Constitution of India · Part III: Fundamental Rights · Right to Equality
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
In plain words
The State cannot discriminate against any citizen only on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. No citizen can be denied access to shops, restaurants, hotels and places of entertainment, or the use of wells, tanks, ghats, roads and public places, on those grounds.
- The State can make special provisions for women and children.
- It can make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, including in admissions to educational institutions, other than minority institutions.
- It can make special provisions for economically weaker sections, including reservations in admissions up to a maximum of ten per cent of seats, in addition to existing reservations.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, 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 to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. [(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.] [(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.] [(6) 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,—
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this article and article 16, "economically weaker sections" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.]
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this article
Article 15 forbids the State from discriminating against citizens only on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. It is a specific application of the equality in Article 14. Its later clauses then permit special provisions for women, children, socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and economically weaker sections.
Only on these grounds
The word only matters. A law is not invalid merely because it affects one sex or caste more than another; it is invalid if the distinction rests only on a prohibited ground. Where other factors, such as residence or backwardness, are the real basis, Article 15(1) is not breached.
Horizontal application
Clause (2) goes beyond the State: no citizen may be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of entertainment, wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort on these grounds.
Special provisions
- Clause (3): special provisions for women and children.
- Clause (4): advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Clause (5): reservation in admission to educational institutions, including private unaided ones (minority institutions excluded).
- Clause (6): special provisions, including up to ten per cent reservation, for economically weaker sections.
Sex includes sexual orientation
The Supreme Court has held that discrimination on the ground of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that protective laws restricting women's choices out of stereotypes violate Article 15 rather than protect women.
Economic criteria
In 2022 a Constitution Bench, by majority, upheld the reservation for economically weaker sections, holding that reservation based purely on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure, and that the exclusion of classes already covered by other reservations is permissible.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India 2007 INSC 1242
A law prohibiting employment of women (and men under twenty five) in premises serving liquor violated Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g); protective discrimination based on stereotypes cannot be sustained in a changed society.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 2022 INSC 1175
Upheld the 103rd Amendment, which inserted Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) enabling up to ten per cent reservation for economically weaker sections other than those covered by existing reservations.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018 INSC 790
Read down section 377 of the IPC; in the judgment it was held that sex in Article 15 includes sexual orientation, so discrimination on that basis is prohibited.
Common mistakes
- Ignoring the word only in clause (1).
- Thinking Article 15 binds only the State. Clause (2) also applies to access to public places.
- Treating all protective laws for women as valid under clause (3) even when based on stereotypes.
Read with: Article 14 Constitution, Article 16 Constitution, Article 46 Constitution
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the article 15
-
Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
Issue arose whether the Internal Complaints Committee-ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee…
-
All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.
Should Eminent Players be in the General Body; if so, to what extent; what should be the Eligibility criteria to be designated an Eminent Player; whether ‘Office bearers’ should be limited to President, Treasurer,…
-
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra and Others
1) Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority educational institution must qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET); If so, whether providing such a qualification would affect any of…
-
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
(i) Whether after allowing induction of women in a particular corp or branch under section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, can the Respondents by way of a policy and/or administrative instruction restrict the number of women…
-
Vibhor Garg v. Neha
Issue arose whether the conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them could be permitted to be made admissible in evidence; whether in light of the Evidence Act and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a…
-
Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
1. Whether the present digital KYC / e-KYC / video-KYC framework is inaccessible to persons with disabilities? 2. Whether the regulatory authorities (RBI, SEBI, TRAI, PFRDA, IRDAI, DoT) have failed to ensure reasonable…
-
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
Streamlining of the counselling process in NEET-PG; curbing the malpractice of seat blocking to ensure transparency and fairness in the admission process; compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the High Court to the…
-
The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others
Matter pertains to the maintainability of the time-barred application of the employee before the tribunal, filed after rejection of a belated representation in service dispute.
-
Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the date from which the appellants are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division); also whether, the appellants are entitled to seniority over the batch of Judicial…
-
Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors.
Directions sought for the formulation of gender-neutral guidelines and legislation governing the filing of domestic violence and harassment complaints. Also, sought declaration regarding the constitutionality of s.498A…
-
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful owners of the ‘Patta Land’.
-
Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(i) What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154 CrPC. (ii) Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC by the…
-
IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES versus
Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service; Whether the amendment made in Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994…
-
Maatr Sparsh An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Others
1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued to the Respondents to act and thereby construct feeding rooms and child care rooms, etc. or any other facilities related to infants and mothers at public places. 2. Whether…
-
Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void under s.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under u/s.25 of the Act; whether in a petition filed seeking a…
-
Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors.
Whether providing domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to Postgraduate (PG) Medical Courses within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible; Difference between domicile and residence…
-
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
A plea of a Christian man to accord his father a decent burial in his own native village.
-
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by…
-
Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India and Another
Issue arose as regards plea of juvenility raised u/s.9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
-
Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors.
The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all.
- Manu v. Vibhor Tomar
- Saksham Kumar Through Natural Gurdian Vinod Kumar v. University of Delhi & Anr
- Mr. Kunwer Fahmed Alam Ariyana v. Ms. Mamtesh Alam @Mamtesh
-
Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in treating the first respondent as qualified for consideration and consequent appointment; and…
-
Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another
Writ Petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976.
-
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases, on any terms and conditions…
- Naresh v. Seema
-
Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors.
The issues were: 1) ingredients, indicia or criteria for an educational institution to be considered a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution; 2) whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is…
-
Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act…
-
Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and…
-
involved and in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N. [(1999) 7
(1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and…
-
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the…
-
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought issuance of…
-
IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 versus
Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an unreasonable…
- Sunita & Anr v. Yogesh Kumar
-
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
Matter pertains to caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country.
- Parikshit Grewal & Ors v. Union of India & Anr
-
Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.
What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO); what is the underlying distinction between sub-section(s) (1), (2) and (3) respectively of the POCSO; whether, mere…
- Manish Mahto v. Suman & Anr
- Manish v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Smt Shobha & Anr v. Shri Jai Sachdeva @ Jai Dayal
- M/S Indus Hospitals, Rep. by Its Chairman v. Rajeev Lochan Singh
- M/S Indus Hospitals, Rep. by Its Chairman v. Rajeev Lochan Singh
- Indrani Baishya & Ors v. Chairman State Bank of India & Ors
- Varman Aviation Private Limited v. Directorate of Civil Aviation, Government of Bihar
- Mahindra and Mahindra Farm Division v. Sumit Kumar & Ors
- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ravinder Singh Kang
- Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd & Anr v. Raj Kumar
- M/S India First Life Insurance Co Ltd & Anr v. Ms. Shaik Mumtaj & Anr
- The General Manager Punjab National Bank and Ors v. Rohit Malhotra
- Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Through Its Manager Mahindra Agri Solutions Ltd v. Patel Sangitaben Jagdishbhai & Ors
- M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd v. Birjendra Singh Mallik Since Decessednthr Lr
- Dhfl Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd v. Sohan Singh & Anr
- Amit Chandi v. Aarti Chandi @ Aarti Khanna
- Delhi State Contractual Employees Association v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Ajay Kumar & Ors v. Govt.Of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Hargun Singh Ahluwalia & Ors v. Delhi University & Ors
- Vanya Malik v. Delhi University & Ors
- Master Harmanpreet Singh Through Mr. Paramjeet Singh v. Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Vinay v. Union of India and Ors
- Parikshit Grewal & Ors v. Union of India & Anr
- Varre Sai Pranav Sudhanshu v. Union of India & Anr
- Saurav Anand v. Union Public Service Commission
- Rinku Acting As Guardian of Manya v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Lavanya Sharma Through Her Mother (Mrs. Yamuna) v. Directorate of Education & Anr
- Vriddhi Minor (Through Next Friend) v. Directorate of Education & Anr
- Gunjan As Guardian of Pihu v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Kamaljot Kaur Bhamra Acting As Guardian of Jasraj Kaur Bhamra v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Anureet Kaur v. Directorate of Education & Anr
- Prizleen Kaur & Ors v. Directorate of Education & Ors
- Satish Kumar Dahiya v. Smt Shivani Dahiya & Anr
- Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi
-
The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court was required to adjudicate upon whether the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of providing affirmative action, including reservation is valid. In this context, the following issues…
- Ganga Ram Makhija @ Gulab v. Jyoti Makhija
- Commissioner of Police and Anr v. Ravina Yadav and Anr
- Ircon International Ltd v. Bhavneet Singh
- Lily Packers Private Limited v. Vaishnavi Vijay Umak
- Lily Packers Private Limited v. Meetkumar Patel
- Lily Packers Private Limited v. Rahul Sharma
-
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
(i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such…
- Jitin Mittal & Ors v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Perminder Kaur Puri v. Mohinder Pal Singh & Anr
- Sarthak Jha v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Delhi State Legal Services Authority v. Annwesha Deb
- Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi v. State of NCT Delhi
- Ritika Prasad v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
- Rekha Chandra v. National Bank Fir Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) and Ors
-
Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal
Whether a notification issued by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board calling for applications from both Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes confer any benefit on the respondent (who belonged to the Schedule Tribes…
- Kuldeep Kumar v. University of Delhi & Ors
- Ravi Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
-
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another
What is the Legislative Scheme of the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (TCP Act); What is the nature of functions/powers of the Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act; Whether the NGT could have…
- Naresh @ Goga v. State (Gnctd)
- Naresh @ Goga v. State NCT of Delhi
- Naresh @ Goga & Anr v. State (Nct) of Delhi
- Smt Dinesh Kumari v. National Council for Teacher Education and Ors
- Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and Ors
- Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and Ors
- Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India & Ors
- Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India & Ors
- In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution v. .