Initiatives and Protocols launched by the Government to provide Equality to People Suffering from Social Discrimination
This Blog is written by Geetanjali Sharma from University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun. Edited by Karan Dutt.
All citizens of India are promised equality by the Indian government. The numerous articles of the Constitution explained in the chapters on Fundamental Rights (justiciable) and Directive Principles of State Policies (non-justiciable) define the state’s duty to offer equal opportunity in social, political, and economic sectors to all of its inhabitants. Nonetheless, the pervasive presence of glaring disparities continues to be an affront to the vision of India envisioned by the constitution’s authors. Furthermore, persistent poverty and hardship are associated with specific castes, groups, and genders. Poverty and hardship are unquestionably the product of a deeply established socioeconomic system that has developed over generations. While acknowledging this social fact, rather than focusing on unequal outcomes due to class, our essay investigates the reasons why people with similar endowments (assets, entitlements, rights, skills, education, experience) but different social groups (caste, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc.) command different tangible returns (income, development benefits, realised entitlements) and less tangible returns (fewer tangible returns) (such as dignity and respect). We define social discrimination as the experience of similar endowments but vastly different treatments and results.
Social discrimination is a social phenomenon that transcends class division and is apparent when one or a few social groups command and practise social sanctions against other social groups (s). The term “social group” refers to a collection of people who have a common socioeconomic history and cultural traditions that not only give them a sense of belonging but also separate them from other social groups. To put it another way, social and cultural norms serve as the foundation for establishing intergroup interactions, which in turn control status relationships (social rank, dominance subordination), economic division of labour, and sanctions (rewards and punishments).
In the framework of constitutional evolution, social discrimination was acknowledged as a fact. This has been reflected in independent India’s positive discrimination policy. Positive discrimination policies were first restricted to education and the supply of Dalit and Adivasi jobs in the public sector (Reservations). In India’s national parliament and state legislative assemblies, certain percentage of seats were also set aside for Dalits and Adivasis. Other Backward Classes were later granted reservations in jobs and educational institutions.
The Indian government has passed legislation to abolish untouchability and has implemented several reforms to enhance the quality of life for the poor. Among them are the following:
• Fundamental human rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
• The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, abolished “untouchability” in 1950.
• Reservations at places like educational institutions and job possibilities, for example.
• Creating social welfare departments and national bodies to look after the interests of scheduled castes and tribes.
The government’s actions have provided some assistance to the less fortunate members of society. The metropolitan regions have had a significant influence and have improved. People in rural areas and villages, on the other hand, continue to experience severe prejudice. We still have a long way to go in terms of accomplishing the goals of eradicating and abolishing prejudice based on caste and creed. It now rests on our efforts, and a shift in our attitude will almost certainly result in a permanent transformation, bringing equality to everyone.
The quote notice later that the concept of creamy layer does not apply to SC & ST and the add adequate representation will lead to an end of reservation that’s the court relied upon the review Commission for further amendment of the constitution. The Mandal Commission case laid down a 50% upper limit for reservation in the year under clause four and upheld 49.5% reservation no scope was left to fill in the backlog vacancies to hold special recruitment drives to overcome this handicap the constitution it be First Amendment act introduced an exception to 50% limit for the purpose of filling the backlog vacancies unlike clause 4A & 4Be it is not confined to a SC & ST. In Nagaraj case it suggested that to ensure the efficiency of administration required by article 335 in each case the appropriate government will now have to introduce the time kab depending upon the fact situation to fill in the backlog vacancies it is interesting to note that article 335 which applies only case of SC & ST has been extended too close for be which is not confined to those classes. At last, in Nagaraj case a 5-judge bench of court anonymously appealed the validity of the previous amendment introducing clauses 4A &4B in article 16.
An authentic countrywide data off the impact of the reservation in all services under the union and state is not yet available but information sought by the union government shows that in 71 of 91 department of which the information was supplied the SC’s & ST’s occupy 17.6% and 7.7% jobs respectively as against their reserve quote of 15% and 7.5% respectively, while SEBS’s and persons with disability for 27 and 3% jobs respectively occupy only 17.7% and 0.3% jobs respectively the reason for this discrepancy could be the late provision of the reservation in the latter categories in 1994 and 2004 respectively bye for the SC’s & ST’s provision was made in early 1950s the percentage of a SC’s & ST’s t is much higher than the lowest service and get successively reduced in the higher services.
PROVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATURE
Equal Justice Under the Law
Equality before the law is fully stated in Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees that all citizens are equally protected by the country’s laws. It means that the government would not discriminate against Indian people based on their gender, caste, creed, religion, or even birthplace. Any individual living in India’s territory is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the courts. To put it another way, this means that no one or group of individuals may demand preferential treatment. This right pertains not just to Indian nationals, but to everyone who lives inside India’s borders.
Equal Access to Public Spaces and Social Equality
The right to Social Equality and Equal Access to Public Spaces is explicitly stated in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which states that no one shall be treated differently on the basis of colour, caste, creed, language, or other factors. Everyone should have equitable access to public spaces such as public wells, bathing ghats, museums, and temples. The state, on the other hand, has the authority to create special provisions for women and children, as well as for the development of any socially or educationally disadvantaged class, scheduled castes, or scheduled tribes. This article solely pertains to Indian nationals.
In terms of public employment, equality is important.
Article 16 of India’s Constitution states unequivocally that the government must treat everyone equitably in areas of employment. In any occupation or position under the State, no citizen must be discriminated against on the grounds of race, caste, religion, creed, descent, or place of birth. Every Indian citizen is eligible to apply for government employment. There are, however, certain limitations to this right. The Parliament may adopt legislation stating that certain occupations can only be filled by people who live in a specified area. This qualification is mostly for jobs that demand knowledge of the area’s geography and language.
Aside from that, the government may set aside some positions for members of the backward classes, scheduled castes, or scheduled tribes who are underrepresented in government services in order to help the weaker parts of society. Also, a legislation may be introduced requiring that anybody holding a position in a religious organisation be a practising member of that faith. However, as specified by the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003, this privilege would not be extended to Indian nationals living abroad.
Untouchability is being phased out.
Untouchability is prohibited in India by Article 17 of the Indian Constitution. Untouchability has been deemed a crime, and anybody who practises it faces legal consequences. The Untouchability Offenses Act of 1955 (later renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1976) establishes penalties for refusing to let someone into a place of worship or for refusing to let them drink from a well or tank.
In Ashok Kumar Thakkur v. union of India and others, the 93rd amendment act is valid to an extent that it permits reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBS’s) in this state or state aided educational institutions subject to exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC’s. Exclusion of minority education institutions from the purview of article 15 held to be valid.
In Chandigarh Admin v. Usha K Wale, doll the reservation is in the favour of backward classes it is permissible under clause (4) article 16 no such reservation is possible in favour of woman nor is any other discrimination in the favour of women possible for example relaxation of rules of recruitment or standard of qualification. the courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualification nor upon the power of concerned authorities so long as the qualification prescribed by the employer is reasonable relevant and hazard rational Nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and if of any provisions of the constitution statute and rules. record cannot interfere with the methods of reservation unless there is clear illegality.
In State of U.P v. Ram Sanjeevan, it was stated that it is absolutely imperative to abolish the car system as expeditiously as possible for the smooth functioning of rule of law and Democrats in our country.
In my perspective, the improvements may be accomplished by, Reforms to labour rules can help to lessen disparities. Minimum wages and universal basic income (UBI) are two prominent approaches to changing labour regulations. They both have the same goal: to increase the earnings of the poorest people in order to close the income gap. These are mandated by law, and the employer is responsible for paying them. When the UK enabled the community to influence policy, there were improved effects on lowering disparities found in over 400 councils, according to Sam Brokken of Belgium, who investigated the impact of economic inequality on health. Minimum wages should be adjusted for inflation and include a reward for reducing inequality.
This requires a yearly re-evaluation and appropriate adjustment. Despite the fact that emerging nations like India have hundreds of pro-poor initiatives, the main concern is whether these benefits are reaching the poor. The true problem will be separating the impoverished from the non-poor, especially when the data is suspect. Let us not forget what has happened in the past. The Roman Empire was one of the world’s richest, with wealth concentrated in the hands of a small senatorial elite and the majority of the population living in abject poverty. Warning indications of inequity were disregarded, resulting in civil war and the downfall of the whole empire.
Recent research, which spans a wide range of literatures on caste and development, suggests that caste deserves the same level of attention in global policy as gender or race as opportunity-shaping characteristics. What has been learned about caste’s impacts in India is applicable to other South Asian nations and their diasporas. The fact that caste is intertwined with other identification factors (gender, class) does not prohibit policymakers from focusing on its unique traits, such as occupational ranking, exclusion and enclosure, network effects, graded inequality, and stigmatisation. The data given here indicates that policy innovation is required to address market and non-market discrimination, eliminate barriers and offer support (to Dalits) in the informal and private sectors, and generally adjust interventions to caste realities. It also highlights the need of having an informed conversation about caste inequality and challenging the issue’s absence from the global policy debate on sustainable development.
(4) Durga das Basu, Introduction to the constitution of India 22nd edition.
(5) N Shukla, constitution of India 13th edition.
 (2006) 8 SCC 212, 265ff,: AIR 2007 SC 71.
 (2008) 6 SCC 1.
 AIR 2011 SC 2956 (2961).
 (2010) 1 SCC 529 (531).