私人歧视,公共服务和宪法

T. K. Raj
{"title":"私人歧视,公共服务和宪法","authors":"T. K. Raj","doi":"10.1080/24730580.2021.1950338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper enquires into the scope of protection against private discrimination under the Indian Constitution. I study three arguments on how to interpret Article 15(2). I consider the plain linguistic argument and reject it, since it has been abandoned by the Supreme Court to interpret provisions on discrimination. I then apply the “public actor” principle to Article 15(2) and argue that it is vulnerable to objections. Thirdly, I consider the “economic goods” principle by Gautam Bhatia and argue that it too is unsuitable. I then develop my positive proposal of “public service” introduced by the Supreme Court in the IMA case and discuss its components. For a service to qualify as public service, it must both be vital to social life and capable of securing dignity to the individual. I argue that this is the best interpretation of Article 15(2) and deserves to be treated as such.","PeriodicalId":13511,"journal":{"name":"Indian Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private discrimination, public service and the constitution\",\"authors\":\"T. K. Raj\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24730580.2021.1950338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper enquires into the scope of protection against private discrimination under the Indian Constitution. I study three arguments on how to interpret Article 15(2). I consider the plain linguistic argument and reject it, since it has been abandoned by the Supreme Court to interpret provisions on discrimination. I then apply the “public actor” principle to Article 15(2) and argue that it is vulnerable to objections. Thirdly, I consider the “economic goods” principle by Gautam Bhatia and argue that it too is unsuitable. I then develop my positive proposal of “public service” introduced by the Supreme Court in the IMA case and discuss its components. For a service to qualify as public service, it must both be vital to social life and capable of securing dignity to the individual. I argue that this is the best interpretation of Article 15(2) and deserves to be treated as such.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2021.1950338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2021.1950338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了印度宪法对私人歧视的保护范围。我研究了关于如何解释第15(2)条的三个论点。我考虑了简单的语言论点,并拒绝接受它,因为最高法院已经放弃用它来解释有关歧视的条款。然后,我将“公共行为者”原则应用于第15(2)条,并认为它很容易受到反对。第三,我考虑了高塔姆·巴蒂亚(Gautam Bhatia)的“经济商品”原则,并认为它也不合适。然后,我阐述了最高法院在IMA案件中提出的“公共服务”的积极建议,并讨论了其组成部分。要使一项服务有资格成为公共服务,它必须既对社会生活至关重要,又能够确保个人的尊严。我认为这是对第15(2)条的最佳解释,理应如此对待。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Private discrimination, public service and the constitution
ABSTRACT This paper enquires into the scope of protection against private discrimination under the Indian Constitution. I study three arguments on how to interpret Article 15(2). I consider the plain linguistic argument and reject it, since it has been abandoned by the Supreme Court to interpret provisions on discrimination. I then apply the “public actor” principle to Article 15(2) and argue that it is vulnerable to objections. Thirdly, I consider the “economic goods” principle by Gautam Bhatia and argue that it too is unsuitable. I then develop my positive proposal of “public service” introduced by the Supreme Court in the IMA case and discuss its components. For a service to qualify as public service, it must both be vital to social life and capable of securing dignity to the individual. I argue that this is the best interpretation of Article 15(2) and deserves to be treated as such.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信