ARTICLE 16

Article 16 of the Constitution of India, talks about the right of equal opportunity in the
matters of public employment. It states that:

1. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State,

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.

3. Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in egard
to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or
any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence
within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

4. 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.

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation
in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the
services under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the
opinion of State are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

(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 for
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.

5. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the
incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational
institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a
particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

B. OBJECT:
The Article guarantees equality of opportunity when it comes to public employment. The first
two clauses of the Article elucidate the fact that no citizens of India shall face discrimination
in respect of employment. These two clauses lay the foundation for equal employment
opportunity and eliminate compartmentalization in the name of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth, or any other.

As one of the important constitutional provisions for deprived sections, Article 16 gives
Parliament the power to make any law prescribing the requirements “for a class or classes of
employment or appointment to an office under the Central Government or any local
authority.” Clause 4 of the Article acts as a guideline for the government for making any
provision for the reservation of appointments in favour of any backward class of citizens who
are “not adequately represented in the services under the State”.

Like Article 14, 15 and 17, this article and its provisions indicate the government’s
commitment to protect the interests of the SCs and STs.

C. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS:
The important amendments with reference to article 16 is 77th, 81st, 85th constitutional
amendments.
  Clause 4A , added by 77th amendment 1955, empowers the state to make any provision
for the reservation in matters of promotion of SCs and STs which, in the opinion of the state
are not adequately represented services of the state.
Clause 4B,added by 81 st amendment 2000, which seeks to end the 50% limit for
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other backward classes in backlog vacancies which
could be fill up due to the non availability of eligible candidates of these categories in the
previous year or years.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71

Tribes and dealt with Articles 16 (4A) and (4B) of the Constitution.

It was held in this case that in order to grant reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, the State must collect ‘quantifiable data’ to demonstrate their backwardness.

It was held that the concept of the creamy layer will also apply to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes The case M. Nagaraj v. Union of India was related to reservation of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled and therefore, they would not be entitled to any such
reservations.

Further, the decision was altered as it was argued by the Attorney-General of India that both
the holdings were incorrect as they were contrary to the judgment which was given in Indira
Sawhney vs Union of India (non-exclusion of creamy layer in matters of reservations).

 Indra Sawhney v Union Of India

 The Commission was headed by B.P. Mandal and its mandate was to investigate the
status of socially and educationally backward classes in India.
 When the Commission finally submitted its report in 1980, it recommended a
reservation of 27 percent in government jobs for these castes.
 The collapse of the Janata Party government complicated matters and the
recommendations of the report could not be implemented.
  There wasn’t much progress in this respect for several years until Janata Dal regained
power in 1989 and decided to implement the recommendations of the report and
reserved 27 percent of the seats for socially backward classes.
 This was followed by reservation and anti-reservation protests in large parts of the
country some of which led to riots.
 When the government action was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a
writ petition, the then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao brought in another order
which increased the reservation limit to 37 percent while including economically,
socially and educationally backward classes as well. The five-judge bench referred the
matter to a nine-judge bench.

Issues Before the Court

 Whether caste on its own constitutes a different class and whether economic criteria
could by itself be the determinant of a class.
 Whether Article 16(4) was an exception to Article 16(1) and is exhaustive in itself of
the rights of reservation.
 Does Article 16(4) allow classification of ‘Backward Classes’ into Backward Classes
and Most Backward Classes or permit classification among them based on economic
or other considerations.
Contentions of the petitioners:
The advocates for the petitioners led by Nani Palkhiwala argued that reservation further
provoked the evil of the caste system and this evil will hamper India’s march towards being a
welfare state. They further argued that if the reservation was continued it will replace
standard with sub-standard and meritocracy with mediocrity. Petitioners also alleged that the
Mandal report was in essence trying to rewrite the Constitution.
Contentions of the respondents:
The respondent State said that the report merely gives the backward classes a means to fulfil
their just claims. They argued that the report was a continuation of the first minorities
commission which also recommended affirmative action to right the wrongs that backward
classes have faced for centuries together.
The court in its judgement laid down the following rules

 Backward classes under Article 16(4) cannot be identified on the basis of economic
criteria but the caste system also needs to be considered.
 Article 16(4) is not an exception to clause 1 but an instance of classification as
envisaged by clause 1.
 Backward classes in article 16(4) were different from the socially and educationally
backward mentioned in Article 15(4).
 The concept of a creamy layer was laid down and it was directed that such a creamy
layer be excluded while identifying backward classes.
  Article 16(4) does allow the classification of backward classes into backward and
more backward.
 Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent, moreover, reservation in promotions shall
not be allowed.

Right to Equality is not a simple concept as it is perceived to be. The Indian Constitution
aims to achieve a society in which all the individuals are provided with an equal opportunity.
The developments which have been made in the light of Right to equality under the
Constitution have uplifted the Indian society. The framers of the Constitution aimed to
achieve a society where all citizens are treated equally. The Courts have given various
interpretations through the judgments so as to achieve the aim of equality which the framers
of the Indian Constitution intended.