Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Start single access now
Request access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Published in:
Comparing Constitutionally: Modes of Comparison Read chapter Read first chapter

2023 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Equality, Merit and Affirmative Action: India and USA

Authors : M. R. Sreenivasa Murthy, Syamala Kandadai

Published in: Comparative Approaches in Law and Policy

Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore

Log in

Abstract

Judicial affirmation of the reservations for OBCs and EWS in the All-India Quota Seats in NEET for UG and PG medical courses, in Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India (2022) brought in the debate of ‘Merit v. Reservation’ again on to the limelight. The apex court’s view of ‘merit’ from the lens of social justice in Neil, again reminded India about its commitment to uplift the backward classes through affirmative action. If Hon’ble Supreme Court is only reiterating what is being already said through plethora of cases, then what led to the protest against reservation? Why reservation seen by the people of India as anti-meritorian? When the apex court in it’s previous judgments already approved the migration of meritorian backward classes to the merit class, why general classes are feeling it as encroachment on to their arena? Why this misunderstanding is prevalent in India that merit class is reserved only for General Class, and migration of meritorian backward classes will lead to encroachment on to their arena and narrow down of their opportunities? There are also questions that whether reservation will remain forever, or is there any chance of ending it? When affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination, it will affect rule of law, constitutionalism, egalitarianism, equality, social justice etc. Excessive reservation is dangerous and will distribute the social equilibrium, lead to social divide. In United States of America, after Brown, Bekke and Grutter, the recent judgment of the Supreme court in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA), v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Et Al., clarified that equality of opportunity should not be overshadowed by the over enthusiastic affirmative action which lacks any compelling reasons. The negative effect of affirmative action will lead to the destruction of the constitutional equality, and lead to segregation. The mooting question is how to lead the affirmative action towards egalitarian equality by balancing the merit and reservation? How to ensure equality of opportunity to both vulnerable and non-vulnerable sections, without compromising on merit? The objective of this paper is to understand the evolution of reservation system in India, judicial interpretation of the reservation system till 2022, analyzing and comparing the American affirmative action with Indian reservation system.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Imperatives of the Basic Structure Doctrine: A Semi-centennial Concept
next chapter Separation of Power and Judicial Independence in the Context of the United States and the Indian Constitution: A Cratologial Critique
Footnotes
1
State of Kerala v. NM Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490.
 
2
M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212.
 
3
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 supp. (3) SCC 217.
 
4
Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 75.
 
5
Id.
 
6
M. Nagraj and Ors v. Union of India & Ors, supra note 2.
 
7
Amartya Sen, Merit and Justice, (June 14, 2022, 10.04 AM) http://​assets.​press.​princeton.​edu/​chapters/​s6818.​pdf.
 
8
Simonne Kapadia, A Comparison of the Reservation System in India to Affirmative Action Policies in the United States, (March 22, 2021), MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW, (June 17, 2022 11.00 PM) https://​www.​msuilr.​org/​new-blog/​2021/​3/​22/​a-comparison-of-the-reservation-system-in-india-to-affirmative-action-policies-in-the-united-states.
 
10
NICHOLAS CAPALDI, THE MEANING OF EQUALITY, CHAP. 1, HOOVER PRESS: MACHAN (EQUALITY).
 
11
Gosepath [2].
 
12
Wesson [3].
 
13
NICHOLAS CAPALDI, supra note 10.
 
15
Fredman [4].
 
16
Sonawani [5].
 
17
Waghodekar [6].
 
18
Sanjay Sonawani, supra note 16.
 
19
Heath [7].
 
20
Samarendra [8].
 
21
Hobson [9].
 
22
Macdonell [10].
 
23
PadmanabhSamarendra, supra note 20.
 
24
Kevin Hobson, supra note 21.
 
25
Id.
 
26
Sanjay Sonawani, supra note 16.
 
27
Caste or Economic Status: What Should We Base Reservations On?, ECONOMIC and POLITICAL WEEKLY, (June 14, 2022, 3.00 PM), https://​www.​epw.​in/​node/​153560/​pdf.
 
28
Das [11].
 
29
Biswas [12].
 
30
Sircar [13].
 
31
Bhagwan Das, supra note 28.
 
33
Balkrishnan [14].
 
34
Bhagwan Das, supra note 28.
 
35
INDIA CONST. art. 334: Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after certain period.
 
36
Subs. by the Constitution (One Hundred and Fourth Amendment) Act, 2019, s. 2, for the words “seventy years” (w.e.f. 25-1-2020). The words “seventy years” were subs. for the words “sixty years” by the Constitution (Ninety-fifth Amendment) Act, 2009, s. 2. (w.e.f. 25-1-2010). The words “sixty years” were subs. for the words “fifty years” by the Constitution (Seventy-ninth Amendment) Act, 1999, s. 2. (w.e.f. 25-1-2000). The words “fifty years” were subs. for the words “forty years” by the Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989, s. 2. The words “forty years” were subs. for the original words “thirty years” by the Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980, s. 2.
 
37
INDIA CONST. art. 338.
 
38
INDIA CONST. art. 338A.
 
39
INDIA CONST. art. 338B.
 
40
Inserted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
 
41
Inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005.
 
42
INDIA CONST. art. 15(6)(a).
 
43
INDIA CONST. art. 15(6)(b).
 
44
Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1.
 
45
Ins. By the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, Section 2 (w.e.f. 17-6-1995); the words ‘in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class’ was substituted by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001, Section 2 for certain words (retrospectively w.e.f. 17-6-1995).
 
46
Ins. By the Constitution (81st Amendment) Act, 2000, Section 2 (w.e.f. 9-6-2000).
 
47
Ins. by the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, s. 3 (w.e.f. 14-1-2019).
 
48
INDIA CONST. art. 17: Abolition of Untouchability—Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
 
49
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226, The same interpretation is being followed by the Bombay High Court in Jagwant Kaur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 Bom 461.
 
50
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649.
 
51
T. Devadasan v Union of IndiaAIR 1964 SC 179.
 
52
Chitralekha v. State of MysoreAIR 1964 SC 1823.
 
53
K. S. Jayashree v. State of Kerala AIR 1976 SC 2381.
 
54
State of Kerala v. N M ThomasAIR 1976 SC 490.
 
55
Akhil BharatiyaSoshitKarmachari Singh (Railway) v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 298.
 
56
Id.
 
57
K. C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of KarnatakaAIR 1985 SC 1495.
 
58
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, supra note 3.
 
59
Ajit Singh (I) v. State of Punjab(1996) 2 SCC 715.
 
60
Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab(1999) 7 SCC 209.
 
61
Ajit Singh (I) v. State of Punjab, supra note 59.
 
62
M. Nagraj v. Union of India(2006) 8 SCC 212.
 
63
Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc., 1995 (6) SCC 684.
 
64
Ajit Singh (I) v. State of Punjab, supra note 59.
 
65
Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, supra note 60.
 
66
Ajit Singh (III) v. State of Punjab Review Petitions (C) Nos. 1504-06 of 1999 in IAs Nos. 1-3 of 1997 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3792-94 of 1989, decided on December 8, 1999.
 
67
Indra Sawhney and Ors v. Union of India, supra note 3.
 
68
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta2018(10) SCC 396.
 
69
B. K. Pavitra (II) v. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129.
 
70
Dr Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil v. The Chief Minister &Ors 2021 SCC OnLine SC 362.
 
71
St. Stephen’s College vs University of Delhi(1992) 1 SCC 558.
 
72
T. M. A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1994 SC 2372.
 
73
V. V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora and OrsAIR 1959 SC 1318.
 
74
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, supra note 3.
 
75
R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab(1996) 2 SCC 745.
 
76
Ritesh R Shah v. Dr Y. L. Yamul(1996) 3 SCC 253.
 
77
State of Bihar v. M. Neeti Chandra(1996) 6 SCC 36.
 
78
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association(1998) 4 SCC 1.
 
79
Rajesh Kumar Daria etc., v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors (2007) 8 SCC 785.
 
80
See also Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal etc. v. Mamta Bisht and Ors (2010) 12 SCC 204.
 
81
Union of India v. Ramesh Ram &Ors AIR 2010 SC 2691.
 
82
Venkatesan [15].
 
83
Jitendra Kumar Singh &Anr v. State of UP &Ors(2010) 3 SCC 119.
 
84
K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and Ors v. Union of India and Ors(2010) 7 SCC 202.
 
85
Gujarat Public Service Commission, v. Parmar Nilesh Rajendra Kumar2015 (3) GLH 481.
 
86
UP Power Corporation Ltd., v. Nitin Kumar (Special Appeal No.310 of 2015) judgment dated 19.05.2015.
 
87
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 630.
 
88
Saurav Yadav &Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors (2021) 4 SCC 542.
 
89
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal etc. v. Mamta Bisht &Ors(2010) 12 SCC 204.
 
90
Dr Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil v. The Chief Minister &Ors 2021, supra note 70.
 
91
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, supra note 3.
 
92
T. M. A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1994 SC 2372.
 
93
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India W.P.(C) No.55 of 2019, decided on 5th August 2020.
 
94
Neil Aurelio Nunes &Ors v. Union of India, supra note 4.
 
95
Volume 9, Constituent Assembly of India Debates, 23 August 1949, (June 29, 2022, 11.00 AM), https://​www.​constitutionofin​dia.​net/​constitution_​assembly_​debates/​volume/​9/​1949-08-23.
 
96
B. K. Pavitra (II) v. Union of India, supra note 69.
 
97
Dr Pradeep Jain Etc., v. Union of India &Ors 1984 SCR (3) 942.
 
98
Garrison-Wade and Lewis [16].
 
99
Wasby [17].
 
100
Brown v. Board od Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
 
101
Plessy v. Ferguson163 U.S.537.
 
102
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1984, the United States Department of Justice, (June 30, 2022, 12.00 PM), https://​www.​justice.​gov/​crt/​fcs/​TitleVI.
 
103
Laws Enforced by the Employment Litigation Section, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984, the United States Department of Justice, https://​www.​justice.​gov/​crt/​laws-enforced-employment-litigation-section.
 
104
This provision is similar to that of Article 16(2) of the Indian Constitution.
 
105
Johnson [11].
 
106
Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
 
107
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S.234, 263 (1957) (concurring result).
 
108
United States v. Paradise 480 U.S. 149 (1987).
 
109
See also Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986), United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 433 U.S. 193 (1979); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).
 
110
Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
 
111
Gratz v. Regents 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
 
112
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA), v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Et Al., 980 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2020).
 
113
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA), v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Et Al., Constitutional Law, HARVARD LAW REVIEW, (July 2, 2022, 4.00 PM), https://​harvardlawreview​.​org/​2021/​05/​students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college/​.
 
114
Price v. Civil Serv. Comm’n604 P.2d 1365, 1390 (Cal. 1980) (Mosk J., Judgment).
 
115
Plessy v. Ferugson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan J., dissenting).
 
116
Id.
 
117
Fourteenth Amendment enshrines the principle that ‘free government demands the abolition of all distinctions founded on color and race’.
 
118
Dr Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil v. The Chief Minister &Ors supra note 70.
 
119
Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India, supra note 4.
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
WESSON, MURRAY. “EQUALITY AND SOCIAL RIGHTS: AN EXPLORATION IN LIGHT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTION”, PUBLIC LAW, 751 (2007).
4.
Sandra Fredman, Substantive equality revisited,14 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 712–738, (2016).
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Macdonell. A. A, ‘ The Early History of Caste’, 19 THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW, 2, 234, (1914).
11.
12.
Sujay Biswas, Gandhi, Ambedkar and British policy on the Communal Award, 5 STUDIES IN PEOPLE’S HISTORY, 1, 48–64, (2018).
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Stephen L. Wasby, “ Compensatory Discrimination” and American “Affirmative Action”: Some Parallels - A Review of Galanter's Competing Equalities, 8 LAW & POL'Y 379, 380 (1986).
18.
Metadata
Title
Equality, Merit and Affirmative Action: India and USA
Authors
M. R. Sreenivasa Murthy
Syamala Kandadai
Copyright Year
2023
Publisher
Springer Nature Singapore
Book
Comparative Approaches in Law and Policy

Print ISBN: 978-981-9944-59-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-9944-60-6

Copyright Year: 2023

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4460-6_3