Tags: Front Page Of Business PlanIelts Essay Smoking Should Be BannedWrite College PapersWrite A Good Introduction For An EssayEssay Questions For The Movie RootsWhy Davidson Essay
There are various justifications that the protective discrimination’s do not violate the principle of fairness or justice.
Though the legal equality has granted the equality of opportunity, but it has not been able to reduce economic and social inequalities whether based on race, sex, nationality, education, challenging the establishment of a just and fair society.
So the big question is how to bring about such an equality?
However the state faced with the dilemma that this would mean that in the society characterized by the distinctions on the basis of caste, religion only who are better positioned than the rest would get all the benefits and the backward and repressed classes will remain sidelined.
In order to overcome this, state has the special responsibility of giving equal rights to the communities through protective discrimination.
Some scholars are of the opinion that the social philosophy behind protective discrimination’s is somewhat confused and they have objected to it without dissenting from the ideal that social ‘policy ought to take into account the injustice perpetuated on the lower classes.
The protective discrimination’s are unfair in the procedural sense since granting privileges to individuals because of their birth, caste, race or sex is as discriminatory and unjust as denying them opportunity and jobs for the same reason.
These two classes were placed beyond the bounds of the larger society, the scheduled tribes on account of their isolation in particular ecological riches and the scheduled castes on account of the segregation imposed on them by the rules of pollution.
There are certain clauses in the constitution which aims at providing equality of opportunity to all by prohibiting discrimination and to remove disparities between privileged and underprivileged classes.
It is also unjust since whatever wrongs were committed against their ancestors in the past, it is not clearly the case that today’s young superior and meritorious individual-the victims of such prefertial employment practices-are responsible for this.
To demand a compensation for the wrongs committed by their forefathers is unfair.