Judges: B.P. Sinha, C.J., J.C. Shah, K.C. Das Gupta, K.N. Wanchoo and P.B. Gajendragadkar, JJ.

Facts:

In the year 1962, the Mysore Government issued an order that superseded all earlier decisions concerning the reservation of seats that had been issued by the Government under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. According to the aforementioned arrangement, the State divided the backward classes into two groups: more backward classes and backward classes. Additionally, it reserved 68 percent of the seats in the State Engineering and Medical Colleges for socially and educationally underprivileged classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, adopting recommendations made by Nagan Gowda Committee. This order effectively left only 32 percent of the seats for the merit pool.

23 petitioners brought a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court challenging this order passed by the State of Mysore on the July 31, 1962, under Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

Issues:

(i) Whether order making reservation of 68% seats passed by the State of Mysore on the July 31, 1962 is not justified by Article 15(4) of the Constitution and, in substance, is a fraud on the power conferred by the said Article on the State?

(ii) Whether impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground that the State of Mysore lacked authority to sub-divide 'Backward Classes' into two categories 'Backward' and the 'More Backward' class?

(iii) Whether the 68% seat reservation in educational institutions complies with the guidelines set forth in Article 15(4) of the Constitution?

Law:

Constitution - Article 15(4) - The state is empowered to make exceptional arrangements under Article 15(4) to advance the welfare and interests of socially and educationally disadvantaged segments of the population, such as SC and STs.

Contentions:

Petitioner

(i) State must appoint a commission in accordance with Article 340 of the Constitution before enacting any orders under Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

(ii) President is the only one who may make special arrangements for the progress of underprivileged classes. According to Article 15(4) of the Constitution, the State was therefore ineligible to issue the impugned order.

(iii) Even though the State is permitted to do so under Article 15(4), such measures may only be implemented through legislation, not through an executive order.

(iv) The basis adopted by the impugned order in specifying and enumerating the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the State is unintelligible and irrational.

(v) Reservation of 68% made by the impugned order is a fraud on Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

Respondent

(i) The classification made by the impugned order is both rational and intelligible. The reservation prescribed by said order is fully justified by Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

(ii) The contention that the impugned order is a colourable exercise of the State's power and amounts to a fraud on the Constitution is disputed.

(iii) the order is not based on the sole basis of castes.(iv) Art. 15(4) has deliberately and wisely placed no limitation on the State in respect of the extent of special provision that it should make.

(v) if the problem of backward classes of citizens and Scheduled Caste and Tribes in any given State is of such a magnitude that it requires the reservation of all seats in higher educational institutions, it would be open to the State to take that course.

(vi) The only test which can be applied is whether or not having regard to the problem which the State is called upon to meet, the provision made is reasonably adequate or not.

(vii) reservation of a large number of seats for the weaker sections of the society would not affect either the death or efficiency of scholarship at all

Analysis:

Further Categorisation of backward classes - Fraud on the constitutional power conferred by Article 15(4) of Constitution

(i) Impugned order in the present case has categorised the Backward Classes on the sole basis of caste which is not permitted by Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The backwardness under Article 15(4) of the Constitution must be social and educational. It is not either social or educational, but it is both social and educational.

(ii) Nagan Gowda Committee appointed by the State was inclined to treat the caste as almost the sole basis in determining the question about the social backwardness of any community. The Committee incidentally referred to the general economic condition of the community as a contributory factor, but the manner in which it has enumerated the backward and more backward classes leaves no room for doubt that the predominant, if not the sole, test that weighted in their minds was the test of caste.

(iii) Though caste in relation to Hindus may be a relevant factor to consider in determining the social backwardness of groups or classes of citizens, it cannot be made the sole or dominant test. There are certain sections of Indian society such as Christians, Jains, Muslims, etc., who do not believe in caste system. The test of caste does not apply to them. Moreover, social backwardness is in the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to a very large extent.

(iv) Moreover, the occupation of citizens and the place of their habitation also result in social backwardness. The problem of determining who are socially backward classes, is undoubtedly very complex. However, the classification of socially backward citizens on the basis of their castes alone is not permissible under Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

(v) Reservation of 68% made by the impugned order is plainly inconsistent with the concept of the special provision authorised by Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, it follows that the impugned order is a fraud on the Constitutional power conferred on the State by Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

(vi) Reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution must be within reasonable limits. Reservation should and must be adopted to advance the prospects of weaker sections of society. But while doing so, care should be taken not to exclude admission to higher educational centres of deserving and qualified candidates of other communities. A special provision should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case. The object of Article 15(4) of the Constitution is to advance the interests of the society as a whole by looking after the interests of the weaker elements in society.

Appointment of the Commission - Action under Article 15(4) of the Constitution

(i) Constitution included provisions for the appointment of a commission. The recommendations and report of said commission were intended to help the relevant authorities take the necessary action to progress the Backward Classes. It would be incorrect to believe that the appointment of the Commission and the actions that would follow it, constituted a prerequisite to any action being taken in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

(ii) Article 340(1) of the Constitution provides that recommendations had to be made by the Commission as to the steps that should be taken by the union or any State, inter alia, to improve the condition of the Backward Classes. The recommendations were to be made which would be implemented in their discretion by the Union and the State Government and not by the President. Thus, Article 340(1) of the Constitution itself shows that it is the Union or the State that has to take action in pursuance of the recommendations made.

(iii) Therefore, the argument that the President alone has to act in this matter cannot be accepted. The special provisions contemplated under Article 15(4) of the Constitution can be made by the Union or the States by an executive order.

Division of backward classes - Not warranted by Article 15 (4) of the Constitution

(i) Article 15(4) of the Constitution authorises special provision being made for the really backward classes. By introducing two categories, what is intended is to devise measures for all classes of citizens who are less advanced as compared to the most advanced classes in the State. That is not the scope of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The object of making a special provision for the advancement of castes or communities is to carry out the Directive Principle enshrined in Article 46 of the Constitution.

(ii) Unless the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people are promoted quickly and liberally, the ideal of establishing social and economic equality cannot be attained. The result of the method adopted by the impugned order is that nearly 90% of the population of the State is treated as backward. This illustrates how the order in fact divides the population of the State into most advanced and the rest. This puts the latter into two categories of Backward and More Backward. The classification of the two categories, therefore, is not warranted by Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

(iii) The classification of the socially backward classes of citizens made by the State proceeds on the only consideration of their castes without regard to the other factors which are undoubtedly relevant.

Reservation of 68% seats - Inconsistent with the concept of the special provision authorised by Article 15(4) of the Constitution

(i) Reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution must be within reasonable limits. Speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case. If a provision under Article 15(4) ignores the interests of society that is clearly outside the scope of Article 15 (4) of the Constitution.

(ii) When the State makes a special provision for the advancement of the weaker sections of society specified in Article 15 (4) of the Constitution, it has to approach its task objectively and in a rational manner. The reservation of 68% directed by the impugned order is plainly inconsistent with Article 15 (4) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:

(i) A special provision for reservation should be less than 50% of total seats. How much less than 50% would depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.

(ii) The classification of backward classes into two categories of 'backward classes' and 'more backward classes' is invalid and unconstitutional.

(iii) Since 'class' is included in Article 15(4) of the Constitution, 'class' is not the same as 'caste'. Caste, therefore, cannot be the primary criterion for prescribing reservation.

Important Precedents:

(i) Ramakrishna Singh Ram Singh v. State of Mysore

(ii) S. A. Partha v. The State of Mysore

(iii) The State of Madras v. SrimathiChampakamDorairajan MANU/SC/0007/1951

(iv) The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari MANU/SC/0388/1961