Abstract
Women’s reservations were envisioned under Article 15(3) to fulfil the goal of substantive equality in the Constitution of India. This article tries to uncover the procedural missteps that have occurred by the Supreme Court while administering the policy of women’s reservations to various public positions in the country. I argue that the reservation procedure currently put in place by the apex Court by a cumulative reading of the decisions in Anil Kumar Gupta v State of UP and Ors and Rajesh Kumar Daria v Rajasthan Public Service Commision have created an enclosed ceiling on women candidates and is contrary to the broader goal of increasing women’s representation as highlighted by the ruling of Indra Sawhney. This has led to the cumulative disenfranchisement of women and especially marginalized women from coveted public positions and has further entrenched their group disadvantage qua men. The policy procedure set by the Supreme Court has trickled down to various rulings of the High Court due to the doctrine of precedent and has made this a nationwide issue. I also argue that the reservation procedure is a form of intersectional discrimination and would be suspect on the anvils of Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution. It is therefore of urgent need that this reservation procedure be reviewed under the guiding principles of Indra Sawhney in order to enable the cherished goal of substantive equality in gender justice.
Recommended Citation
Raghavan, Rashmi
(2024)
"Stolen by Wolves: A Critique on the Supreme Court’s Understanding of Women’s Reservations in India,"
National Law School of India Review: Vol. 35:
Iss.
1, Article 9.
DOI: 10.55496/VLTA6133
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol35/iss1/9
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.55496/VLTA6133
