Delhi's DURGA scheme reserving 1,300 pink e-auto permits solely for women raises the question of whether gender-exclusive public transport licensing is a justified affirmative action or unconstitutional discrimination against male operators.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'State Governments Should Reserve Public Transport Licenses Exclusively for Women Operators' — yani kya rajya sarkaar ko public transport licenses sirf mahila operators ke liye reserve karne chahiye? Yeh ek mahatvapurna niti aur samvidhanik sawaal hai, aur main chahti hoon ki dono paksh is par apne tark khule dimaag se rakhein. Counsel Aarav, aap pehle shuru karein — apna paksh clearly pesh karein.
My lord, main yeh firmly submit karta hoon ki public transport licenses ko exclusively women operators ke liye reserve karna ek constitutionally valid aur socially imperative step hai. Article 15(3) ke antargat State ko expressly shakti di gayi hai ki woh women ke liye special provisions bana sake — yeh koi exception nahi, balki Constitution ki positive obligation hai. Aur agar koi doubt ho, to Andhra Pradesh Act 2019 ka Section 3 ek living legislative precedent hai jo dikhata hai ki State governments works aur service contracts mein 50% reservation women ke liye horizontal basis par de sakti hain — isliye public transport licensing bhi is framework ke andar aata hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 15; Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservation to women in Works Contracts and Service Contracts given on nomination) Act, 2019. · Section 3
My Lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki 'exclusively for women operators' ka matlab hai ki koi bhi purush, chahe kitna bhi yogya ho, sirf apne gender ke aadhar par public transport license se vanchit kar diya jayega, aur yahi Article 14 ka seedha ullan hai jo kehta hai ki koi bhi 'reasonable classification' ke bina kisi vyakti ke saath bhedbhav nahi ho sakta. Paksh ne Article 15(3) ka sahara liya hai, lekin My Lord, 15(3) ek 'special provision' ki anumati deta hai — poori tarah 'exclusion' ki nahi; yeh distinction critical hai aur paksh ki core argument ko hi tod deta hai. Ek 100% exclusive reservation manifestly arbitrary hai, aur Shayara Bano judgment ke antargat Article 14 ki kasauti par yeh teek nahi utarti.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki yeh reservation arbitrary hai — lekin main Article 15(3) ki taraf dhyan dilata hoon, jo State ko specifically women ke liye special provisions banane ki shakti deta hai, aur yahi is motion ki neev hai. Aur A6 — Andhra Pradesh 50% Reservation Act, 2019, Section 3 — ek living example hai jahan ek State government ne works aur service contracts mein women ko exclusive reservation di aur usse constitutionally valid maana gaya. My Lord, public transport licensing bhi ek service contract ka hi roop hai — to yeh motion usi tested constitutional framework ke andar aata hai, koi nayi baat nahi.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 15; Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservation to women in Works Contracts and Service Contracts given on nomination) Act, 2019. · Section 3
My lord, paksh ne Article 15(3) ka sahara liya — lekin woh provision 'special provisions' ki baat karta hai, na ki EXCLUSIVE reservation ki. Article 14 ke under intelligible differentia ka rational nexus hona chahiye — aur Shayara Bano mein Supreme Court ne spashtata kaha hai ki manifest arbitrariness constitutional nahi hoti. Ek poori category ko licence se bahar karna — chahe ek bhi mahila operator na ho kisi route par — yeh classification nahi, yeh complete exclusion hai, jo Article 14 ki kasauti par tik hi nahi sakti. Andhra Pradesh Act 2019 ka Section 3 bhi dekhen, my lord — wahan 50% horizontal reservation ka provision hai, 100% monopoly ka nahi — toh paksh ka yeh argument bhi unki apni cited analogy se contradict karta hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14; Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservation to women in Works Contracts and Service Contracts given on nomination) Act, 2019. · Section 3
Petitioner ki taraf se yeh argument raha ki Article 15(3) ke tahat women ke liye special provision ek constitutionally valid affirmative action hai, aur Andhra Pradesh Act 2019 jaisa legislative precedent bhi is approach ko support karta hai — jabki Respondent ki taraf se yeh kehna raha ki 'exclusive' reservation manifest arbitrariness ki seema tak jaata hai, jo Article 14 ke intelligible differentia test ko satisfy nahi karta kyunki rational nexus bina complete exclusion ke bhi achieve ho sakta hai. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki State 'exclusive' reservation ki jagah substantial priority-based reservation — jaise 50-70 percent licenses women operators ko — implement kare, jo Article 15(3) ka benefit bhi de aur Article 14 ki reasonableness bhi maintain kare. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko apne hisaab se rate karein aur apni raay neeche share karein.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 15; Constitution of India · Article 14; Andhra Pradesh (50 Percent Reservation to women in Works Contracts and Service Contracts given on nomination) Act, 2019. · Section 3