Article 15 Discrimination Rules

1. Evidence 1: A state university enacts an admissions policy that explicitly denies entry to all applicants solely because they belong to a specific recognized caste. Inference 1: This policy is a direct violation of the prohibitions outlined in Article 15.

2. Evidence 2: A state government creates a specialized welfare fund accessible exclusively to citizens who are classified as socially and educationally backward. Inference 2: This policy is constitutionally valid because socio-economic backwardness is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.

3. Evidence 3: Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds 'only' of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Inference 3: Therefore, a state policy that requires applicants to pass a strict physical fitness test, resulting in a higher rejection rate for women, is inherently unconstitutional.

1. Assertion (A): The State is constitutionally permitted to enact discriminatory legislation favoring a specific caste, provided that caste is demonstrably backward in social and educational metrics.

2. Reason (R1): Article 15 prevents discrimination 'only' on the basis of caste; integrating backwardness as an additional eligibility condition satisfies the constitutional exception.

3. Reason (R2): The Constitution strictly prohibits any state policy that mentions or utilizes caste data, rendering all caste-based affirmative action illegal.

1. Statement 1: Only Policy Z is valid, as Article 15 strictly prohibits discrimination based on both place of birth and residence.

2. Statement 2: Policies Y and Z are valid; Policy Y because 'residence' is not a prohibited ground under Article 15, and Policy Z because of explicit constitutional exceptions for STs.

3. Statement 3: All three policies are invalid, as any form of demographic discrimination violates the absolute guarantee of equality.

1. The constitutional text explicitly lists 'current residence' as a prohibited ground for state discrimination.

2. The inclusion of the word 'only' ensures that state policies combining a protected ground (like sex) with an unprotected ground (like physical strength) are legally permissible.

3. The State is completely barred from utilizing a citizen's caste as a factor in any administrative welfare decision.

4. Specific constitutional clauses explicitly authorize the state to draft specialized advancement policies for socially backward classes.