THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONS (93rd AMENDMENT) ACT 2005

A 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar Vs. Mahatrastra1, inter alia, ruled that reservation in private, unaided educational institutions were unconstitutional. In this case the Supreme Court took the position that the right to run an educational institution is implicit in Art. 19(1)(g). This right is subject to the operation of any law relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, industry or service. Obviously, the fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) could not be restricted by any state imposed quota for the weaker sections in admission to educational institutions, as reservation of seats is not covered by any of the grounds of reasonable restrictions as stated above, except remotely “in the interest of general public” as mentioned in Art. 19(6). This factor was considered by the Supreme Court while holding that reservations in unaided private educations institutions is impermissible. This judgment forced the political class to go for a constitutional amendment and legislation to protect the reservation for schedule casts, scheduled tribes and the other backward classes in the educational institutions.