1) State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, Sex, place of birth or any of them.
In Nainsukhdas vs St. of UP, it was held elections on the basis of separate electorates based on different religions is unconstitutional.
2) No citizen 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 shops, restaurants & hotels or
b. Wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads dedicated to public use.
3) Nothing prevents in this article to state making any Special provisions for Women and children.
In case of Joseph shine vs UOI, struck down Sec. 497 of Indian Penal Code as penalizing adultery is Violative of FR & women is treated as property of man violative of Fundamental Right.
4) Nothing in this article or clause (2) of article 29 prevent the state from making special provision for advancement of any socially & educationally backward classes of citizen or SC or ST.
This is enabling provisions & does not impose any obligation on the state. to take special action. Writ can not be issued against state to make laws.
a. "Backward classes" not defined under Constitution, But U/A 340 empowers the president to appoint commission to investigate condition of socially & educationally backward classes.
Recent amendments provides President power to amend the socially & educationally backward classes through notification with respect to Central list.
b. In M.R. Balaji vs St. of Mysore, all communities in Mysore Except Brahmin got reservation i.e. 75% reservation. High Court of Mysore quashed order.
Further state declared classification as Backward , more backward , SC & ST.HC held classification is not bad. But, Caste is not sole test for reservation.
In Indra Sawhney vs UOI i.e. Mandel commission case court held that classification of Backward classes can be done but should not exceed 50%, that is limit for reservation is 50%.
5) Nothing in this article & 19 (1) (g) shall prevent State from making any special provision by law for advancement of socially & educationally backward classes or SC or ST in special provision for admission in educational institutes including private educational institutes.
In Puneet Gulati vs St. of Kerala, 100% reservation in medical college for home State student-doctors worked in rural service for course.is invalid and it was quashed by the Apex Court.
6) The 103rd Amendment to Constitution,
Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making, any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.
In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, ruled that the 103rd Amendment does not violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution.