Day 9 : “From Constituent Assembly to Constitutional Morality: The Journey of Affirmative Actions in India” by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Former Chief Justice of India.

Event Date: 1st November 2025

Event brief description

The Masterclass Series at Galgotias University commenced on 23rd August 2025 with its inaugural lecture titled “From Constituent Assembly to Constitutional Morality: The Journey of Affirmative Actions in India” by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Former Chief Justice of India. The event was graced by Prof. (Dr.) Aditya Tomer, Dean, School of Law, Galgotias University. In continuation with earlier lectures in this series, Justice U. U. Lalit in current lecture examined the evolution of affirmative action and the Right to Education as foundational pillars of social justice in India. He traced affirmative action’s roots to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of substantive equality, explaining constitutional provisions under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and key cases like Balaji and Indra Sawhney, which established limits and refined the creamy layer principle. He discussed interlocking reservations and the need for periodic review to maintain equity. Transitioning to education, he highlighted Mohini Jain, Unnikrishnan, and the 86th Amendment establishing Article 21A. Drawing from his own judgment in Bihar Secondary Teachers, he stressed that quality education and teacher welfare are vital. Concluding, he affirmed that reservation and education together ensure real equality and empowerment.

Event Detailed Description

Justice U.U. Lalit began his lecture by tracing the philosophical and constitutional evolution of affirmative action in India. He explained that the framers of the Constitution, particularly Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, envisioned equality not as formal sameness but as substantive equality, requiring proactive State intervention. Affirmative action, he noted, was thus adopted as a constitutional strategy to correct systemic and historical injustices faced by socially and educationally backward classes. Articles 15(4) and 16(4), inserted through the First Amendment (1951), were designed to empower the State to create enabling conditions for marginalized groups to participate fully in governance and public life.

Elaborating on the constitutional framework, Justice Lalit focused on Article 16, which ensures equality of opportunity in public employment. He referred to Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), where the Supreme Court first articulated the 50% ceiling on reservations to maintain a balance between equality and representation. He then discussed the Eighty-First Amendment (2000), which added Article 16(4B), clarifying that unfilled backlog vacancies would not count toward the 50% ceiling. This, he explained, aimed to protect the representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) without undermining the broader equality principle.

Justice Lalit highlighted the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment as the constitutional touchstone for reservation jurisprudence. The Court, he observed, reaffirmed the creamy layer doctrine to ensure equitable distribution of benefits within backward classes and held that Article 16(4) was an enabling, not an exceptional, provision to Article 16(1). He also noted the Court’s position that reservations in promotions were impermissible without constitutional backing and empirical justification—a stance later modified through amendments and subsequent rulings.

An important aspect of his address was the discussion on interlocking reservations, recognizing that caste, gender, and economic disadvantage often overlap. Justice Lalit emphasized that affirmative action should remain dynamic, subject to empirical review and social audits, to ensure it continues addressing contemporary inequities effectively.

Transitioning to the Right to Education (RTE), Justice Lalit traced its judicial roots to Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka(1992) and Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), where education was recognized as integral to the right to life under Article 21. These judgments ultimately led to the insertion of Article 21A through the Eighty-Sixth Amendment (2002), mandating free and compulsory education for children up to 14 years.

Citing State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019), where he himself was part of the bench, Justice Lalit underlined that quality education depends on teachers’ dignity and fair remuneration. Concluding, he observed that affirmative action and education form the twin pillars of India’s social justice framework: reservations create equitable access, while education ensures enduring empowerment and democratic participation.

Department Name – School of Law

Related Goal