"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.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- Take a clear position: are welfare schemes for the vulnerable 'discriminatory' by nature?
- Reasons in support of targeting: the constitutional, judicial and philosophical basis (substantive equality)
- Reasons that qualify the view: when targeting becomes unjust, and the safeguards needed
Open with · Article 38(2) directs the State to strive to minimise inequalities among individuals and groups, so targeted welfare is a constitutional mandate; such schemes discriminate in favour of equality, not against anyone.
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 · The Preamble promises equality of status and of opportunity; targeted welfare is a means to that promise, and only poor design, never its purpose, makes it discriminatory.
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”
- Article 38(2) directs the State to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities among individuals and groups.The Constitution of India (Legislative Department) ↗“The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities”
- The Preamble secures to all citizens equality of status and of opportunity.The Constitution of India (Legislative Department) ↗“EQUALITY of status and of opportunity”
- The Economic Survey 2016-17 found existing welfare schemes riddled with misallocation, leakages and exclusion of the poor, and linked better delivery to the JAM trinity.Economic Survey 2016-17, Chapter 9: Universal Basic Income ↗“the weakness of existing welfare schemes which are riddled with misallocation, leakages and exclusion of the poor. When the trinity of Jan-Dhan, Aadhaar and Mobile (popularly referred to as JAM)”
- The same chapter found that the poorest districts were often the ones short of welfare funds: evidence of acute misallocation.Economic Survey 2016-17, Chapter 9: Universal Basic Income ↗“the poorest districts are the ones grappling with inadequate funds”
- The NFSA 2013 shifted food security from a welfare to a rights-based approach, with coverage of 75% (rural) and 50% (urban) of the population.National Food Security Act - Department of Food and Public Distribution ↗“The Act legally entitles upto 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population to receive subsidized foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 343words · Minimalist IAS
Article 38(2) directs the State to strive to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities, not only among individuals but among groups. Targeted welfare is therefore a constitutional mandate.
I disagree with the statement in substance. Such schemes treat groups differently, but they discriminate in favour of equality, which the Constitution permits; they turn discriminatory only when their design fails.
Why targeting is not unjust discrimination
- Reasonable classification: Article 14 allows classification with a rational link to its purpose; treating unequals identically only preserves the gap.
- Express sanction: Articles 15(3), 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) permit special provision for women, children, backward classes, SCs and STs; Article 46 asks the State to promote weaker sections 'with special care'.
- Judicial view: Champakam Dorairajan (1951) led to the First Amendment's Article 15(4); Indra Sawhney (1992) upheld OBC reservation with a 50% ceiling and creamy-layer exclusion; Janhit Abhiyan (2022) upheld the EWS quota.
- Philosophy: Rawls's difference principle accepts inequalities that most benefit the least advantaged; Sen's capability approach judges justice by what people can actually do.
When targeting turns discriminatory
- Misallocation: the Economic Survey 2016-17 found welfare schemes riddled with misallocation, leakages and exclusion of the poor, with the poorest districts often short of funds.
- Exclusion errors: outdated lists leave out the deserving and admit the better off.
- Stigma and division: identity-based eligibility can label beneficiaries and breed resentment just above the line.
- Capture and permanence: benefits cornered by a group's advanced sections, hence the creamy layer; schemes never reviewed become entitlements.
| Design | Strength | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Targeted | Reaches the needy | Exclusion, stigma |
| Universal | No exclusion, no stigma | Costly, leaks to rich |
| Near-universal (NFSA) | Rights-based, wide cover | Fiscal load |
Way forward
- Rights-based coverage: the NFSA 2013 entitles up to 75% of rural and 50% of urban people to subsidised grain, cutting exclusion.
- Better targeting: the JAM trinity (Jan-Dhan, Aadhaar, Mobile), periodic review of criteria, saturation drives and exit pathways out of dependence.
The Preamble promises equality of status and of opportunity. Targeted welfare is a means to that promise; only poor design, never its purpose, makes it discriminatory.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
