Review of Literature

The issue of labeling students as “Gen Z” and its constitutional implications intersects multiple domains of scholarship, including constitutional law, sociology, education policy, and human rights. A comprehensive review of the existing literature highlights the theoretical and practical dimensions of equality, non-discrimination, and the social construction of generational identities. This section categorizes the literature into constitutional commentaries, sociological perspectives, and judicial precedents, ultimately identifying the existing research gap that this study aims to address.

Constitutional Commentaries

These constitutional commentaries provide the legal foundation for this research, highlighting that any educational policy or administrative practice must align with the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination.

Sociological Perspectives

These sociological insights are integral to understanding the real-world implications of generational labeling. They provide evidence that such classifications are subjective and culturally constructed, lacking the objectivity required for constitutionally permissible distinctions.

Case Law Literature

Judicial precedents play a critical role in interpreting constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. Several landmark judgments directly inform this research:

1. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310
   This case expanded the interpretation of Article 14 to include substantive equality rather than mere formal equality. The Court emphasized that equality must address structural disadvantages and prevent indirect forms of discrimination. This precedent is relevant to the current issue as labeling students as “Gen Z” may appear neutral on its face but results in unequal treatment, thereby requiring constitutional scrutiny.
2. Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335
   The Supreme Court struck down service rules that required female flight attendants to retire earlier than their male counterparts or upon marriage or first pregnancy. The Court held these rules to be discriminatory under Articles 14, 15, and 16. This case demonstrates that classifications based solely on age, sex, or marital statuses are unconstitutional unless justified by compelling reasons. The analogy to educational settings is clear: labeling students based on age or generational identity similarly lacks justification and violates equality principles.
3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
   In this landmark judgment, the Court held that Article 15 extends beyond its enumerated grounds to cover analogous grounds of discrimination, such as sexual orientation. By doing so, the Court signaled that constitutional protections must evolve to address emerging forms of discrimination. This precedent is directly applicable to age-based or generational discrimination, suggesting that categorizing students as “Gen Z” falls within the broader spirit of Article 15’s guarantee.

These cases collectively establish that arbitrary and stereotypical classifications, especially those based on immutable characteristics, are constitutionally impermissible. They also highlight the judiciary’s evolving role in addressing new forms of discrimination.

Research Gap

While there is a rich body of literature addressing age discrimination, stereotyping, and educational equality, there is a noticeable absence of direct legal scholarship on generational labeling in the Indian context. Most existing studies either focus on workplace discrimination or sociological analyses of generational differences without examining the constitutional implications of such practices in education. Furthermore, although judgments like Navtej Singh Johar and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza provide a robust foundation for challenging arbitrary classifications, there has been no comprehensive legal analysis of whether labeling students as “Gen Z” constitutes a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21. Similarly, there is a lack of research connecting this issue to statutory frameworks such as the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the National Education Policy, 2020, which emphasize inclusivity and equality in education. This study seeks to fill this gap by providing a constitutional, legislative, and sociological analysis of the problem, offering practical recommendations for reform. It aims to establish a legal framework for understanding why generational labeling should be recognized as a form of indirect discrimination, thus ensuring that educational policies comply with India’s constitutional mandate and international human rights obligations.

Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted for this study is designed to comprehensively address the constitutional, legal, and sociological dimensions of labeling students as “Gen Z.” Since this issue involves an intersection of law, policy, and social constructs, a multi-dimensional approach has been adopted. The methodology aims to ensure that the analysis is both theoretically robust and practically relevant, relying on credible sources of data and well-established legal research methods.

Type of Research

This research is primarily doctrinal and socio-legal in nature.

Doctrinal Research

The doctrinal component focuses on the interpretation of constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial decisions. It involves a black-letter law approach, examining relevant constitutional articles such as Articles 14, 15, and 21, and evaluating their application to the issue of generational labeling. Key statutes like the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 are analyzed to determine whether the practice of labeling students as “Gen Z” is compatible with the legal framework governing equality and non-discrimination in education.

Socio-Legal Research

The socio-legal aspect seeks to connect legal principles with social realities. It examines how generational labeling operates within the educational ecosystem, drawing from sociological theories on stereotypes and group identity, particularly those advanced by Karl Mannheim (1952) and Jean Twenge (2017). This component helps in understanding the real-world implications of such labeling on students’ psychological well-being, academic performance, and dignity.

This combined approach is essential for addressing the nuanced question of whether generational labeling, though socially normalized, can lead to constitutional violations and require legal reforms.

Sources of Data

The research utilizes both primary and secondary sources of data to ensure a comprehensive and credible analysis.

Primary Sources

Primary sources are the foundational legal texts and authoritative decisions that form the basis of the study. These include:

• The Constitution of India, 1950
• Article 14 – Equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
• Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination on certain grounds, including interpretation of analogous grounds.
• Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty, including the right to dignity and mental well-being.

Judicial Precedents

Landmark Supreme Court and High Court judgments that interpret constitutional principles, such as:

• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 – Test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 – Arbitrary actions are antithetical to equality.
• State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 – Substantive equality principle.
• Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335 – Striking down gender and age-based discriminatory rules.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 – Recognition of analogous grounds of discrimination under Article 15.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Right to privacy and dignity as fundamental rights.

Primary Statutes

• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act):
  • Section 3(1): Guarantee of free and compulsory education without discrimination.
  • Section 8(c): State’s duty to prevent discrimination in schools.
• Equal Remuneration Act, 1976:Establishes the principle of equality in employment, which indirectly supports the broader equality framework.
• Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995:Reinforces non-discrimination and equal treatment of vulnerable groups, providing parallels for addressing discriminatory practices in education.
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act):A more modern framework emphasizing inclusivity and prohibiting arbitrary classifications.

These sources form the legal backbone of the study, allowing for a doctrinal analysis of the constitutional and statutory mandates against discrimination.

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources provide context, interpretation, and scholarly critique of primary materials. They are essential for understanding how laws operate in practice and for identifying gaps in existing literature.

Commentaries and Textbooks:

• Seervai, H. M. (2013). Constitutional Law of India. Universal Law Publishing.
• Austin, G. (2003). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press.

Journals and Policy Papers:

Articles from leading legal and sociological journals such as the Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, Economic and Political Weekly, and International Journal of Human Rights in Education.

Sociological Studies:

• Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen. Atria Books.

International Instruments:

• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989:
  • Article 2: Non-discrimination in education.
  • Article 28: Right to education based on equality of opportunity.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966:
  • Article 26: Equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination.

These materials assist in contextualizing the Indian legal position within broader global standards and practices.

Method of Analysis

The analysis will follow a comparative constitutional approach, integrating both doctrinal legal study and socio-legal perspectives. The methodology includes:

Doctrinal Analysis:

• Examining constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial interpretations in detail.
• Applying the tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus under Article 14 to assess the constitutionality of labeling students as “Gen Z.”
• Interpreting Article 15 to determine whether age-based generational labeling can be considered an analogous ground of discrimination.

Comparative Constitutional Analysis:

• Comparing Indian jurisprudence with international human rights frameworks.
• Assessing compliance with obligations under treaties like the UNCRC and ICCPR, to which India is a signatory.

Sociological Integration:

• Analyzing sociological theories of generational identity to demonstrate that “Gen Z” is a social construct rather than a valid legal classification.
• Assessing the psychological impact of labeling on students’ dignity and mental health, linking this to the right to dignity under Article 21.

Critical Evaluation of Policies:

Reviewing current educational policies, including the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, to identify areas where generational labeling contradicts inclusivity and equality objectives.

Case Study Method:

Where possible, the research will analyze actual examples of schools, universities, or government programs that have adopted generational terminology in educational contexts. These examples will serve as practical illustrations of how such labeling can lead to discrimination and unequal treatment.

The chosen methodology ensures a holistic and comprehensive examination of the research problem. By combining doctrinal constitutional analysis with socio-legal inquiry, this study will provide both a theoretical framework and practical recommendations for addressing the discriminatory effects of generational labeling in education. Ultimately, this approach aligns with the study’s aim of bridging the gap between law and lived reality, ensuring that educational practices comply with constitutional mandates and international human rights standards.

Constitutional Perspective

The issue of labeling students as “Gen Z” must be examined within the framework of the Indian Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution guarantees equality, non-discrimination, and protection of dignity. By classifying students based on their year of birth and assigning them a generational identity, educational institutions may be engaging in a form of indirect age-based discrimination, which violates fundamental rights. This section explores the relevant constitutional provisions, landmark judicial decisions, and the direct application of these principles to the practice of generational labeling.

Articles Involved

The constitutional protections most relevant to this issue are Articles 14, 15, and 21, which collectively form the bedrock of the equality and liberty framework under the Constitution of India.

Article 14 – Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws

Article 14 ensures that no person shall be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

It requires that any classification made by the State must pass a two-pronged test:

1. Intelligible Differentia: There must be a clear and reasonable distinction between groups.
2. Rational Nexus: This distinction must have a rational relationship with the objective sought to be achieved.

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 established this principle.

In the context of “Gen Z” labeling, merely grouping students based on their birth years fails this test, as there is no educational or constitutional objective behind such a classification.

Article 15(1) – Prohibition of Discrimination

Article 15(1) prohibits the State from discriminating on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

The Supreme Court has expanded this interpretation to include analogous grounds, meaning grounds that are similar in nature to the ones explicitly mentioned.

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Court recognized sexual orientation as an analogous ground under Article 15.

By analogy, age-based labeling such as calling students “Gen Z” can fall under Article 15 since it creates a separate class of individuals based on a personal characteristic they cannot control—their date of birth.

Article 15(2) – Extending to Private Institutions

Article 15(2) extends the prohibition of discrimination to private entities, including schools and educational institutions.

This means that not only the State but also private schools, coaching centers, and universities cannot engage in discriminatory practices based on age or similar factors. Hence, even if generational labeling is done by private institutions, it is still subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted broadly to include:

• Right to dignity,
• Right to mental well-being, and
• Right to live with self-respect.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Court emphasized that dignity is an intrinsic component of Article 21.

Generational labeling like “Gen Z” can stigmatize students, reinforce stereotypes, and negatively affect their mental health and self-worth. Such psychological harm constitutes a direct violation of Article 21.

Landmark Case Laws

Several judicial decisions illustrate the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and protection of dignity, providing a solid foundation for challenging “Gen Z” labeling.

• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
  The Court articulated the intelligible differentia test, requiring both a reasonable basis for classification and a rational connection to its objective. Applying this test to “Gen Z” labeling, the classification based solely on year of birth fails, as it serves no legitimate educational purpose.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3
  The Court held that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality. Any arbitrary or irrational classification violates Article 14. Labeling students as “Gen Z” is arbitrary because it assigns characteristics to them without considering individual merit or circumstances.
• Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335
  The Court struck down discriminatory rules that forced female flight attendants to retire earlier than their male counterparts, finding them unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15. This case highlights that age-based rules and labels without reasonable justification are impermissible.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
  The Court recognized that discrimination under Article 15 is not limited to the grounds explicitly mentioned, but also extends to analogous grounds. Applying this principle, age and generational labeling can be considered an analogous ground under Article 15.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
  The right to privacy and dignity were upheld as core aspects of Article 21. Negative stereotyping and generational labeling infringe on a student’s personal identity, autonomy, and dignity, violating this fundamental right.

Application to “Gen Z” Classification

The constitutional principles and case law discussed above clearly indicate that labeling students as “Gen Z” violates core constitutional mandates.

Failure of Intelligible Differentia Test (Article 14):

The classification based on birth years is arbitrary because there is no rational nexus between generational labeling and any legitimate educational objective. Students born in different years may have diverse skills, experiences, and learning capacities. Assigning them a homogenous identity like “Gen Z” ignores these differences and promotes unfair generalizations.

Violation of Substantive Equality (Articles 14 & 15):

Substantive equality, as developed in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, requires that laws and policies address real inequalities rather than perpetuate stereotypes. Generational labeling imposes stereotypes such as “tech-savvy,” “easily distracted,” or “lazy,” which harm students and deny them equal opportunities.

Analogous Grounds of Discrimination (Article 15):

Following Navtej Singh Johar, age or generational classification can be treated as an analogous ground under Article 15. Students cannot control their date of birth; therefore, penalizing or labeling them for it is constitutionally impermissible.

Psychological Harm and Dignity Violation (Article 21):

Labeling students as “Gen Z” can lead to mental health issues, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and social stigma. This violates the right to dignity and psychological well-being, as recognized in Puttaswamy.

Private Institutions’ Liability (Article 15(2)):

Even when the labeling occurs in private schools or colleges, it falls within the ambit of Article 15(2). Institutions cannot escape liability by arguing that the discrimination was not state-sponsored.

From a constitutional standpoint, classifying students as “Gen Z” is both legally and morally indefensible. It violates:

• Article 14, by creating an arbitrary and irrational classification,
• Article 15, by engaging in discrimination on an analogous ground (age), and
• Article 21, by infringing on the dignity and mental health of students.

Thus, such labeling is constitutionally unsustainable and requires corrective measures in the form of legal reforms, policy interventions, and awareness campaigns to ensure that all students are treated equally, without reductive and harmful generational stereotypes.

Legislative Perspective

The legislative framework in India establishes a robust foundation for non-discrimination and equality, especially in education and related spheres. While the Constitution provides fundamental rights, statutory provisions operationalize these rights by imposing duties on the State, educational institutions, and private actors. However, current statutes lack explicit recognition of generational or age-based labeling as a form of discrimination, creating a legal vacuum. This section analyzes relevant statutes and highlights legislative gaps.

Relevant Statutes

Several statutes provide protection against discriminatory practices and uphold the principles of equality and dignity for students. The following provisions are directly relevant to the issue of labeling students as “Gen Z.”

Section 6102

No person shall be excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any federally funded program on the basis of age.

Enforcement mechanisms include:

• Complaints to the U.S. Department of Education,
• Investigations, and
• Legal remedies.

Relevance to India:

India currently lacks a similar comprehensive anti-age discrimination statute applicable to education. Adopting such legislation could prevent practices like “Gen Z” labeling and establish clear accountability mechanisms for both public and private institutions.

International Human Rights Standards

India is a signatory to key international conventions that prohibit discrimination in education:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989

• Article 2: Prohibits discrimination in access to education.
• Article 29: Education must foster dignity, respect, and holistic development.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966

• Article 26: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on any ground, including age.

By continuing to permit generational labeling, India risks failing to fulfill its international obligations.

VIII. Findings

Based on the constitutional, legislative, and sociological analyses, the following findings emerge:

Lack of Constitutional Validity

Generational labeling such as “Gen Z” has no constitutional foundation. It violates Articles 14, 15, and 21, as it creates an arbitrary and irrational classification without a legitimate educational objective.

Indirect Age-Based Discrimination

While age is not explicitly mentioned in Article 15, the principle of analogous grounds established in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 applies. Generational labeling functions as indirect age-based discrimination, restricting equality in education.

Undermining Educational Equity

Such labeling:

• Reinforces negative stereotypes,
• Fosters bias among teachers and administrators, and
• Creates psychological harm to students, affecting their right to dignity under Article 21.

Legislative Vacuum

There are no specific statutory provisions addressing generational labeling, leaving students without clear legal remedies. Comparative models, such as the U.S. Age Discrimination Act of 1975, provide useful templates for future legislation.

Need for Policy Reform

Without corrective measures, generational labeling risks becoming entrenched in educational policies, undermining inclusivity and equity.

From a sociological standpoint, the practice of labeling students as “Gen Z” reflects a social construct with no objective legal or educational justification. It perpetuates stereotypes, damages psychological well-being, and undermines the goals of equality and inclusivity in education. Comparative frameworks demonstrate that age-based discrimination can and should be explicitly addressed through legislation, ensuring that students are treated as individuals rather than products of arbitrary generational categories.

Recommendations

Based on the constitutional, legislative, sociological, and comparative analysis, the following recommendations are proposed to address the issue of generational labeling in educational institutions and ensure conformity with constitutional mandates and international human rights standards:

Judicial Recognition

• The Supreme Court of India should explicitly recognize that generational stereotyping and labeling, such as calling students “Gen Z,” constitutes a form of discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The Court should extend the principle of analogous grounds of discrimination, as articulated in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, to include generational bias.
• Judicial pronouncements should establish clear legal standards prohibiting educational policies or practices that categorize students based on arbitrary generational classifications.

Policy Guidelines by NCERT and UGC

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) should:

• Issue official directives and curriculum guidelines advising educational institutions to avoid generational terms like “Gen Z” or “Millennials” in academic materials, administrative documents, and classroom interactions.
• Develop inclusive educational policies that promote individualized learning approaches, free from stereotypes and collective labeling.
• Establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance, similar to anti-ragging policies in higher education.

Legislative Action

There is an urgent need for statutory amendments to fill the existing legal vacuum regarding generational discrimination:

• Amend the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) to:
  • Insert a specific provision prohibiting discrimination based on generational labeling or similar arbitrary classifications.
  • Introduce penalties and accountability mechanisms for non-compliance by schools and educational authorities.
• Consider drafting a comprehensive anti-discrimination law similar to the U.S. Age Discrimination Act of 1975, ensuring broader protection against all forms of age-based and generational discrimination.

Training and Sensitization for Educators

Conduct mandatory training programs for teachers, school administrators, and university faculty on:

• Identifying and avoiding implicit biases related to generational stereotypes.
• Creating inclusive classrooms that respect diversity and individual learning needs.
• Understanding the psychological impacts of labeling and the importance of non-discriminatory language.

Implementation Strategy:
The Ministry of Education, in collaboration with NCERT and UGC, should design capacity-building workshops and include them as part of teacher certification requirements.

Awareness and Advocacy Programs

Launch nationwide awareness campaigns in schools, colleges, and universities to:

• Educate students and parents about the negative effects of generational stereotyping.
• Promote dialogue on inclusivity and diversity, emphasizing constitutional values such as equality and dignity.
• Encourage student-led initiatives and peer groups to challenge stereotypes and foster mutual respect.

Examples of Implementation

• Organize annual inclusivity drives, similar to environmental or anti-bullying campaigns.
• Include public service messages in textbooks and media about the harms of labeling.

Conclusion

The practice of labeling students as “Gen Z” is not merely a harmless cultural trend; it has profound legal, social, and psychological implications. When educational institutions adopt such labeling, they risk fostering stereotypes that lead to unequal treatment, psychological harm, and systemic discrimination. This directly contravenes India’s constitutional ethos, particularly the guarantees of equality (Articles 14 and 15) and dignity under the right to life (Article 21). The study establishes that generational classifications lack both scientific grounding and legal legitimacy. As demonstrated by international examples like the U.S. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, proactive measures are necessary to prevent discriminatory practices within educational frameworks.

To uphold constitutional values and international commitments, India must:

• Recognize generational labeling as unconstitutional,
• Enact statutory provisions prohibiting such discrimination, and
• Promote educational policies focused on individual merit and diversity, rather than collective generational stereotypes.

By doing so, educational institutions will be able to cultivate an environment where students are valued for their unique abilities and potential, rather than being limited by arbitrary generational tags.

Objectives Achieved in this Study

This research successfully achieved the following objectives:

• Identified the Constitutional Framework
  Examined the relevant constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 21, and demonstrated how generational labeling violates these principles through irrational classification and stigmatization.
• Analyzed Judicial Precedents
  Studied landmark Supreme Court judgments such as E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, establishing that arbitrariness and psychological harm are antithetical to equality and dignity.
• Evaluated Existing Legislative Provisions and Gaps
  Reviewed statutes like the RTE Act, 2009, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and the RPwD Act, 2016, highlighting the absence of explicit provisions addressing generational discrimination in education.
• Applied Sociological Theories
  Utilized Karl Mannheim’s generational theory and labeling theory to explain how generational classifications are socially constructed and contribute to stereotyping, victimhood mindsets, and bias in educational contexts.
• Conducted Comparative Legal Analysis
  Examined international models, especially the U.S. Age Discrimination Act of 1975, demonstrating how other jurisdictions prevent age-based discrimination and providing a blueprint for Indian legal reform.
• Proposed Practical Solutions and Recommendations
  Suggested judicial, legislative, and policy-level interventions, including:
  • Judicial recognition of generational bias as unconstitutional,
  • Amendments to the RTE Act,
  • Teacher training programs,
  • Awareness campaigns, and
  • Comprehensive guidelines from NCERT and UGC.
• Addressed International Human Rights Obligations
  Linked the issue with India’s commitments under the CRC and ICCPR, reinforcing the global dimension of the right to equality and non-discrimination in education.
• Enhanced Understanding of Psychological and Educational Impacts
  Highlighted how labeling negatively affects students’ mental health, motivation, and academic performance, making a strong case for institutional reform.

This study contributes to the growing discourse on non-traditional forms of discrimination in educational institutions. By systematically examining the constitutional, legislative, sociological, and international dimensions of generational labeling, it provides a holistic framework for policy reform and judicial action. Ultimately, it advocates for an educational environment that respects individuality, promotes inclusivity, and upholds the constitutional promise of equality and dignity for every student.