CURRENT AFFAIRS | 4 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + SOCIAL JUSTICE & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
• Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) — Reservation provisions
• Article 46 — DPSP on promotion of educational interests of SC/ST
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — Mandal Commission case, 50% cap
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) — Reservation in promotions conditions
• Substantive equality vs formal equality in Indian jurisprudence
What Happened: Zero SC/ST Faculty in IIT Delhi Departments
A memorandum submitted to a Parliamentary Committee has revealed that several departments at IIT Delhi have zero Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) faculty members. This alarming disclosure has reignited the debate on reservation implementation in premier educational institutions and the gap between constitutional mandates and ground reality.
Key findings from the memorandum:
- Multiple departments at IIT Delhi operate with no SC/ST representation among faculty
- The situation persists despite constitutional provisions mandating reservation in public employment
- Central Educational Institutions Act 2006 requires reservation in faculty appointments
- The Parliamentary Committee has sought a detailed explanation from IIT Delhi administration
- Similar concerns have been raised about other IITs and central universities
Constitutional Framework on Reservation
– Article 15(4) — State can make special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs (added by 1st Amendment 1951)
– Article 15(5) — Special provisions for admission to educational institutions including private (added by 93rd Amendment 2005)
– Article 16(4) — Reservation in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented
– Article 16(4A) — Reservation in promotions for SCs and STs (added by 77th Amendment 1995)
– Article 16(4B) — Carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies (added by 81st Amendment 2000)
– Article 46 — DPSP directing State to promote educational and economic interests of SC/ST
– Article 335 — Claims of SCs and STs to services consistent with efficiency of administration
– Article 338 — National Commission for Scheduled Castes
Landmark Cases on Reservation
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — The Mandal Case
A nine-judge bench in this landmark case:
- Upheld 27% OBC reservation recommended by the Mandal Commission
- Imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservation (with exceptions for extraordinary situations)
- Excluded the “creamy layer” from OBC reservation benefits
- Held that reservation under Article 16(4) is an enabling provision, not mandatory
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
The Supreme Court upheld reservation in promotions but imposed three conditions the State must demonstrate:
- Backwardness of the class
- Inadequacy of representation in the services
- Overall efficiency of administration would not be compromised
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
Modified M. Nagaraj by holding that the State need not collect quantifiable data to demonstrate backwardness of SCs/STs for reservation in promotions, as their backwardness is constitutionally recognized.
Substantive Equality: The Constitutional Vision
The zero SC/ST faculty situation raises fundamental questions about substantive equality versus formal equality:
- Formal equality — Treating everyone the same, regardless of existing inequalities
- Substantive equality — Recognizing that treating unequals equally perpetuates inequality; requires affirmative action
- The Indian Constitution adopts substantive equality through Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46
- Reservation is not an exception to equality but a facet of equality itself
| SC Reservation (Central) | 15% |
| ST Reservation (Central) | 7.5% |
| OBC Reservation | 27% |
| EWS Reservation (103rd Amd) | 10% |
| Total Cap (Indra Sawhney) | 50% (with exceptions) |
| Art 15(4) Added | 1st Amendment 1951 |
| NCSC (Article) | Article 338 |
• Reservation articles — Art 15(4), 15(5), 16(4), 16(4A) are among the most tested in CLAT
• Indra Sawhney — The Mandal case and 50% cap rule is a CLAT essential
• M. Nagaraj conditions — Three-fold test for reservation in promotions
• Substantive vs formal equality — Key concept in legal reasoning
• Parliamentary oversight — Role of committees in holding institutions accountable
• Article 46 DPSP — State obligation towards weaker sections
R — Right to equality (Art 14, 15, 16)
E — Enabling provision (Art 16(4) — Indra Sawhney)
S — Substantive equality (not just formal)
E — EWS — 103rd Amendment (10%)
R — Representation inadequacy must be shown (M. Nagaraj)
V — Validity upheld by Constitution Bench
E — Efficiency of administration (Art 335)
Source: The Indian Express — 4 April 2026
Practice Quiz
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
