WHY DOES ARTICLE 29(2) NOT FORBID DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX?
V Semester, B.A. LL.B., School Of Law, DAVV, Indore
“May each who feels one with thee, know he or she is also one with every other.”
Founding fathers of the Constitution Of India have made articulated effort on credence of egalitarianism to provide for constitution with high standards & obligations and no gender bias. Inspired by the verity that prosperity & welfare sustain with gender-equality, in preamble itself aim of securing to all citizen equality of status & of opportunity is envisaged.
Assured social, economic & political justice is yet another constitutional aspiration and Right To Equality is also enumerated in Article-14, even then discrimination on the ground of sex is not forbidden by Art.29(2). In this paper causes & consequences of the same are figured out. Here requirement and effect of such discrimination is discussed to draw inference about actual nature of this provision in light of cases viz.
1. State Of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
2. State Of Bombay v. Bombay Educational Society
3. University Of Madras v. Shantha Bai
4. Joseph Thomas v. State of Kerela
5. Mark Netto v. Government of Kerela, etc.
“No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”
X. An overview on impact of Article29 (2):
§ The High Court of Madras has held that the effect of omitting the word ‘sex’ from Art.29 (2) is that the right of women to admission in educational institutions is a matter within the regulations of college authorities.
§ A girl student can be denied admission in educational institutions.
§ A male can be denied admission in “female exclusive” institution.
Objective Achievement -
Combined principles of equality in Articles 14, 15(1), 15(4) and 29(2) are applied for equality on broader basis.
Socio-Economic Influence –
Role in Liberal Education -
Art. 29(2) serve as an incentive for people to send their daughters to schools so it ensures female education & in a way is vital for liberal education. It is highly significant as “our concept of freedom will remain impoverished one, until it is rounded & deepened by liberal education”. Moreover, a gender- sensitive curriculum as validated by absence of ground of ‘sex’ in Art.29(2) is a crucial element of liberal education.
Article 29(2) is highly effective & extensive. Although it doesn’t directly forbid denial of admission on the basis of ‘sex’ in state-aided institutions yet it doesn’t refer to discriminating approach in any sense as its read with Article 15 and its sole motive is to keep range for preservation of socio-cultural & community based education related standards which are resultant of logical expectations, intact.
With broad sensitization of religious & regional requirements & keeping in view consequential issues by not mentioning word ‘sex’ in Art. 29(2) the constitution framers took remarkably reasonable step, to deal with the situations that perhaps arise.
Art.29(2) has no gender bias but only moral & social inclination. Undoubtedly it is not meant to imply or inspire discrimination, but has foresight within & with varied perspectives in vision, it equips the Constitution of India for intensive application, to provide education to all without costing social sentiments to fulfill personal aims of individuals whether male or female.
So, the quintessence of the provision for justification & application is derived & defined not by superficial words only but by deep contemplation & reference of purpose, allied provisions & precedents, by giving attention to all words & also by reading beyond its lines but between lines of other cardinal provisions, so as to correctly assess it is not discriminating & to observe it as an imperative for the enlightened & educated nation.
1. Constitution Of India, V.N. Shukla, By Mahendra P. Singh, Edition2001,
2. Constitutional Law Of India, Dr. J.N. Pandey, Edition 2003,
3. The Constitution Of India, P.M. Bakshi, Edition 2001,
4. Digest Of All India Education Cases (1950-1955), A.K. Yog, Edition 1996, and
5. We The Nation, Nani A. Palkhiwala, Ó1994.
 AIR 1951 SC 226
 AIR 1954 SC 561
 AIR 1954 SC Mad. 67
 AIR 1958 ker. 33
 AIR 1979 SC 83
 Added by the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951
 Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) SC 374
 Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India, AIR 1993 SC 477,para.4
 AIR 1953 Bom. 311
 Kathi Rani Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, (1952)
 St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi (1992)
 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
 Concept by Jeremy Benthem
 Dattatrya v. State AIR 1953 Bom. 311
 Muller v. Oregan.52 L.Ed. 551.
 AIR 1978 SC 597.
 Joseph Thomas v. State of Kerela, AIR 1958 Ker 33.
Nageshwara Rao v. Principal, Medical College, AIR 1962 AP 212.
 Ramesh Chandra v. Principal, B.B.I. College, AIR 1953 all. 90.
 Ravneet kaur v. Christian medical college, AIR 1998 P&H 1 .
 Asha Gupta v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987, P&H 227;
Gurpreet Singh Siddhu v. Punjab University, Chandigarh, AIR 1938, P & H 78.
 Mark Netto v. state of Kerela, AIR 1979 SC 83.
 University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, AIR 1954 SC Mad.67.
 Implied from verdict of Dattatrya v. State, AIR 1953 Bom.
 Pg. 226-227 AK Yog’s Digest Of All India Education Cases.
 Nani A Palkhiwala, We The Nation, Pg. 240