Here is a complete way How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper, Here is a research paper from the subject Family law on the topic Right To Equality which is so beneficial for the law students for the under graduated students as well as for Post Graduated students. Have a look towards it.
How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper
(NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY)
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
RESEARCH PAPER- ON RIGHT TO EQUALITY
(Name of Your Semester)
Submitted To– (Name of the teacher)
Submitted By– (Name)
“It is not possible to prepare a project without the assistance and encourages of other people. This one is certainly no exception.” I have taken efforts in this project, However, It would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals and name of your university. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our faculty NAME as well as our Chancellor NAME who gave me this wonderful opportunity to this wonderful Research project on the Topic (Right To Equality) , which also helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know so many things about this. And this project report helps in better understanding of the subject matter, I am really thankful to all. I couldn’t forget Books and internet which provided me with substantive matter about all this.
How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper
- RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ARTICLES 14-18)
- ARTICLE 14: EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
- NEW CONCEPGT OF EQUALITY
- ARTICLE 15: PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION
- Article 15(3)
- Article 15(4)
- ARTICLE 16: EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
- THE CONSTITUTION 77TH AMENDMENT, 1995
- THE CONSTITUTION 85TH AMMENDMENT ACT, 2001
- CONSTITUTION 81ST AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
The Constitution promises ‘equality before law’ to all citizens and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Equality of opportunity in public employment is guaranteed. Practice of untouchability is prohibited and made an offence. Conferring of titles is also prohibited. This is especially significant in view of titles like Nawabs, Rajas and Rai Sahibs which made distinctions of status before Independence.
Article 14: Equality before law
Article 14 declares that ‘the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India’. This means that every person, who lives within territory of India, has the equal right before the law. That equals will be treated equally. Thus Article 14 uses two expressions “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law”. The first expression “equality before law” is of English origin and the second expression has been taken from the American Constitution.
While both the expression may seem identical, they do not convey the same meaning. While “equality before the law” is a somewhat negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege in favor of individuals and equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law. “Equal protection of the law” is a more positive concept implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances. The rule is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.
But there are certain exceptions to the right to equality. Article 361 provides that the President and Governors shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise of powers and duties of their office. The words ‘any person’ in Article 14 makes the equal protection of laws available to any person both citizens and non-citizens and to natural persons as well as legal persons.
Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation
The equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character. It does not mean that the same laws should apply to all persons. It does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. In Abdul Rehman v. Pinto, AIR 1951 Hyd 11, it was held that the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment.
From the very nature of society there should be different laws in different places and the Legislature controls the policy and enact laws in the best interest of the safety and security of the State. In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. So, a reasonable classification is only not permitted but is necessary if society is to progress. Therefore, Article 14 forbids class-legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions.
New Concept of Equality
In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, the Supreme court laid down a new concept of equality. The Court held, “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and  dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within traditional and doctrinaire  limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithesis to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belong to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.
Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Supreme Court held Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non- arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Article 15 provides for a particular application of the general principle embodied in Article 14. The first clause of Article 15 directs the State not to discriminate against a citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth or any of them. The second clause prohibits citizens as well as the States from making such discrimination with regard to access to shops, hotels, etc., and all places of public entertainment, of public resort, wells, tanks, roads, etc.
The first clause of Article 15 mentions the prohibited grounds in any matter which is exclusively within the control of the State. The second clause prohibits both the State and the private individual, whosoever is in the control of the abovementioned places. The third clause empowers the State to make special provisions for the protection of women and children. The fourth clause which was added by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951, enables the State to make special provisions for the protection of interests of the Backward classes of citizens and is, therefore, an exception to Articles 15 and 29(2) of the Constitution.
Article 15(3) is one of the two exceptions to the general rule laid down in Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15. It says that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. Women and children require special treatment on account of their very nature. Thus, under Article 42, women workers can be given special maternity relief and a law to this effect will not infringe Article 15(1). Again, it would not be violation of Article 15 i.e., educational institutions are established by the State exclusively for women.
Article 15(4) is another exception to Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15, was added by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951, as a result of the decision in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226. Under this clause, the State is empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
In Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649, the Supreme Court held that sub-classification made between ‘backward classes’ and ‘more backward classes’ was not justified under Article 15(4). “Backwardness” as envisaged by Article 15(4) must be both social and educational and not either social or educational.
The new Clause 5 was added to Article 15 by Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2006. It Provides that nothing in Article 15 or in sub-clause (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19/ shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Caste-or Schedule Tribes in far as such special provision relate to admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30.
Article 16: Equality of opportunity in Public Employment
Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of ’employment’ or ‘appointment’ to any post under the State. Clause (2) says that no citizen shall, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. An important point to note here is that two additional grounds “descent” and residence not included in Article 15 have been added to Article 16(2). Clauses (3), (4) and (5) of Article 16 provides exceptions to this general rule of equality of opportunity.
Under clause (3) residence within the State may be laid down by Parliament as a condition for particular classes of employment or appointment under any State or other local authority. Article 16(4) empowers the State to make special provision for reservation of appointments of posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of State are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
It must be interpreted in the light of Article 335 which says that the claims of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.  In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490, the Supreme Court held that Article 16(4)  indicated one of the methods of achieving equality embodied in Article 16(1), and Article 6(4) do not exhausts the equality of opportunity which can be made available to the backward classes. Thus, Article 16(4) is not to be read by way of any exception to Article 16(1).
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India — Mandal Case
The scope and extent of Article 16(4) was examined thoroughly by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477. In this case 9 Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. by a 6:3 majority held that the decision of the Union Government to reserve 27% Government jobs for backward classes provided socially advanced persons i.e., creamy layer among them are eliminated, is constitutionally valid. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court on various aspects of reservation provided in Article 16(4) may be summarized as follows:—
- The majority held that backward classes of citizens in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of caste and not only on economic basis. A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India and if it is backward socially it would be a backward class for the purpose of Article 16(4). There are other criteria viz., occupational groups, classes and communities for the purpose of identification of backward classes.
- The majority held that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but an independent clause. Reservation can be made under Clause (1) of Article 16 on the basis of reasonable classification.
- Backward classes in Article 16(4) are not similar to socially ai4d educationally backward in Article 15(4). It is much wider. The “backward class of citizens” in Article 16(4) takes in SCS and STS and other backward classes of citizens including the socially and educationally backward classes.
- The creamy layer or socially advanced must be excluded from backward classes while conferring reservation.
- Article 16(4) permits of backward classes into backward and more backward. It was held the classification is necessary to help the more backward classes, otherwise the advanced sections among them might take all the benefits of reservations.
- A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria as it would defeat the very object of Article 16(4) to give adequate representation to backward classes in the services. Article 16(4) is not aimed at economic upliftment or alleviation of poverty. It is specially designed to give a due share in the government services to those who have remained out of it mainly on account of their backwardness.
- Reservation shall not exceed 50 per cent. However, in extraordinary situations it may be relaxed in favor of people living in far flung and remote areas of country who because of their peculiar conditions and characteristics need a different treatment.
- The majority held that reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be made in promotions.
The Constitution 77th Amendment Act, 1995
This amendment was passed to remove the difficulty created by the Mandal case in which the court held that reservation could not be made to promotion in jobs. It added Clause (4A) to Article 16 which provides that, “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services of the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State”.
The Constitution 85th Amendment Act, 2001
This Amendment has substituted in Clause 4A, for the words “in matters of promotion to any class” the words “in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class”.
Constitution 81st Amendment Act, 2000-—insertion of New Clause (4B) in Article 16
This Amendment added a new Clause (4B) to Article 16 which ended the 50% ceiling on reservation for SC/STs and OBCs in backlog vacancies which could not be filled due to non- availability of eligible candidates. It provides that the unfilled vacancies would be treated as a separate class and would be filled in succeeding year or years and will not be considered together with vacancies of the year in which they are being filled-up, even if the 50% limit imposed in Mandal case is crossed.
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
Article 18 abolishes titles. Military and academic distinctions are, however, exempted from the prohibition. Clause (2) prohibits a citizen of India from accepting any title from any foreign State. Clause (3) provides that a foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the State cannot accept any title from any foreign State without the consent of the President. Clause (4) provides ,that no person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall accept, without the consent of the President any present, emolument or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.
CONCLUSION- How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper
Right to Equality is a necessity for every individual living in any democratic set-up. In countries such as India, equality is essential due to the significant economic, social and political disparities. Some have benefitted from the system of reservation while a specific section of the society doesn’t accept reservation in today’s time.
Barring reservation, equality attempts to put everyone on a level playing field, which is a man’s natural right. Nobody is born equal physically or mentally, and some are very good and some not so good. One can overcome these if equality is there in society. To achieve equality in the practical sense, one has to do away with discrimination.
- Books- Gaurav Mehta (LAW 4th Edition)
- Internet- (Link for the source)