Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while simultaneously enabling special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and economically weaker sections. Under Indian law, Article 15 is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, enforceable through Articles 32 and 226.
Legal definition
The Constitution provides the following text of Article 15:
Article 15(1): "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them."
Article 15(2): "No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to — (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public."
Article 15(3): "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children."
Article 15(4): "Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."
Clause (4) was inserted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, as a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan. Clause (5), added by the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005, extends the enabling power to admissions in educational institutions including private unaided institutions. Clause (6), inserted by the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, enables reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) up to 10 per cent in addition to existing reservations.
How courts have interpreted this term
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan [AIR 1951 SC 226]
The Supreme Court struck down a communal Government Order that provided for caste-based reservation in admissions to educational institutions. The Court held that Article 29(2) — which prohibits denial of admission to state-aided educational institutions on grounds of religion, race, caste, or language — was violated by caste-based quotas, and that Article 15(1) reinforced this prohibition. This decision directly prompted Parliament to enact the First Amendment inserting Article 15(4), which carved out an exception permitting affirmative action for backward classes, SCs, and STs.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 477]
The nine-judge Bench (commonly referred to as the "Mandal Commission case") upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government services and clarified the scope of "socially and educationally backward classes" under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4). The Court imposed a 50 per cent ceiling on total reservations (subject to extraordinary circumstances), excluded the "creamy layer" among OBCs from reservation benefits, and held that economic criteria alone cannot determine backwardness under Article 15(4).
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [(2022) 2 SCC 1]
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, which introduced Article 15(6) providing 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections. The majority held that economic criteria could constitute a reasonable basis for classification and that the EWS reservation did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Why this matters
Article 15 is the foundational anti-discrimination provision in Indian constitutional law. It operates on two levels simultaneously: as a prohibition against State discrimination (clauses 1 and 2) and as an enabling provision for affirmative action (clauses 3 through 6). This dual character makes it one of the most frequently litigated fundamental rights provisions.
For practitioners, the critical interpretive question is the phrase "on grounds only of" in clause (1). The Supreme Court has consistently held that this phrase means the discrimination must be solely on the enumerated grounds. If a classification is based on other relevant considerations — such as educational qualifications, place of residence for reasonable purposes, or economic criteria — it does not violate Article 15(1) even if the classified group happens to correlate with a particular caste or religion. This distinction between discrimination "on grounds only of" a prohibited category and classification that may incidentally affect a particular group remains a recurring issue in reservation litigation.
A common misunderstanding is that Article 15 prohibits only State action. While clause (1) is indeed directed at "the State" (as defined in Article 12), clause (2) extends the prohibition to private actors — no citizen can be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment, or public facilities on discriminatory grounds. This horizontal application of a fundamental right is relatively rare in Part III and gives Article 15(2) a broader protective scope than many other fundamental rights.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Sibling provisions:
Related enforcement:
Frequently asked questions
Does Article 15 apply only to the government or also to private parties?
Article 15(1) binds "the State" as defined in Article 12. However, Article 15(2) extends the prohibition to the private sphere — no citizen can be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment, or publicly maintained facilities on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This makes Article 15(2) one of the few fundamental rights with direct horizontal application against private discrimination.
What is the 50 per cent ceiling on reservations?
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court held that total reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) should ordinarily not exceed 50 per cent. However, the Court acknowledged that extraordinary situations in remote or tribal areas may justify exceeding this limit. The 103rd Amendment (Article 15(6)) introduced EWS reservation of 10 per cent "in addition to" existing reservations, which was upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022).
Who qualifies as "socially and educationally backward classes" under Article 15(4)?
The Constitution does not define this term. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney held that backwardness must be determined primarily on social criteria (which includes caste as a relevant but not sole factor) coupled with educational backwardness. Economic backwardness alone is insufficient under clause (4). The "creamy layer" — members of backward classes who have advanced economically — must be excluded from reservation benefits under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
Can Article 15 be suspended during a national emergency?
Article 15 can be effectively suspended during a national emergency. Under Article 359, the President may by order suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights specified in the order. However, following the 44th Amendment (1978), the rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during an emergency. Since Article 15 is not similarly protected, it remains susceptible to suspension under Article 359.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.