty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1990 Art. 338 In

Article 338 of the Constitution:

(a) for the marginal heading, the following marginal heading

shall be substituted, namely:-

"National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes".

(b) for clauses (l) and (2), the following clauses shall be

substituted, namely:-

"(I) There shall be a Commission for the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes to be known as the National Commission for the

143

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by

Parliament, the Commission shall consist of a Chairperson, Vice

Chairperson and five other Members and the conditions of service

and tenure of Office of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other

Members so appointed shall be such as the President may by rule

determine.

(3) The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members of the

Commission shall be appointed by the President by warrant under

his hand and seal.

(4) The Commission shall have the power to regulate its own

procedure.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission:

(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the

safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes under this Constitution or under any

other law for the time being in force or under any order of

the Government and to evaluate the working of such

safeguards;

(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the

deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes;

(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio-

economic development of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their

development under the Union and any State;

144

(d) to present to the President, annually and at such other time

as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working

of those safeguards;

(e) to make in such reports recommendations as to the .measures

that should be taken by the Union or any State for the

effective implementation of those safeguards and other

measures for the protection, welfare and socio-economic

development of the-Scheduled Castes arid Scheduled Tribes;

and

(f) to discharge such other functions in relation to the

protection, welfare and development and advancement of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as the

President may, subject to the provisions of any law made

by Parliament, by rule specify.

(6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each

House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the

action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations

relating to the Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if

any, of any of such recommendations.

(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any matter

with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of such

report shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall

cause it to be laid before the Legislature of the State along with a

memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken

on the recommendations relating to the State and the reasons for

the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.

(8) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to

145

in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in

sub-clause (b) of clause (5), have all the powers of a civil court

trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters,

namely:

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person

from any part of India and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any

court or office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and

documents;

(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule,

determine.

(9) The Union and every State Government shall consult the

Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes."

(c) existing clause (3) shall be renumbered as clause (10).

4. The Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995

Art.16(4 a)

Amendment of Article 16.-ln Article 16 of the Constitution, after

clause (4), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-

"(4A) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making

any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or

classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the

146

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of

the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the

State."

5. The Constitution (Seventy-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1995 Art.

334

Amendment of Article 334: In Article 334 of the Constitution, for

the words "fifty years", the words "sixty years" shall be substituted.

6. The Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000

Art.16(4b)

Amendment of Article 16: In Article 16 of the Constitution, for

clause (4A), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely: -

"(4B) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from

considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for

being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision of

reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class

of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such

class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the

vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for

determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number

of vacancies of that year.”

7. The Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000 Art.

335

Amendment of Article 335: In Article 335 of the Constitution, the

following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely:

“Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent in making of any

provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the

147

Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any

examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation

in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts

in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”

8. The Constitution (Eighty-Third Amendment) Act, 2000 Art.

243(d)

Amendment of Article 243M: In Article 243M of the Constitution,

after clause (3), the following clause shall be inserted namely:

“(3A) Nothing in Article 243D, relating to reservation of seats for

the Scheduled Castes, shall apply to the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

9. The Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 art 16

Amendment of Article 16. In Article 16 of the Constitution, in

clause (4A), for the words “in matters of promotion to any class”,

the words “in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to

any class” shall be substituted.

148

REFERENCES

1. Chaube S.K.: Constituent Assembly of India (Calcutta 1986), pp.

30-55.

2. Id, pp. 86-91.

3. Id, p. 101.

4. The sixth item in the objective resolution moved by Nehru in the

Constituent Assembly read: “Wherein adequate safeguards shall be

provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas; and depressed

and other backward classes…”

5. Prasad Anirudh: Reservation, Policy and Practice in India (New

Delhi, 1991), p. 17.

6. Saksena H.S. (ed) Safeguards for scheduled castes and scheduled

tribes: founding father’s view, New Delhi, 1981, pp. 3-4.

7. Id., pp. 173-174.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Id, p. 154.

11. Rao K.V.: Parliamentary Democracy of India: A critical

commentary (New Delhi 2nd

ed.) p. 12.

12. Saksena H.S.: op.cit., p. 148.

13. Id, pp. 149-150.

14. The period has been extended from time to time by means of

Constitutional Amendments.

15. This clause 4 was added by the Constituent (First Amendment) Act

1951.

16. A.I.R. 1976 , SC, 470.

17. (2002) 8, SCC 481.

18. AIR 2005 SC 3226.