The question asks about the specific Constitutional Amendment that added Article 15(4), which empowers the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. To answer this, one needs to recall the history of constitutional amendments related to reservations and social justice.
B) 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 is the correct answer. This amendment introduced Article 15(4), which allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. This was a direct response to the Supreme Court's judgment in the State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), which had struck down reservation policies based on Article 15(1).
The question asks about the landmark Supreme Court case that introduced the 'creamy layer' concept for OBC reservation. This concept aims to exclude the economically and socially advanced individuals from the benefits of reservation meant for the truly backward classes.
D) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1992), upheld the validity of 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services. However, it also mandated the exclusion of the 'creamy layer' from these reservations. The Court held that the benefits of reservation should not be cornered by the elite among the backward classes and directed the government to identify and exclude such individuals.
The question asks about the specific provision of Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution regarding reservations in public employment. To answer this, one must recall the exact wording and intent of this article.
D) Article 16(4) explicitly states that "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."
The question asks to identify the specific Article of the Indian Constitution that was violated by communal reservation in educational institutions, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951). This case is crucial for understanding the early interpretation of fundamental rights and the introduction of the First Amendment.
Correct Option: B) Article 29(2) was the specific provision that the Supreme Court found to be violated by the communal reservation policy in educational institutions in the Champakam Dorairajan case.
The question asks to identify the specific Article of the Indian Constitution that allows for residence as a condition for state employment, serving as an exception to the general rule of non-discrimination in public employment (Article 16(2)). We need to recall the provisions of Article 16 and its various clauses.
A) Article 16(3) provides that Parliament can make a law prescribing residence as a condition for certain state employments. This is a specific exception to the general prohibition against discrimination on grounds of residence mentioned in Article 16(2).
The question asks to identify the specific Article and clause in the Indian Constitution that allows for special provisions concerning employment in religious or denominational institutions. This requires knowledge of Article 16, which deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
B) Article 16(5) — This Article explicitly states that a law can provide 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. This is the exception to the general rule of non-discrimination in public employment, specifically for religious or denominational institutions.