Non-discrimination in public administration
Non-discrimination in Public Administration
Non-discrimination in public administration is a fundamental principle rooted in the idea that public authorities must treat all individuals equally without unfair bias, prejudice, or discrimination based on race, religion, caste, gender, nationality, political belief, or other irrelevant factors. This principle ensures fairness, justice, and equality in the administration of government policies, services, and functions.
In most democratic constitutions, non-discrimination is often enshrined either explicitly or implicitly through guarantees of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (e.g., Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution).
The principle applies to:
Recruitment and promotion in public employment
Provision of public services
Allocation of benefits and entitlements
Enforcement of laws and regulations
Public administrators must ensure decisions and actions are based on objective criteria and merit, not on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds.
Important Case Laws on Non-Discrimination in Public Administration
1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Facts: The petitioner, E.P. Royappa, challenged the arbitrary and discriminatory transfer orders passed by the state government.
Issue: Whether the principle of equality means merely formal equality or it includes substantive equality prohibiting arbitrariness and discrimination.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that "Equality" is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and cannot be confined to a formalistic meaning. Any action by the administration that is arbitrary will be considered discriminatory.
Significance: This case expanded the scope of non-discrimination to include arbitrariness. Arbitrary action by the administration violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission case)
Facts: The government issued orders reserving a percentage of jobs in public employment for backward classes.
Issue: Whether reservation policies in public administration violate the principle of non-discrimination.
Holding: The Court upheld the policy but also held that reservations should be reasonable and not exceed 50%, maintaining the principle that affirmative action must not be arbitrary and must aim to correct historical disadvantages.
Significance: Affirmed that non-discrimination does not prohibit affirmative action; rather, such measures are necessary to achieve substantive equality in public administration.
3. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: The petitioner challenged discrimination in the recruitment process where a person was denied employment based on caste.
Issue: Whether caste-based discrimination violates the right to equality in public employment.
Holding: The court held that discrimination in public employment on the basis of caste is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 15, and 16.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that public administration must be free from caste-based discrimination.
4. Dharam Dutt v. Union of India (1975)
Facts: The case involved the arbitrary dismissal of an employee on grounds not related to misconduct or incompetence.
Issue: Whether the dismissal violated principles of non-discrimination.
Holding: The Court emphasized that public administration must act fairly and non-arbitrarily. Dismissal or punishment without just cause and due procedure is discriminatory.
Significance: Highlighted the procedural fairness aspect of non-discrimination in public employment.
5. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
Facts: The issue involved the validity of reservation for Scheduled Castes in promotions within public employment.
Issue: Whether reservations in promotions violate the right to equality.
Holding: The Court upheld reservations in promotions, holding that they do not violate equality but help ensure equal opportunity.
Significance: Affirmed that non-discrimination principles allow affirmative action for backward classes to promote substantive equality.
Summary of Key Principles from the Cases:
Equality is substantive, not just formal: It means more than equal treatment; it includes protection against arbitrary and discriminatory action (Royappa).
Affirmative action is compatible with non-discrimination: Measures like reservation are allowed to correct historical injustices (Indra Sawhney, N.M. Thomas).
Caste, religion, race, gender-based discrimination is prohibited: Such discrimination violates constitutional guarantees (K.C. Vasanth Kumar).
Fair procedure and non-arbitrariness are essential: Administrative decisions must be made fairly and based on valid grounds (Dharam Dutt).
Public administration must balance equality with social justice: Non-discrimination includes ensuring all citizens have equal opportunity to benefit from government employment and services.
RELATED Blog
0 comments