Article 15 prohibits only such and not every difference of treatment based on religion,

race, caste, sex or place of birth. This is also obvious from the expression
'discriminate against' in that article. The State is not prohibited from treating people
differently on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; it is prohibited
from discriminating against them on these grounds. Discrimination results only when
religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth or any of them is made the basis of
disrespect, contempt or prejudice for difference in treatment.
Articles 15(1) and 29(2) while thus prohibit discrimination or prejudicial or
contemptuous difference of treatment on the grounds mentioned in those articles,
Article 15(4) sanctions 'special provisions for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes ... or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes'. Definitely any provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward class or for SCs and STs cannot be termed or characterised as
the one based on any prejudice, contempt or insult to any forward class. Therefore, the
scope and function of Article 15(4) is not the same as of Articles 15(1) and 29(2).
Neither it overlaps with them nor does it carve out anything from them. Article 15(4)
ensures or promotes equality just as Articles 15(1) and 29(2) do. The only difference
between the two is that while the latter do it by prohibiting the State from making
discrimination the former does it by requiring the State to take appropriate measures
for the removal of such discrimination. Thus in addition to envisaging equality to be
achieved through judicial interpretation the Constitution-makers have also provided
for it to be achieved by way of Article 15(4). Naturally, therefore, Article 15(4) is as
much a fundamental right as are Articles 15(1) and 29(2).
They have also held that though the directive principles alone may not be justiciable,
they become so if a legislation has been made in pursuance of them. 12

When some members of the opposition attacked the governors office as superfluous the Madras
legislative assembly(1952) Rajaji who was then chief minister of the sate said that the governor
was like a fire fighting vehichel so long as there was no fire fire engines would be idle but they
would be presed into service if there was a fire. If the fire service system were to be done away
with any major fire could prove disastrous when political crisis arisis it is the governor who
resolves the crisis