Constitution of India
Article 336: Special provision for Anglo-Indian community in certain services
Part XVI — Special Provisions Relating to Certain Classes
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. For the first two years after the Constitution's commencement (26 Jan 1950), Anglo-Indian appointments in railway, customs, postal, and telegraph services of the Union continued on the same basis as before 15 August 1947. 2. After every two-year period, reserved posts were to be reduced by approximately 10% compared to the preceding two-year period. 3. Proviso: All such reservations were to cease completely after ten years from commencement (i.e., 26 January 1960). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Anglo-Indians who had historically dominated these four Union services under British rule were given a transitional safety net. 2. The reservation was degressive — it shrank by 10% every two years, ensuring gradual phase-out. 3. After 1960, no reserved posts remained for Anglo-Indians in these services. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Transitional/Self-Limiting Affirmative Action — reservations designed with a built-in sunset clause and progressive reduction mechanism.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Nothing in Clause (1) bars Anglo-Indians from being appointed to posts other than or in addition to those reserved for them. 2. Such appointments are permissible if Anglo-Indian candidates are found qualified on merit compared to members of other communities. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Anglo-Indians were not restricted only to reserved posts — they could compete for all general/unreserved posts on merit. 2. This ensured that reservation was a floor, not a ceiling — it did not cap Anglo-Indian representation. 3. The clause preserved the principle of meritocracy alongside affirmative action. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Merit-based inclusion alongside reservation — affirmative action as a supplement to, not a substitute for, open competition.
Constitutional Inspiration
IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: 1. Article 336 is an ORIGINAL INDIAN PROVISION with no direct parallel in any foreign constitution. 2. It was shaped by India's unique colonial history and the specific position of the Anglo-Indian community under British rule. HISTORICAL ROOTS: 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Anglo-Indians had preferential recruitment in railways, customs, postal and telegraph departments under British policy; Article 336 continued this on a declining basis. 2. The concept of community-specific service reservation for Anglo-Indians was a British-era administrative practice, not drawn from any foreign constitution. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Built-in sunset clause (10 years) — British-era reservations had no expiry; India made them self-terminating to prevent permanent privilege. 2. Degressive reduction (10% every 2 years) — Gradual phase-out ensured the community was weaned off colonial-era advantages progressively. 3. Merit-based safety valve in Clause (2) — Ensured Anglo-Indians could still serve on merit after reservations ended, preventing total exclusion. 4. Limited to four specific Union services (railways, customs, postal, telegraph) — Framers restricted the scope to services where Anglo-Indians had historical concentration, not all government employment.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 16 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: Draft Article 297 KEY FACTS: 1. The Constituent Assembly adopted Draft Article 297 (now Article 336) WITHOUT FORMAL DEBATE. 2. It was passed alongside Draft Article 298 (now Article 337 — educational grants for Anglo-Indians). KEY SPEAKERS (on related Anglo-Indian provisions in the same session): 1. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces) — Supported concessions but warned that they were based on a principle not followed elsewhere in the Constitution; Anglo-Indians needed them only because they had difficulty adjusting to the new order. 2. Frank Anthony (Anglo-Indian representative) — Championed Anglo-Indian safeguards in the Constituent Assembly; secured Sardar Patel's support for service and educational reservations. 3. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (Chairman, Advisory Committee on Minority Rights) — Supported transitional concessions for the Anglo-Indian community as a matter of justice and pragmatism, noting that over 60% of Anglo-Indian adults were concentrated in certain services and a sudden change would be devastating. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena cautioned that community-based concessions in services (as opposed to reservations for backward classes) set an unusual precedent. 2. No formal amendments were moved against Draft Article 297 — the provision enjoyed broad consensus. FINAL OUTCOME: 1. Draft Article 297 was adopted without amendment and without a division (voice vote). 2. The self-limiting nature of the provision (10-year sunset) helped secure consensus. KEY OBSERVATION (Sardar Patel, on Anglo-Indian service concessions): "This small community had been under the protecting wings of the old Government in such a manner that it was impossible for it to stand on its legs unless it were spoon-fed by some kind of concession for a small period of time."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. No Supreme Court judgment has DIRECTLY interpreted or applied Article 336. 2. The provision was time-bound (expired 26 Jan 1960) and never generated litigation reaching the Supreme Court. INDIRECTLY RELEVANT CASES (principles of temporary/transitional reservation): 1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — Upheld 27% OBC reservation but imposed 50% ceiling; reinforced that excessive or permanent reservations are unconstitutional — echoing Article 336's self-limiting design. 2. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) — Held that reservation exceeding 50% is unconstitutional; the principle of proportionality mirrors Article 336's degressive reduction approach. 3. The Anglo-Indian community's educational rights under Article 337 (companion to Article 336) were tangentially discussed in cases concerning minority educational institutions under Article 30. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None specific to Article 336. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Described Article 336 as a classic example of transitional provisions designed for a specific community's integration into the Republic's administrative structure. 2. M.P. Jain — Noted that Article 336 exemplifies the Constitution's approach of time-bound affirmative action, distinguishing it from open-ended reservation policies. 3. Granville Austin — Highlighted that Anglo-Indian provisions (Articles 331, 333, 336, 337) reflected the Constituent Assembly's compassionate approach to a small, vulnerable community caught between two civilizations.