In today’s world the word “esotericism” may sound obnoxious to some because ‘education for all’ is the catchword — the summum bonum — of the society. However a little study of the recent caselaws shows that even the Supreme Court of India has been supportive of my view.
Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Likewise, Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits “discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”
Similarly Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
“(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (Emphasis mine, mark the words “on the basis of merit”)
Moved by this spirit of the age, a bench of the Supreme Court of India discussed in 1992 the question: “Is there a `right to education’ guaranteed to the people of India under the Constitution”.
Hearing the case Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors (1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658) the bench comprising Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R M Sahai said in its judgement delivered on July 30, 1992:
“The ‘right to education’, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The State is under a constitutional-mandate to provide educational institutions at all levels for the benefit of the citizens.
Mohini Jain case judgement held ground for nearly 10 years, — till 2003 — when it was overturned by a landmark case Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645, in which a five-judge bench constituted for the specific purpose of reconsidering Mohini Jain case ruled that the ‘right to education’ only extends to children up to the age of 14 years. (Emphasis mine)
My intention here, however, is to draw your attention to a landmark judgement delivered just three months after the Mohini Jain case.
This case, Indra Sawhney vs Union of India and others (popularly called the Mandal Commission case) heard by a 9-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court redefined the concept of affirmative action, streamlined reservation in jobs and college admissions — and said an exceptionally significant thing that I would like to quote here.
Delivering its judgement on November 16, 1992 just three and a half months after the Mohini Jain case the 9-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court said that there are some key posts and some specific fields where merit alone will count and no reservation rule shall apply. The thought behind this is that there are, in every society, some exclusive pockets, some positions where only merit matters.
The 9-judge constitution bench said : “we are of the opinion that there are certain services and positions where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit as explained hereinabove, alone counts (Emphasis mine).”. For example, technical posts in research and development organisations/ departments/ institutions, in specialities and super-specialties in medicine, engineering and other such courses in physical sciences and mathematics, in defence services and in the establishments connected therewith. Similarly, in the case of posts at the higher echelons e.g., Professors (in Education), Pilots in Indian Airlines and Air India, Scientists and Technicians in nuclear and space application, provision for reservation would not be advisable.”
The court specified the services and fields : ” (1) Defence Services including all technical posts therein but excluding civil posts. (2) All technical posts in establishments engaged in Research and Development including those connected with atomic energy and space and establishments engaged in production of defence equipment; (3) Teaching posts of Professors – and above, if any. (4) Posts in super-specialities in Medicine, engineering and other scientific and technical subjects. (5) Posts of pilots (and co-pilots) in Indian Airlines and Air India. The list given above is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. It is for the Government of India to consider and specify the service and posts to which the Rule of reservation shall not apply…..”
The crux of the argument that I would like to stress upon here is that in the higher echelons of life it’s merit that matters.
But then how and where do we get such meritorious persons?