# KUMARI K. S. JAYASREE & ANR v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 194
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-20
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kumari-k-s-jayasree-anr-v-the-state-of-kerala-anr-6902
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitu!ion of India, 1950-Art. 15(4)-Reservation of seats fer socially
f!lnd educationally backward classes in educational instit11tions-A11n11a/ family
income rest-If valid.
A Commission appointed by the State Government to enquire into the social
and educational conditions of the people in the State and to recommend as to
what sections should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes
found that the benefit then in vogue relating to the reservation in educational
institutio!15 of seats based solely on cas!e. or community was being enjoyed
by the nch among the backward commumt1es and found that the lower income
groups of certain communities constituted the socially and educationally backward classes. It,
therefore, recommended adoption of a
means-cum-caste/
community test for the classification so as to take
in
poor and
deserving
se.ctions and exclude the wealthier sections. The State Government accordingly
stzpulated that applicants who are members of certain communities and whose
family income was below Rs. 10,000/- per aipmm would only be entitled to
r.eats reserved for those students The petitioner who belonged to one of the
mcially and educationally backward classes, submitted a certificate of annual
income of the family to be above Rs.
11,000/-, as a result of
which hel1
candidature could not be considered under the reservation scheme for a seat in
the Medical College. In a writ petition under Art. 32
of the Constitution
i;t was contended that there was no reason to exclude an insignificant part of
the community on the basis of income alone and that the income could not be
the criterion of admission to determine the benefit of Art. 15 ( 4),
E
Dismissing the writ petition
HELD : The basis of the reservation is not income but social and educational backwardness.
Backward classes for whose improvement special provisions are contemplated by Art. 15 ( 4) are in the matter of their backwardness
comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Backwardness under
Art. 15(4) must be both social and educational. In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens, the caste of a citizen cannot be the sole or
(
dominant test.
Just as caste i1; not the sole or dominant test, similarly poverty
)
F
is not th_e decisive and dete·rmining factor of &oeial backwardness. [197 G-H]
G
H
The object of the reservation under Art. 15 ( 4) is to recognise the factual
existence of socially and educationally backward classes in the country and to
make a sincere attempt to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the
community.
Article 15 ( 4) gives effect to this principle. The
concept
of
baakwardnesSi in Art. 15(4) is not intended to be relatiw in the sense that
classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of society
should be included in it.
[ 198 B-C]
In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens it may
not be
irrelevant to consider the caste of the group of citizens.
Caste cannot however
be made the whole or dominant test.
Social backwardness is in the ultimate
analysis the result of poverty to a large extent.
Social
backwardness
which
results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of caste. This
shows the relevance of both r caste and poverty in determining the backwardness
of citizens. In evolving proper criteria for determining the socially :ind educationally backward classes, sociological and economic consideratio~s ~'!le. inl;O
play. This determinaiion is the function of the State. The Courts 1unsd1ct1on IS
to decide whether the tests applied are valid. In dealing with the question as to
whether any class of citizens is socially backward or not, it may not be
irrelevant to consider the caste of the said group of citizens. Special provision
is contemplated for Classes of citizens and not for individual citizens as such,
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE V. KERALA (Ray, C.J.)
0195
and so. though the caste of ihe group of citizens1 may be relevant, its importance
shou

## Text

•
A
B
c
D
194
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
August 20, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Constitu!ion of India, 1950-Art. 15(4)-Reservation of seats fer socially
f!lnd educationally backward classes in educational instit11tions-A11n11a/ family
income rest-If valid.
A Commission appointed by the State Government to enquire into the social
and educational conditions of the people in the State and to recommend as to
what sections should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes
found that the benefit then in vogue relating to the reservation in educational
institutio!15 of seats based solely on cas!e. or community was being enjoyed
by the nch among the backward commumt1es and found that the lower income
groups of certain communities constituted the socially and educationally backward classes. It,
therefore, recommended adoption of a
means-cum-caste/
community test for the classification so as to take
in
poor and
deserving
se.ctions and exclude the wealthier sections. The State Government accordingly
stzpulated that applicants who are members of certain communities and whose
family income was below Rs. 10,000/- per aipmm would only be entitled to
r.eats reserved for those students The petitioner who belonged to one of the
mcially and educationally backward classes, submitted a certificate of annual
income of the family to be above Rs.
11,000/-, as a result of
which hel1
candidature could not be considered under the reservation scheme for a seat in
the Medical College. In a writ petition under Art. 32
of the Constitution
i;t was contended that there was no reason to exclude an insignificant part of
the community on the basis of income alone and that the income could not be
the criterion of admission to determine the benefit of Art. 15 ( 4),
E
Dismissing the writ petition
HELD : The basis of the reservation is not income but social and educational backwardness.
Backward classes for whose improvement special provisions are contemplated by Art. 15 ( 4) are in the matter of their backwardness
comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Backwardness under
Art. 15(4) must be both social and educational. In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens, the caste of a citizen cannot be the sole or
(
dominant test.
Just as caste i1; not the sole or dominant test, similarly poverty
)
F
is not th_e decisive and dete·rmining factor of &oeial backwardness. [197 G-H]
G
H
The object of the reservation under Art. 15 ( 4) is to recognise the factual
existence of socially and educationally backward classes in the country and to
make a sincere attempt to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the
community.
Article 15 ( 4) gives effect to this principle. The
concept
of
baakwardnesSi in Art. 15(4) is not intended to be relatiw in the sense that
classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of society
should be included in it.
[ 198 B-C]
In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens it may
not be
irrelevant to consider the caste of the group of citizens.
Caste cannot however
be made the whole or dominant test.
Social backwardness is in the ultimate
analysis the result of poverty to a large extent.
Social
backwardness
which
results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of caste. This
shows the relevance of both r caste and poverty in determining the backwardness
of citizens. In evolving proper criteria for determining the socially :ind educationally backward classes, sociological and economic consideratio~s ~'!le. inl;O
play. This determinaiion is the function of the State. The Courts 1unsd1ct1on IS
to decide whether the tests applied are valid. In dealing with the question as to
whether any class of citizens is socially backward or not, it may not be
irrelevant to consider the caste of the said group of citizens. Special provision
is contemplated for Classes of citizens and not for individual citizens as such,
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE V. KERALA (Ray, C.J.)
0195
and so. though the caste of ihe group of citizens1 may be relevant, its importance
should not be exaggerated. If the classification is based solely on caste of the
citizen, it may not be logical.
When the Commission had determined a class
to be
so~ially and educationally backward it was not on the basis of income
alone, and the determination was based on the relevant criteria laid down by
this Court.
Article 15 ( 4) which speaks of backwardness of classes of citizens
indicates that the accent is on the classes of citizens. Article 15 ( 4) also speaks
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, socially and educationally
bac1'ward classes of citizens in Art. 15(4) cannot be equated with castes. [199 G;
200 D-Hl
R. Chitralekha & Anr.
v.
State of Mysore & Ors. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368
referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1975.
A
B
T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and P. Kesva Pillai, for the petitioners.
C
M. M. Abdul Khadir, M. K. Mustapha and K. P. Nambiar for
the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.-The first petitioner is the minor daughter of the second
Petitioner.
The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the GoD
vernment Order dated 2 May, 1966 on the ground that it offends Article 15 ( 4) of the Constitution.
The petitioners also ask for an order
directing the respondents, viz., the State and the Principal of the
Medical College at Trivandrum to allot a seat to the first petitioner.
The first petitioner applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course
for 1975-76 in one of the Medical Colleges at Trivandrum in
the
E
State of Kerala~~ Clause 8 sub-clause (vi) in the
prospectus
for
admission provided among other things that the applicant should produce certificate of community and income (from all sources) in the
prescribed form in the case of candidates. belonging to the communities
recognised by the Government as socially and educationaHy backward
classes.
.
The petitioner produced·the certificate from the Tahsildar, showing
that the total income of her family from all sources is Rs. 11,752/-
for the year 1975-76 and that she is an Ezhava.
The minimum marks prescribed for admission for candidates 1'elonging to Ezhava community in the State is 363 in the optional subjects of .Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
The petitioner obtained
372 marks.
The petitioner alleges that the list of candidates belonging to the Ezhava/Thiyya community selected for the seats reserved to
them under Article 15 ( 4) of the Constitution was published on 10
October 1975 and the first petitioner was not selected though candidates belonging to Ezhava community who had obtained Jess marks
than the first petitioner had been selected. . The petitioners further
allege that the list shows that candidates No. 6 to 27 obtained marks
ranging between 371 and 357.
The Principal, Medical College sent
a Memorandum to the first petitioner that, as the income exceeds Rs.
10,000/- her case cannot be considered under reservation scheme.
F
G
H
A
·C
·iD
,E
F
G
iH
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
Clause 11 of the prospectus for 1975-76 for admissiofl\ to M.B.B.S.
Col}rse in Medical Colleges in the State is as follows :-
"11. Selection for admission, reservation for S. Cs/S. Ts/
Socially and educationally backward Class and reservation_
on regional basis :-Selection of candidates will be. on the
basis of merits as laid down in C.R.Rt. 1361/70 Health
dated 18.6.1970 and D.0. Ms. M. 0. No. 216/71 Health
dated 6. 7 .1971 and subject to the provisions contained in
G.D.(P) 208/66/Edn. dated 2.5.1966 and subsequent orders
of the Government regarding reservation for ScQeduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally
backward class, reservation for Malabar and Travancore--
Cochin, area etc.
The decision of the Government
and
matters concerning admission shall be final."
On 2 May, 1966 the State Government issued an order, inter alia,
that only applicants who are members of families consisting·or Ezhavas,
whose aggregate annual income is below Rs. 6,0001- would be entitled
to admission to the seats reserved for students belonging to the socially
and educationally backward class.
It should be stated here that the
said order of the State Government came to be issued on the cO'lsideration'. of the report of the Commission appointed by the State to- enquire
into the social and educational conditions of the people and report
as to what sections of the people in the State of Kerala should be
treated as socially and educationally backward classes.
The Commission assumed office on 14 July, 1964 and submitted
its report on 31 December, 1965.
The recommendation
of
the
Commissio11; was that only citizens who are members of families which
have an aggregate income of less than Rs. 4200/- per annum
and
which belong to the castes and communities mentioned in Appendix
VIII constitute socially and educationally backward classes f0r purposes of Article 15 ( 4).
When the Government passed the order on 2 May, 1966 the Government order stated inter alia as follows :-"After the Commission
collected data for its report, the cost of living has risen further and
the income tax exemption limit has been raised.
Having regard to
the current cost of maintenance of a student in a professional
or
technical institution, Government consider that the income limit
of
Rs. 4200/- suggested by the Commission should appropriately
be
raised to Rs. 6000/- per annum.
In the circumstances, the Government accepted the above recommendation subject to the modification
that only citizens who are members of families which have an aggregate
income of less than Rs. 60001~ per annum and which belong to the
castes and communities mentioned in the annexure to this Government
Order will constitute •ocially and educationally backward classes for
purposes of Article 15 ( 4 )'.
The order of the Government dated 2 May, 1966 was challenged
in the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge quashed the Government Order by decision dated 24 February 1975 reported
in
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE V. KERALA (Ray, C.J.)
197
A.I.R. 197 5 Kerala 131. The: State filed an appeal. The validity , A
of the Government Order dated 2 May, 1966 was upheld by
the
Kerala High Court.
The decision of the Hig~ Court dat~d 14 Jqly,
1975 reversing the Judgment of the learned· Smgle Judge 1s reported
in 1975 Kerala Law Times 851 State of Kera/av. Krishna Kumari.(')
The High Court held that the Com1!1ission had materi~l b~fore it. It
is not for the court to weigh the evidence.
The question 1s whether
the approach' made by the Commission is correct.
The High Court
held that economic backwardness plays a part in social backwardness
and in educational backwardness.
Poverty or economic standard is
a relevant factor.
Economic backwardness contributes to
social
backwardness.
--
On 2 September, 1975 the State Government passed an
order
which inter alia states as follows :-
.
"After the issuance of the Government Order the cost of
Ji~ing has risen further and the income tax exemption limit
B
c
has been raised.
Having regard to the current cost of maintenance of a student in a professional or technical institution,
Government consider that the income limit of Rs. 6000/-
prescribed in the Government Order should be appropriately
raised.
In the circumstances, Government are pleased to
D
enhance the income limit of Rs. 6000/- prescribed to Rs.
10000/- per annum with effect from the academic year 197576."
The petitioners contended that there is no reason to exclude
an
insignificant part of the community on the basis· of income alone. The
petitioners emphasised that if the socially and educationally backward
E
classes are set out in the Annexure, income cannot be the criterion of
admission to determine the benefit-of Article 15 ( 4).
The contention of the State is that the Government Order dated
F
2 May, 1966 is not in violation of Article 15 ( 4) because the expression "backward class" in Article 15 ( 4) is not t1Sed as Synonymous
with backward caste or backward community.
The members of an
entire caste or community may in social, economic and
educational
scale of values, at a given time be: backward and may on that accoun'! _
be treated as a backward class. The reason is that they are treated as
socially and educationally backward not because they are members
of a caste or community but because they form a class.
Backward classes for whose improvement special provisions are
contemplated by Article 15 ( 4) are in the matter of their backwardness
comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trib~s. This Court
has emphasised in decisions that t~e backwardness under Article 15 ( 4)
must be both social and educational.
In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens, the caste of a citii:en cannot be the sole or
dominant test.
Just as caste is not the sole
or dominant
test,
similarly poverty is not the decisive and determining factor of social
backwardness.
,
(1)
[1975] Kerala Law Times 851.
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
19 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
The Report of the Commission for reservation of seats in educational institutions found on applying the relevant test that the lower
income group of the communities named in Appendix VIII of the
Report constitute the socially and educationally backward classes and
they are identifiea as those whose family income is below the specified
limit.
The basis of the reservation is not income but social and educational backwardness.
The object of the reservati9n under Article 15 ( 4) is to recognise
the factual existence of socially and educationally backward classes
in our country and to make a sincere attempt to promote the welfare
of the weaker sections of the community.
Article 15 ( 4) gives effect
to this principle.
The concept of backwardness in Article 15 ( 4)
is not intended to be relative in the sense that. classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of society should
be
included in it.
The Commission found that the rich people in the
backward
communities even though they have not acquired any high level of
education are able to move in society today without being discriminated socially.
The Commission further found -that the benefit of the
existing reservation of seats in educational institutions in
favour of
the Ezhavas and other backward communities is today enjoyed
by
the rich people of the type mentioned
above.
Further,
evidence
before the Commission was that the wealthy sections do not at present
have any caste or communal disabilities worth mentioning and
are
not socially backward.
The Commission found that the benefit of
the present system of reservation based solely on caste or communi- _
ty is to a considerable extent, being enjoyed by the wealthy sections to
the prejudice of the poorer sections.
The Commission,
therefore,
found that consideration of a means-cum-caste/community test should
be adopted for the classification 85 as to take in the poor and deserving sections and exclude the wealthier sections.
The. Commission examined occupational test and found that all
the persons belonging to a particular caste or community may
not
now be following its traditional occupation, but most of the persons
who pursue any of those occupations belong to the caste or community
whose traditional occupation it is.
The Commission found that in
such cases very often persons following the traditional
occupation
will be closely related to persons who are pursuing occupations
to
which there is no social stigma.
In such cases, on account of the
near relationship of the persons following the traditional occupation
to the other persons and their
caste/communal associations,
the
stigma affects even the persons not following these traditional occupations.
The Commission found that it is only the lower income
group which is affected by the stigma.
The Commission found that
changes occur at short intervals and therefore identification o[ persons
occupation-wise becomes more difficult in their case.
The Commission referred to the habitational test.
The Commission expressed the opinion that there are :ao great social differences
in the State merely on account of places of residence.
Complete and
v
).
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE V. KERALA (Ray, C.J.)
199
reliable tests on the subject were not available to the Commission
A
to compare the people of the Malabar area to that of TravancoreCochin area.
The Commission, however, said that Malabar is
educationally backward compared to Travancore-Cochin area.
As regards educational backwardness of the classes of citizens, tlle
Commission found that the State average of the students
in
the
last of the: High School classes can safely be taken as one of
the
elements of the composite test for ascertaining educational backwardness.
The Commission treated as backward the conimunities which
have an abnormal fall out. In such cases if their educational backwardness is established by the total absence of any student from the
community, the lower income group is included among the socially
and educationally backward classes on being satisfied of their social
backwardness.
Social backwardness can
contribute
to educational
backwardness and educational backwardness may perpetuate social
backwardness.
Both are often no more than the inevitable corollaries
of the extremes of poverty and the deadening weight of custom and
tradition.
The Commission applied the tests for educational backwardness,
test of habitation, necessity for a means-cum-caste/community test,
the income level for the means-cum-caste/community test, and came
to the conclusion that citizens in the State of Kerala who are members
of families which have an aggregate income of less than Rs. 4200/-
per annum from all sources and which belong to castes or communities mentioned in Appendix VIII constitute socially and educationally
backward classes for purposes of Article 15 ( 4) . The
Commission
found that generally the members of the castes and communlties mentioned in Appendix VIII are educationally backward and that
the
lower income groups which have an aggregate income. of less than
Rs. 4200/- per annum are socially backward also.
The lower income
group of these castes and communities belongs in the opinion of the
Commission to classes of citizen who are both socially and educationally backward.
In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens it may
not be irrelevant to consider the caste of the group of citizens. Caste
cannot however be made1 the sole or dominant test. Social backwardness is in the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to a large extent.
Social backwardness which results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of their caste. This shows the relevance
of
both caste and poverty in determining the backwardness of citizens.
Poverty by itself is not the determining factor of social backwardness.
Poverty is relevant in the context of social backwardness.
The Commission found that the lower income group constitutes socially and
educationally backward classes.
The basis of the reservation is not
income but social and educational backwardness determined on the
basis of relevant criteria. If any classification of backward
classes
of citizens is based solely on the caste of the citizen it will perpetuate
; the vice of caste system.
Again, if the classification is based solely
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
on poverty it will not be logic'al.
The society is taking steps for
uphft of the people.
ln such a task groups or classes who are socially
and educutionally backward are helped by the society.
That is the
philosophy of our Constitution.
It is in this context that social backwardness which results from poverty is likely to be magnified by caste
considerations.
Occupations, place of habitation may also be relevant
factors in determining who are socially and educationally backward
classes.
Social and economic considerations come into operation in
solving the problem and evolving the proper criteria of determining
which classes are socially and educationally backward.
That is why
our Constitution provided for special consideration socially and educationally backward classes of citizens as also Scheduled Castes
and
Tribes.
It is only by directing the society and -the State to offer
them all facilities for social and educational uplift that the problem
is solved.
It is in that context that the Commission in the present
case found that income of the classes of citizens mentioned in Appendix VIII was a relevant factor in determining their social and educational backwardness.
The problem of determining who are socially and educationally
backward classes is undoubtedly not simple.
Sociological and economic considerations come into play in evolving proper criteria for its
determination.
This is the function of the State.
The Court's jurisdiction is to decide whether the. tests applied are valid. If it appears
that tests applied are proper and valid the classification of socially
and educationally backward classes based on the tests will have to
be consistent with the requirements of Article 15 ( 4). The Commis- .
slon has found on applying the relevant tests that the lower income
group o[ the communities named in Appendix VIII of the
Report
constitute the socially and educationally backward classes.
In dealing with the question as to whether any class of citizens is socially
backward or not. it may not be irrelevant to consider the caste of
the said group of citizens.
It is necessary to remember that special
provision is contemplated for classes of citizens and not for individual
citizens as such, and so though the caste of the group of citizen may
be relevant, its importance should not be exaggerated.
If the classification is based solely on caste of the citizen, it may not be logical.
Social backwardness is the result of poverty to a very large extent.
Caste and poverty are both relevant for determining the backwardness.
But neither caste alone nor poverty alone will be the determining te£ts.
When the Commission has determined a class to be socially and educationally backward it is not on the basis of income alone, and the determination is based on the relevant criteria laid down by the Court. Evidence and material are placed before the Commission. Article 15 ( 4)
which speaks of backwardness of classes of citizens indicates that the
accent is on classes of citizens. Article 15 ( 4) also speaks of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens in Article 15 ( 4) cannot be equated with
castes. In R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors.(') this
(1) [19641 6 S.C.R. 368.
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE V. KERALA (Ray, C.J.)
261
Omrt said that the classification of backward classes based on economic
conditions and occupations dqes not offend Article 15 ( 4) .
The different castes that have been described in Appendix VIII to
the Commission's Report'have not been accepted by the Commission as
embodying the group of socially and educationaly backward classes of
people. Only those among the members of the castes mentioned in
Appendix VIII whose economic means was below that stated by the
Commission were treated as socially, and educationally backward. The
educational backwardness is reflected to a certain extent by the economk conditions of the group.
For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed. Parties will
pay and bear their own costs.
P.B.R.
Petition dismissed.
l5··10'l3SCI/76
B
c