Author: Kavya Grover, Student at Christ University, Bangalore
Co-Author: Nehil Gulati, Student at IMS Unison University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
The legitimacy of Indian Government since independence is closely to its ability to integrate large historically marginalized populations into the Indian Political System. Prior to independence, Indian leaders advocated preferential treatment for groups that suffered economic and social discrimination as a result of the caste system. “Equality” appears to be easy as a notion, but it is actually deceptively complex. Jurists differentiated among ‘formal equality’ and ‘substantial equality’ concepts of equality. A formal equality instance is a teacher who spends exactly the same quantity of time in a school on each student. But if the professor were to devote various quantities of time to distinct student organizations depending on their perceived requirements, it is an instance of substantial equality. While formal equality requires the state to treat people equally before the law, substantive equality recognizes the reality that equality exists only between equals and that perpetuating inequality is equal treatment.
If certain classes of people have been severely disadvantaged by serious historical injustices, states can legally and beneficially take steps to ameliorate that situation until the former victims are able to empower themselves and act without special protection. The concept of substantial equality dominates both global human rights law and domestic law in all democracies. In this article, the authors attempt to analyse the 2019 Constitution (103rd Amendment), which introduced two new provisions allowing states to reserve up to 10% for the economically vulnerable (EWS) of non-enrolled persons. Try it. Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and another non-creamy backward tier, how justified in terms of reservation jurisprudence.