"Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach." Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.
Approach · directive: “do you agree”
What it asks · Take a reasoned stand on whether targeting welfare at the vulnerable is discrimination, weighing substantive equality against the costs of targeting.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Take a clear position: are welfare schemes for the vulnerable 'discriminatory' by nature?
- Reasons in support: the constitutional and philosophical basis of targeted provision (substantive equality)
- Reasons that qualify the view: when targeting becomes unjust, and the safeguards needed
Open with · Any scheme that targets one group treats others differently, but the Constitution distinguishes unjust discrimination from special provision meant to correct disadvantage.
Cover
- Constitutional basis: Articles 15(3), 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) and 46 authorise special provision for women, backward classes, SCs and STs, on the idea of substantive equality.
- Why targeting is not unjust: equal treatment of unequals perpetuates inequality; targeted measures correct historical and structural disadvantage.
- Judicial view: Indra Sawhney (1992) upheld OBC reservation with a 50 per cent ceiling and creamy-layer exclusion, treating classification as valid if reasonable.
- Criticisms: exclusion and inclusion errors, stigma, resentment among non-beneficiaries, and identity-based targeting entrenching divisions; the EWS quota raised similar debates.
- Alternatives: universal schemes (such as school meals and public distribution) reduce stigma and errors, while saturation and needs-based targeting improve fairness.
- Way forward: transparent criteria, periodic review, convergence of schemes, capacity building and exit pathways so that support leads to independence.
Close with · Targeted welfare is justified when it advances real equality; it becomes discriminatory only when badly targeted, permanent or captured by the better off.
Add value (verified)
- Article 46 obliges the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 46 - Legislative Department ↗“The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”
- Article 15(4), added by the First Amendment (1951), lets the State make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and for SCs and STs, the constitutional footing of targeted welfare. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 15(4) - Legislative Department ↗“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”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 329 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Every scheme aimed at a vulnerable group treats others differently, so in a literal sense it discriminates. But the Constitution separates unjust discrimination from special provision that corrects disadvantage. I agree only in that narrow sense: such schemes are discriminating by design, not discriminatory in the sense the Constitution forbids.
Why targeting is not unjust discrimination
- Equality of unequals: treating people with different starting points identically preserves the gap; Article 14 permits reasonable classification with a rational link to its purpose.
- Express sanction: Articles 15(3), 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) allow special provision for women, children, backward classes, SCs and STs; Article 46 directs the State to promote weaker sections with special care.
- Judicial view: Champakam Dorairajan (1951) prompted the First Amendment adding Article 15(4); Indra Sawhney (1992) upheld OBC reservation with a 50 per cent ceiling and creamy-layer exclusion; Janhit Abhiyan (2022) upheld the EWS quota as a permissible classification.
- Philosophy: Rawls's difference principle permits inequalities that benefit the least advantaged; Sen's capability approach judges justice by what people can actually do.
- Substance: scholarships for SC students, maternity benefits, tribal sub-plans and old-age pensions address specific barriers; without them formal equality would be empty.
When it becomes discriminatory
- Errors of targeting: outdated lists and poor data exclude the deserving and include the better off, so the wrong people are treated differently.
- Stigma and division: identity-based eligibility can label beneficiaries, breed resentment among those just above the line, and harden group boundaries.
- Capture and permanence: benefits captured by the advanced within a group, and schemes that never review criteria or plan an exit, turn corrective measures into entitlements.
Making targeting fair
- Transparent, periodically reviewed criteria; universal provision where errors are costly (school meals, primary health); saturation approaches; convergence of schemes; and pathways out of dependence.
Welfare for the vulnerable is discrimination in favour of equality, and constitutionally sound; it turns unjust only when badly targeted, permanent or captured by the better off, and the answer is better design, not abandonment.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.