Compare and contrast the legal provisions for equal employment opportunities in India and the United States.
Answers
mark brainliest plzz
This article briefly expresses initial observations made after going through the legal literature (statutes and precedents) in three jurisdictions namely, United States, Australia and India regarding the possible reasons, while trying to answer a naive question, that, why the Equal Opportunity laws (laws relating affirmative action/reservation/special measures) are different in these three jurisdictions even though the legal systems are based on Common Law principles.
The laws around equality and social justice have always inspired passion among the masses. To the extent that US had to expunge in a bloody civil war for eliminating institution of slavery. Today the mode of debate has changed from battlefields to courtrooms, yet in my experience the task of comprehending the extent of bias in all its dimensions against the disadvantaged is still a lofty ambition. Though personally as far as readdressing the racial, gender or caste bias is concerned I would without doubt prefer the mode adopted by General William T. Sherman, than trying to explain to a bench in some Indian High Court the gist of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab who is not only unimpressed but unaware of the rationale behind the precedent. The doctrinal development of any legal principle is inherent duty of the judiciary, whenever it fails to do so, there is bound to be confusion, disagreements and procrastination in justice.
In my observation, it seems that some fundamental differences in these three jurisdictions as far as development of jurisprudence of Equal Opportunity laws/Affirmative Action is concerned, does exist. One basic premise of this article, if I am not wrong, is the idea to inquire into the reasons of the different projection of Equal Opportunity laws and policies in these three jurisdictions even though our politico-legal systems are purely based on the principles of common law. Apparently, and in my opinion, there exists fundamental difference in these jurisdictions in accepting the concept of Substantive Equality vis-a-vis Formal Equality.
The linchpin of more harmonious Equal Opportunity laws, it seems, is the degree to which the concept of Substantive Equality has been, not only, adopted by legislation but also further developed by the concerned jurisdiction’s higher judiciary (jurisprudentially), to that degree there will be smoother statutory formation, implementation at the level of executive (partly because legislation is clearer in intent and language) and inevitable doctrinal development of Equal Opportunity Jurisprudence by judiciary. This becomes conspicuous, rather prima facie by observing the landmark judgments and debates in these jurisdictions.
It may be claimed that all the Equal Opportunity laws and policies that are framed in any jurisdiction are but reflection of the understanding of the concept of Substantive Equality i.e. the nature, objective, language, structure etc. of the concerned legislation will depend upon how the framers have understood and subsequently, whether or to what extent, the judicial interpreters have developed its relation with Formal Equality. It seems that if a research is aimed at comparing the degree of difference in the Equal Opportunity laws and identifying the reasons of the same among various jurisdictions (where all comparator jurisdictions are totally based on Common Law principles) then most fundamentally 1st of all the understanding of the interplay or dialectics or perhaps dichotomy of the above mentioned two notions of Equality within the concept of Equality must be understood.
I will very briefly share some extracts and share brief comments in order to put these ideas in context and so that you can guide me accordingly.