”
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. ”

Thereis no mention of the State here and the constitution clearly says that a citizen shall not be subject to ANY discrimination - not just by the state - being a little selective there MadMan - at least full read the contents of the links you post before jumping to a conclusion that supports your view on how the world should be :)

Let’s first get 2(b) out of the way as they are “maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.” I.e. either paid for or run by the state and therefore quasi state.

2(a) is the fun part. What is a public restaurant? Is any restaurant public? It’s a matter of perspective. I’ll grant you, by and large, the perspective that any restaurant “open to the public” is therefore public. Loads of issues exist. Can I open a “mens only” club? A “women’s only” club? A “Parsis only marriage hall”?

Sometimes places evade this by putting up a “Right of Admission Reserved” board, which implicitly states that “this is private property”.

But wait, even more fun in clauses 3 and 4, which show a bit of government hypocrisy.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

(4) 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.[Clause 4 was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s. 2]

A ha, so the government feels free to ignore its own laws just so it can provide what it will euphemistically call “positive discrimination”

In conclusion, this is a complex issue and I don’t think looking to the constitution helps in any way because the constitution itself is biased.

I only pointed out that he was factually incorrect there but your immediate rise to his defense was that the constitution is all BS anyways so we shouldn’t pay attention to it.

Double standard?? - Madman slectively quotes the constitution to prove his point - I point out that he is factually wrong - Yazad jumping to the defense says the constitution is all BS anyways so we should not pay attention to it. Well why didn’t you say that when Madman quoted it - or is it just that he quoted the part that you like but when that inconvenient 2(b) is brought up, you decide its all BS?

Tch tch tch….Cartel members stick together no doubt ;)

I then analysed the same few clauses and gave my opinions. Just as MadMan overlooked clause 2, you seem to have overlooked clause 3 and 4.

My opinions on government (and by extension on its basis, the constition) are well known and not paraded to defend co-bloggers.