# M. R. Blll1ji v. State of MJ""

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-06-09
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 90 to 112 of 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. SniIIA, P. B. Gaje~Dragadkar, N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta, ]. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-r-blll1ji-v-state-of-mj-2720
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

. , , . . . Admission into O~lleges~Reservation of seats for ·socially
1<114:. educationally . bachurard c/,asses gnd Sohedukd Castes· and
·Schedukd.
Tribes~Scope
of~Directive Principles-Supr.ern•
(Jourt not to fix pe<~tage-Oonstit'!'tion of India, Arts. 15. (4),
)6.(4),29>(2),46,340. '.·' .
'·•. · ..
· · ·· On July 26, 1958, the State of Mysore . fasued an order
tl:!at ·all the· communities excepting the Brahm in community;
fell within the definition of educationally and socially backward
!'la.ss(!S _aI\d Scheduled Castes _and Schedul_ed Tribes _'and 75% of
,~~J~ in ,~du~atio_nal_-institutio1:1-~· -~er~ J..:~~eryed for t\1.em ... ,_;~irpjJ11r
9(ders}"eservmg seats, V{ere .. 1_s':ued . on. May 14, 1,959 ,JU!~ ,4~,
~:.'\. .. "r':'.\' It . ..-.
~·.o·.--
.
~·~
-
.· ~;, _,·._ ..
~ '.i
1962
.~tate ~/Madhya
Priilleih
i<··~,~-.:~v.~·-, . ·, i_
Pe_er Xtfohd.
-,~_;;_p._.:·:.:·-
Gajendragadkar, J.
1962
·September, 28.
1i6Z
M. R. Blll1ji
v.
State of MJ""
44o SUPREME COURTREPORtS [1963) StJPP.
1959,June 9, 1960 andJuly IO, 1961. The percentage of scats
reserved varied in various orders, but all of them were set aside
when challenged.
On July 31, 1962, the State of Mysore passed another
order which superseded all previous orders made by the State
under Art. 15 (4) for reservation of seats. Under that order,
the backward classes were divided into two categories, backward
classes and more backward classes. The order reserved 68%
of the seats in the engineering and medical colleges and other
te~nical institutions for the educationally and socially backward
classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and left
only 32 per cent seats for the merit pool. The order was
challenged by 23 petitioners by a writ petition w1der Art. 32.
The petitioners contended that but for the reservations made by
the impugned order, they would have been entitled to admission
in the respective colleges for which they had applied. They
contended that the classification made under the order was
irrational and the reservation of 68% seats made by the order
was•· fraud on Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution.
Held, that the impugned order was a fraud on the constitutional power conferred on the State by Art. 15 (4) and the
'ame be quashed. The impugned order categorises the backward
classes on the sole basis of caste which is not permitted by
Art. 15 (4). The reservation of 68% seats is inconsistent with
the concept of the special provision authorised by Art. 15 (4).
However, this Court would not attempt to Jay down definitely
and in an inflexible manner as to what should be the proper
percentage for reservation.
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 com·
munities. Reservations under Arts. 15 (4) and 16 f4) ltt"St be
within reasonable limits. The interests of weaker ~Hoos of
society, which are a first caarge on the States and the dentrc,
have to be adjusted with the interests of thr. community as a
whole. Speaking generally and in a broad way, 11 special
provislon should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must
depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.
The object of Art. 15 (4) ls to advance the intereits of the
society as a whole by looking after the interests of tHc weaker
clements in 1ociety. If a provision under Art. 15 ( 4) ignores
the intereotl of society, that is clearly outside the acope of
i. S.C.1t SUPRJU& COUil T R!POR tS
44,i
Art. 15 (4). It is extremely unreasonable to assume that in
f!llacting'Art. 15 (4), Parliament intended to provide that where
the advancement of :the backward. classes or the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes were concerned, the fundamental righ!S of
the. citizens constituting, the, rest of the society were to .. be
completely and absolutely ignored. Considerations of national
interest and the interests of the community

## Text

_Characters 0–39,939 of 77,426. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39939 for what follows._

1~§,Q,R .. .. SUl,lll:&ME, ,COURT.~ '.'J?ORtS
439
_·- .• ':;
-:
J ",•""
.. ··.\ ~
.: .: ·'
•. \) : .. -.
-·_
.
::·
'
'
... , .,
':.
.-~. -~
which can be tried in courts. If the State contends
(h,aJ the :responden.ts have lost their citizenship ;M
India under s. 9 ( 2) of the Citizenship · Act, it is . open.,
to the appellant to move the Central Government to
consider and determine the matter.. and if the decision of the Central Government goes against the res-•
p6ndents, it -may be competent to the appellant td
tak~ app_ropriate a,cti?n against tpe respondents,. So,
far as . the appellants case agamst the respondents
under Art. 7 is concerned, the High Court was right
in 'holding that the· respondents were not foreigners
Within the ·meaning of c.l: 7' of the Order and call.flcit;
thetefore, be prosecuted .under s. 14 of the .Act. '.(be
appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.. . • '
'
Appeal dismissed:
.
M.· R. BALAJI . AND OTHERS .
;,
v.
STATE. OF MYSORE
.•
(B. P. SniIIA, c. ]., P. B. GAJE~DRAGADKAR,~
K, N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
]. C. SHAH, JJ.)
. , , . . . Admission into O~lleges~Reservation of seats for ·socially
1<114:. educationally . bachurard c/,asses gnd Sohedukd Castes· and
·Schedukd.
Tribes~Scope
of~Directive Principles-Supr.ern•
(Jourt not to fix pe<~tage-Oonstit'!'tion of India, Arts. 15. (4),
)6.(4),29>(2),46,340. '.·' .
'·•. · ..
· · ·· On July 26, 1958, the State of Mysore . fasued an order
tl:!at ·all the· communities excepting the Brahm in community;
fell within the definition of educationally and socially backward
!'la.ss(!S _aI\d Scheduled Castes _and Schedul_ed Tribes _'and 75% of
,~~J~ in ,~du~atio_nal_-institutio1:1-~· -~er~ J..:~~eryed for t\1.em ... ,_;~irpjJ11r
9(ders}"eservmg seats, V{ere .. 1_s':ued . on. May 14, 1,959 ,JU!~ ,4~,
~:.'\. .. "r':'.\' It . ..-.
~·.o·.--
.
~·~
-
.· ~;, _,·._ ..
~ '.i
1962
.~tate ~/Madhya
Priilleih
i<··~,~-.:~v.~·-, . ·, i_
Pe_er Xtfohd.
-,~_;;_p._.:·:.:·-
Gajendragadkar, J.
1962
·September, 28.
1i6Z
M. R. Blll1ji
v.
State of MJ""
44o SUPREME COURTREPORtS [1963) StJPP.
1959,June 9, 1960 andJuly IO, 1961. The percentage of scats
reserved varied in various orders, but all of them were set aside
when challenged.
On July 31, 1962, the State of Mysore passed another
order which superseded all previous orders made by the State
under Art. 15 (4) for reservation of seats. Under that order,
the backward classes were divided into two categories, backward
classes and more backward classes. The order reserved 68%
of the seats in the engineering and medical colleges and other
te~nical institutions for the educationally and socially backward
classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and left
only 32 per cent seats for the merit pool. The order was
challenged by 23 petitioners by a writ petition w1der Art. 32.
The petitioners contended that but for the reservations made by
the impugned order, they would have been entitled to admission
in the respective colleges for which they had applied. They
contended that the classification made under the order was
irrational and the reservation of 68% seats made by the order
was•· fraud on Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution.
Held, that the impugned order was a fraud on the constitutional power conferred on the State by Art. 15 (4) and the
'ame be quashed. The impugned order categorises the backward
classes on the sole basis of caste which is not permitted by
Art. 15 (4). The reservation of 68% seats is inconsistent with
the concept of the special provision authorised by Art. 15 (4).
However, this Court would not attempt to Jay down definitely
and in an inflexible manner as to what should be the proper
percentage for reservation.
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 com·
munities. Reservations under Arts. 15 (4) and 16 f4) ltt"St be
within reasonable limits. The interests of weaker ~Hoos of
society, which are a first caarge on the States and the dentrc,
have to be adjusted with the interests of thr. community as a
whole. Speaking generally and in a broad way, 11 special
provislon should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must
depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.
The object of Art. 15 (4) ls to advance the intereits of the
society as a whole by looking after the interests of tHc weaker
clements in 1ociety. If a provision under Art. 15 ( 4) ignores
the intereotl of society, that is clearly outside the acope of
i. S.C.1t SUPRJU& COUil T R!POR tS
44,i
Art. 15 (4). It is extremely unreasonable to assume that in
f!llacting'Art. 15 (4), Parliament intended to provide that where
the advancement of :the backward. classes or the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes were concerned, the fundamental righ!S of
the. citizens constituting, the, rest of the society were to .. be
completely and absolutely ignored. Considerations of national
interest and the interests of the community and the sC1ciety as a
whole have already to be kept in mind.
.
·Article 15 was amended and Art. 15 (4) was added.in
view of: the judgment of this Court in the Stat• of. Ma.dras v.
Smt. Onampakam Dorairajan and The Stak of Madr1JA v. 0 .. R.
Srinivasan[1951] S. C.R .. 525. Article 15 (4) is a proviso or
an exception to Arts. 15 (1) arid 29 (2). Ifan order is justifiec!
bythe provisions of·Art. 15 (4),.its validity cannot be.questioned on·the,ground that it violates.Art. 15 (~)or Art. 29 (2).
It is true that the Constitution contemplates the appointment.•of a commission whose · report and recolnmendations can
be of assistance to.the authorities conce~ned for taking adequate
mps.fot the· advancement of backward classes, but . this does not
mean that the appointment of the commission and the subse·
quent steps that would follow it ar~ a coμditiori precedent to
any action being taken under Art. 15 ( 4). The specia.1 provisions
contemplated uμder Art. 15 ( 4) can be made by the Union or
the States by· an executive order. · It cannot be said that the
PreSident alone:.can make speCial provision for the advancement
of the· backward classes.
Article 15 · (4) aiithorises the State to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward· classes· of· citizens as distinguished from· the Scheduled
Castes-and Scheduled Tribes. · Some backward cl"'8ses may, by
presidential order, be included in Scheiluled Castes and '.Tribes;
and i!IJ that .sense the backward da8'es for whose improvement
ptovi•ion.is made itt Att. 15 (4) are comparable to Scheduled
Ca•tes and Scheduled Tribe8.
·
The backwardne~s under Art. 15 (4) must be social and
educational.. It is not· either. social or educatiorull, but it is
both- social and 'educational. Though caste in relatfon to
Hindus inay be a relevant factor to consider in. determining the If
"SoCial backwardness of groups, or classes of ~itizeris, it. cannot
be rilade the sole dr dominant test. There are CC\"tain seGtions
Of Indian society such as Christians,Jains, Muslirris, etc., Who
do not J;eHeve in caste system, and the test of caste ii~• not
a'PJ?lY t<Y them, MoteOvcr, social backWardness IS iii .tht
ultunate analyii:s the result of poverty to a very lar&e stent.
191SZ
1962
.\f, R. Ba!aji
v.
StaU of M,ysore
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [lg63] SUPP.
The classes of citizens who are deplorably poor automatically
become socially backward. 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, h undoubtedly very complex, but the classification of socially backward citizens on the basis of their castes
alone is not permissible under Art. 15 (4).
In determining the educational backwardness of a class of
citizens, the literacy test supplied by the Census Report> is not
adequate. It is doubtful if the test of the average of the
student population in the last three high school classes is
appropriate in deter.mining educational backwardness.
Jn. a.ny
case, the State is not justified in including in the list of backward classe~ castes or communities whose average of Student
population per thousand is slightly above or very near or just
below the State average. The legitimate view to take is that
the classes of citizens whose average is well or substantially
below the State average can be treated as educationally backward. It is not for this Court to lay down any hard and fast
rule in this matter. It is the duty of the State to decide the
matter in a manner which is consistent with the requirements
of Art. 15 (4).
The division of backward classes into two categories of
backward classes and more backward classes is not warranted by
Art. 15 (4). Art. 15 (4) authorises special provision being made
for the really backward classes but 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 Art. 15 (4).
The object of making a special provision for the advancement of castes or com,munities is to carry out the Directive
Principle enshrined in Art, 46.
Unless the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the people arc
promoted quickly and liberally, the ideal of establishing social
and economic equality cannot be attained. Article 15 (4)
authorises the State to take adequate steps to achieve the object.
While making adequate reservation under Art. l 6 ( 4),
care should be taken not to provide for unreasonable, excessive
or extravagant reservation because that would by eliminating
general cor:ipetition in a large field and by cre~ting widesprea.d
dissatisfacuon am.ong the employees, materially affect their
efficiency.
Like the special provision improperly made under
An. 15 (4), reservation made under Arl. 16 (4) beyond the
permissible and legitimate limits is a fraud on !he Constitution.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREm COURT REPORTS
443
RartMkrilihna Singh Ram Singh v. State of Mysore, A. I. R.
1960 Mysore 338, S. A. Partha v. The State of Mysore, A. I. R.
1961 Mysore 220, The State of Madras v. Shrimathi Ohampakam
Dorairajan, [1951] S. C.R. 525 and General Manager, Southern
Rsilway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 S. C. R. 586, referred to
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION :
Writ Petitions
Nos. 90 to 112 of 1962.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakri&hna,n, for the petitioners.
G. Ethirajulu Naidu, Advocate General of the
State of Mysore, B. R. L. Iyengar, D. M. Chandrasekhar and P. D. Menon, for the Respondent No. 1.
R. Gopakt,krishna,n, for the Interveners.
1962. September 28. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
IH:
M. R. Bll.j
v.
St•t1 •f Mp1rr
GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-Since 1958 the State of
G•faoi1t11Uk••, J
Mysore has been endeavouring to make a special
provision for the advancement of the socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens in the State
of Mysore under Article 15 ( 4) of the Constitution,
and every time when an order is passed in that behalf,
its validity has been challenged by writ proceedings.
Four previous orders passed in that behalf were
challenged by writ proceedings taken
against the
State under Art. 226 in the High Court of Mysore.
The present petitions filed by the respective petitioners
under Art. 32 dispute the validity of the last order
pai!lied by the State of Mysore on the July 31, 1962,
under Art. 15 (4).
Out of the twenty-three petitioners, six had
applied for admission to the Pre-professional Class
in Medicine in the Medical Colleges affiliated either
M. R. Balaji
.. v.~
S14tt of M_.,sort
CUjidrlp.Jkar, J.
to the Mysore University or to the Kamatak Univer··
sity; and seventeen had applied· for admission to the·
First' Year of' the 5 Year integrated COUl~e leading
to the Degree of B. E. in the University Qf M>"sore.
According to the petitioners, but for the· reservation
made by the impugned order, they' woukl;have beel'J
entitled to the admission in the respective "colleges for
which they had. applied. 'As a re5ult ·qfthtl'escr·
vation ''inade' oy the said order/ stttdcnts whb &ave
secureq less percentage of marks have been ·admitted,
but notthe petitioners. That, in brief, is the- peti'.
tioners' grievance and they urge that the imp'U#li:~
order which has denied them the facility ofadmiMiCll'l
. in the respective colleges is void under Artsr 15 .(l)
and 29 (2) and sho.uld hot be enforced ~inst them.
. Accordingly, the petitioners pray that a writ . of
mandamus ar1.d/or• 1 any suitable wr.it or directian
should be issued against respondent ·No. I, the State
of ' Mysbre·· · '(hereinafter · ca1led the State), and
the two Selection Committees which· have ·beat
impleaded as respondents 2 & 3. The petitioner$'
case is' that •the· Impugned order which ·has• been
passed under Art• 15 (4) is not valid because the·~
ad6ptea· by the order in specifying and erj:umerating
tlie socially and' educationally ·backwat;d--;classcs:.of
citizens . in the State is unintelligible :and irratio4ill,
and· the dassificathm made on the said basis''is in-e6tt··
sistent with and outSide the provisions of ,Art, 15.(4.}.
Ifis also urged by thern thatthe extent of:ttescrvatiorl
prescribed' by the · said order is so unreasonable;and
eXtravagant that the order, in law, is net justified:by
Art~ Ill (4) atid, in substance, is a fraud 01rthe'•po'We?
conferred by the said' Article on the·State.
• ·
.•
These allegations are denied by the State tttd
it is urged on its behalf that the. classification m'llde is
both -rational and intelligible and the -rservation
p.resc:rib~ by the order Ml fully justified.by Art;;l5 (')· -
The contention that tke order iS a coldara:ble ftei'eise·
. I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
W>
of the State's power and amounts to a fraud 01> the
Constitution is disputed.
As we have just indicated, the impugned order
was preceded by four other orders and so, it is necessary to refer to the said orders in their sequence to
understand the background of the dispute between
the parties. On the 26th July, 1958, the State issued
an order that all the communities, excepting the
Brahmin community, fell within the definition of
educationally and socially Backward Classes and
Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and provided for the
said communities and tribes reservation of 75% of
seats in edprational institutions. For the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the percentage of
reservation was 15% and 3% respectively. This
percentage for the Scheduled Castes & Tribes has
bei-n "1aintained in a 11 the subseauent orders. The
order is;ucd by the State on the 26th July, .1958, w~
challenged before the Mysore High Court and it
appears that the State conceded before the High
Court that there was a drafting error in the Govern'' ,
ment Order and so, it did not press its case that the
said order was valid. In the result, the writ petitions
filed to challenge the validity of the order succeeded
and the impugned order was quashed.
·
In 1959, two separate orders were passed by the
State on the 14th May and 22nd July respectively.
By the first order, all communities, excepting
Brahmins, Baniyas and Kayasts among the Hindus
and Muslims, Christians and J ains, were classified as
socially and educationally Backward Classes. It
appears that 65 % of the seats were reserved for these
socially and educationally Backward Classes and
Scheduled Castes and Tribes. These orders were
challenged before the Mysore High Court in the case
of Ramakrishna Singh Ram Singh v. Stat,e oJ
Mysore (').
The
High Court upheld the pleas
raised by the petitioners and quashed the impugned
(I) A.I.R. 1960 MylOl'e 338,
1~
M.11. lt.Uji
...
Sm11 •f MJ""
G1jm,rq<lli., ,J.
'
1'62
M. /I. Balaji
v.
SW• ef Myso"
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
orders.
In the result, ·the High Court directeci
that the applications made by the petitioners for
admission to the respective colleges should be considered without reference to the said orders, but subject
to the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes made therein.
The State then appointed a Committee called
the Mysore Backward Classes Committee with Dr. R.
Nagan Gowda as its Chairman, to investigate the
problem and advise the Government as to the criteria
which should be adopted in determining the educationally and socially Backward Classes, and the special
provisions which should be made for their advancement.
The Committee made an interim report, and
in the light of the said report, the State passed an
order on the 9th June, 1960 regulating admissions for
that year into the professional and technical colleges.
Broadly stated, the effect of this order was that 60%
of the seats were left open for what may be conveniently described as the 'merit pool' available to
candidates according to their merits. 40% were reserved for the 'reservation pool', 22 % o:!' which were
reserved for the Backward Classes, 15% for the Scheduled Castes and 3% for
the Scheduled Tribes.
This order wa• also challenged before the Mysore
High Court in S. A. Partha
v.
The St;ate of
Mysore('). It appears that, on the whole,
the
High Court did not feel satisfied that the scheme of
the special provision made by the impugned order was
invalid, but it thought that the allotment of seats
under the provisions ot the said order in favour of
the other Backward Classes in excess of 22 % reserved
for them otherwise than by open competition amounted to an unreasonable restraint on the fundamental
right of other citizens and, therefore, was invalid.
Having reached this decision, the High Court indicated the manner in which the reservation in favour
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward Classes should be worked out so as to
(I) A.I.II.. 19111 Myoore 220;
I
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
447
avoid a successful challenge under Arts. 15 ( 1) and
29 (2).
Thereafter, the Nagan Gowda Committee made
its report in 1961 and in the light of I he said report
and the recommendations made therein, the State
proceeded to make an order under Art. 15 (4) on
July 10, 1961. This Order begins with the observation that the Nagan Gowda Committee has come
to the conclusion that in the present circumstances,
the only practicable method of classifying the Backward Classes in the State is ori the basis of castes and
communities, and it has specified the crit<:ria which
should be adopted for determining the educational
and social backwardness of the communities. The
two criteria specified in the report arc then set out.
The order then expresses the State's concurrence
with the proposal made bv the Committee that the
Backward Classes should be sub-divided into two categories-Backward and the More Backward, and it
adopts the test laid down by the report in that behalf.
This approach, according to the order, is
re~listic and
practicable.
On the qnestion as to the
communities
which shonld be treated as backward, the State made
some variations in the recommendations made by the
Committee. It held that Lingayats, and Bhunts who
formed part of Vokkaligas, should be treated as backward. In that connection, the State noticed the fact
that the recommendation of the Committee in respect
of the said two communities was not unanimous, and
it observed that a large percentage of Lingayat population lives in rural areas and most of them are engaged in agriculture and manual labour and suffer from
all the conseqnenccs of illiteracy and poverty.
In
regard to the Bhunts, the State
thought that they
could not be distinguished from the rest of the Vokkaligas.
The order then adds th 1t Satanis, Nayars and
Zoreastrians whme averag-~ according to the
~duca
tional lest prescribed by the Committee was i per
thousand of population (whereas that of Lingayats i'o
1952
Af. R. Ba.aj
v.
State of Myvor1,,
Gajeridragadkm , J
J962
M. R. 8'/aji
.v.
-Sate of Mys~1
.;aj,.,,.,,,,,,.,, /,
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
7. 1) need not be treated as backward. The order
then examines the question as to the percentage which
should be reserved, and it rejects the Committee's
recommendation of reservation of 68% all-told on. the
ground that such a large percentage of reservation
would not be in the larger interests of the State. That
is why, :tccording to the order, 48 % was fixed as the
total reservation in favour of the Backward Classes,
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together;
that means, 30% was
reserved for the Backward
Classes.
Annexure I to this order gives a list of 81
Classes and 135 More Backward Classes.
On July 31,
Hl62,
the
State passed
the
impugned order which supersedes all previous orders
made by the State under Art. 15(4) for reservation. of
the seats in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the Backward Classes. Under
this order, the Backward Classes are_ divided into two
categories (1) Backward Classes and (2) More Backward Classes. The effect of this order is that it has
fixed 50% as the quota for the reservation of seats for
Other Backward Classes; 28% out of this is reserved
for Backward Classes so-called and 22% for More
Backward Classes. The reservation of 15% and 3%
for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively continues to be the same. The result of this
order is that 68% of the seats available for admission
to the Engineering and Medical Colleges and to other
techniciil institutions specified in the order passed on
July 10, 1961 is reserved, and only 32% is available to the merit pool. In other words, the percentage of reservation to the extent of 68%, which,
according to the order of July 10, 1961, would have
been against the larger interests of the State, haf!; by
the impugned order, been accepted. The petitioners
contend that the classification made by this order is
irrational and the reservation of 68% made by it is a
fraud on Article 15 (4),
I
1 $.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
~49
The problem raised for our decision by the
present petitions involves the consideration of sociological, social and economic factors, and so, before
dealing with the contentions raised by the parties
before us, it is necessary to set out briefly the material
which has been adduced before us.
On January 29,
1953,
the
President appointed
the
Backward
Classes Commission by virtue of the power conferred
on him under Art. 340 (1) of the Constitution. This
Commission
made
its
report
on
March 30,
1955. The Commission was required "to investigate
the conditions of socially and educationally backward
classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour, and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the
Union or any State to remove such difficulties and to
improve their condition." [Art. 340 (l)]. According to
the Commission, the relevant factors to consider in
classifying Backward Classes would be their traditional
occupation or profession; the percentage of literacy or
the general educational advancement made by them;
the estimated population of the community, and the
distribution of the various communities throughout
the State or their concentration in certain areas. The
Commission also thought that the social position which
a community occupies in the caste hierarchy would
also have to be considered, as well as its representation
in Government service or in the industrial sphere.
(p. 4 7). According to the Commission,
the causes of
educational backwardness amongst the educationallv
and socially backward communities were:-
·
1. Traditional apathy for education on account
of social and environmental conditions or
occupational handicaps.
2.
Poverty and lack of educational il)stitutions
in rural areas.
3.
Living in inaccessible areas.
1962
M. R. Balaji
v.
State of MyJo"
Gajmdragadkar 1 J
1962
iW". R. Balaji
v
Sir.le of Mys01e
Gaju1dragadlcar, J.
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
4.
Lack of adequate educational aids, such as
free studentships, scholar~hips and monetary
grant;;.
5.
Lack of residential hostel facilities.
6.
Unemployment among the educated which
acts as a damper on the desire of the members to educate their children; and
7.
Defective educational system which does
not train students for appropriate occupations and professions. (p. 107).
The Committee realised that, in substance, the problem of the Backward Classes is really the problem of
Rural India (p. 55). It appears that having considered several criteria which may be relevant in determining which classes are backward, the Committee
ultimately decided to treat the status of caste as an
important factor in that behalf, and it is on that basis
that it proceeded to make a list of Backward Communities which were specified in Volume II of the
Report.
Dealing with the problem of university education,
the Committee observed that the present rush of
students to the Universities should be prevented in the
larger interests of the country and that could be done
only by training students in various occupations and
professions at the secondary stage itself. But the
Committee noticed that so long as University Degree
qualification continues 10 be a pre-requisite to Government service, it was not easy to prevent the rush at
the doors of the Universities, and so, the Committee
proceeded to recommend that in all Science, Engineering,
Medicine, Agriculture, Veterinary and other
technical institutions, a reservation of 70% of the
seats should be made
for 1 qualified students of
Backward Classes till such time as accommodation
can be provided for all students eligible for admission.
(pp. 119 & 125).
t
,1
i S.C.R.
SUPRE.l\IIE COURT REPORTS
451
That, in brief,
is the nature of the meterial
available from the Commission's Report.
It is, however, significant that the Chairman
of the Commission who signed the Reporl, confrsteL
to a feeling of grave dissatisfaction with the approach
adopted in the Report in determining the question
as to which communities could be regarded as backward under Art. 15(4). "My eyes were however
opened," says the Chairman in his covering letter to
the President, "to the dangers of suggesting remedies
on caste basis when I discovered that it is going to
have a most unhealthy effect on the Muslim and
Christian sections of the nation," and he added that
the said consciousness gave him a rude shock and
drove him
to the conclusion that the remedies
suggested by the Commission were worse than the evil
it was out to combat.
According to the Chairman,
"if we eschew the principle of caste, it would be
possible to help the extremely poor and deserving
from all communities. Care, however, being taken to
give preference to those who come from the traditionally neglected social
classes."
Even though the
0hairman thus expressed his distress in very strong
language over the basis adopted by the Commission,
he ultimately agreed to the proposal of the Commission
for the reservation of seats for Backward Classes to
the extent· of 70 per cent.
The Report made by the Backward Classc;
C0mmissiop along with the Chairman's covering
letter was considered by the Central Government in
due course. The Centrr' Government apparently
did not feel satisfied abouc the approach adopted by
the Commission in determining as to who should be
treated as
Backward Classes under Article Li(-i ).
The Memorandum issued by the Government of
India on the Report of the Commission points out
that it cannot be denied that the caste svstem
is the greatest hindrance in the way of our pr .. igress
towards an egalitarian society, and the recognition of
1962
M. R. Ba.'a1 1•
v.
Stat1 of MJJori:
.Gajmdra1adlc11r, .I
1962
.\£. R. Baiaji
v.
State o} 1\fy~ore
a ien /rflgadka1, j.
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.
the specified castes as backward may serve to maintain and even perpetuate the existing distinctions on
the basis of castes.
Besides, the IT.emorandum goes
on to add that some of the tests applied by the
Commission were more or less of an individual
character, and even if they were accepted, they would
encompass a large majority uf the country's population.
If the entire community, says, the memorandum,
barring a few exceptions, has thus tu be regarded as
backward, the really needy would be swamped by
the multitude and hardly receive any special attention
or adequate assistance, nor would such dispensation folfil the conditions laid down in Art. 3JO of the Constitution.
The memorandum, therefore, emphasised that
action on a systematic and elaborate basis can be
proceeded with only after the necessary positive tests
and criteria have been laid down for determining
which classes or sections are really entitled to get special
relief and assistance. To that end, further investigation was obviously indicated. Even so, instructions
were issued by the Central Government to the State
Governments . requesting
them to render
every
possible assistance and to give all reasonable facilities
to the people who come within the category of Backward Classes in accordance with their existing lists
and also to such others who in their opinion deserve
to be considered as socially and educationally backward in the existing circumstances.
On April 24, 1962,
the
Central
Governmrnt wrote to the Secretary of Education Department
of the Government of Mysore on the subject of reservation of seats under Arucle l •3( 4).
In this communication it was observed that tlte Central Government
had considered the said question and was of opinion
that a uniform policy should be followed all over the
country at least in non-Govermncnl institutions.
It
was then added that the All-India Council for Technical Education had rec@mmendcd that the reservation
for Scheduled Castes and Schrdukd Tribes and other
:....," _:\,
r~i .. :'•,'.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
453
backward communities may be up to 25% with marginal adjustments not exceeding 10% in exceptional
cases.
The Central Government, therefore, suggested
that in all non-Government institutions in the State,
the reservations under Art. 15 (4) should not in any
case exceed 35%.
In this connection, it would be interesting to
refer to the report made by the Commissioner for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in 1959. In
this Report, the Commissioner refers to the pilot survey
made by the Dy. Registrar General of India at the
request of the Government of India. This survey was
made with the help of material collected at the time
of 1951 Census with a view to find out whether occupations could be adopted as suitable basis for determining social and educational backwardness. A preliminary analysis of the data collected indicated that it
would be possible to draw up a list of socially and
educationally backward occupations on the basis of:-
( a) any non-agricultural
occupat10ns in any
State in India in which 50% or more of the
persons belong to the .Scheduled Castes or the
Scheduled Tribes; or
(b) any non-agricultural occupations in which
literacy percentage of the persons depending
thereon is less than .50°/1 of the general literacy
in the State.
In his Report, the Corr.missioner has adversely commented on the classification made by the State in the
impugned order.
It now remains t0 consider the report made by
the Nagan Gowda Committee appointed by the Stale.
This Report proceeds on the basis that higher social
status has generally been accorded on the basis of
caste for centuries; and so, it takes the view that the
\9w social position of any community is, therefore1
196Z
M. R. Balaji
. v.
State of Mysore
Gajendr.1gadkar, j.
1962
M. R. Balaji
v.
~·'ale n.f Mysore
Gajendragadkar, J.
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
mainly due to the caste system. According to the
Report, there are ample reasons to conclude that
social backwardness is based mainly on racial, tribal,
caste and denominational differences, even though
economic backwardness might have contributed to
social backwardness. It would thus be clear that the
Committee approached its problem of enumerating
and classifying the socially and educationally backward communities on the basis that the social backwardness depends substantially on the caste to which
the community belongs, though it recognised that
economic condition may be a contributory factor. The
classification made by the Committee and the enumeration of the backward communities which it adopted
shows that the Committee virtually equated the classes
with the castes.
According to the Committee, the
entire Lingayat community was socially forward; and
that all sections of Vokkaligas, excluding Bhunts, were
socially backward. With regard to the Muslims, the
majority of the Committee agreed that the Muslim
community as a whole should be classified as socially
backward.
The Committee further decided
that
amongst the backward communities two divisions
should be made (i) the Backward and (ii) the More
Backward. In making this distinction, the Committee
applied one test. It enquired: "Was the standard of
education in the community in question less than 50%
of the State average? If it was, the community should
be regarded as more backward; if it was not, the
community should be regarded as backward."
As to
the extent of reservation in educational institutions,
the Committee's recommendation was that 28% should
be reserved for backward and 22% for more backward. In other words, 50% should be reserved for
the whole group of backward communities besides
15% and 3% which had already been reserved for
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively.
That is how according to the Committee, 68°/r,
was carved out by reservation for the betterment of
the Backward Classes and the Scheduled Castes anc:)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
455
Tribes. It is on the basis of these recommendations
that the Government proceeded to make its impugned
order.
Article 15( 4) provides that nothing in
this
Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the
State from making any special provision for the
advancement of any socially and educationally backward Classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes. This Article was added
by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The
object of this amendment was to bring Articles 15 and
29 in line with Art. 16( 4 ). It will be recalled that in the
case of The State of 1lfadras v. Srimathi Champakam
Domirajan(') the validity of the Government order
issued by the Madras Government fixing certain
proportions in which students seeking for admissions
to the Engineering and Medical Colleges in the State
should be admitted, was challenged.
The said
Government Order was on the face of it a communal
order fixing the admissions in the Stated. proportion
by reference to the communities of the candidates.
This order was struck down by the Madras High
Court and the decision of the Madras High Court
was confirmed by' this Co.urt in appeal, on the ground
that the fundamental r 1ghts guaranteed by Articles
15(1) and 29(2) were not controlled by aQ.y exception,
and that since there was no provision under Art. 15
corresponding to Art. 16(4), the impugned order
could not be sustained. It was directly as a result
of this decision that Art. 15 was amended and
Art. 15(4) was added. Thus, there is no doubt that
Art. J5(4) has to be read as a proviso or an exception
to Articles 15(1) and 29(2). In other words, if the
impugned order is justified by the provisions of
Art. 15(4), its validity cannot be impeached on the
ground that it violates Art. 15(1) or Art. 29(2). The
fundamel'l:tal rights guaranteed by the said two provisions do not affect the validity of the special provision
which it is permissible to make under Art. 15(4).
(I) (1951] S.C.R. 525.
1962
M. R. B•l•ji
v.
Slate of AfyJort
Gajendrag•dkar, J.
1962
M. R. Balaji
v.
State of Mysore
Gajentfragodkar1 J.
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
This position is not and cannot be in dispute.
The
petitioners contend that the impugned order is invalid
because it is not justified by Art. 15(4).
The first argument which has been urged by
Mr. Iyyangar on behalf of the petitioners is that it
is not competent to the State to make an order under
Art. 15(4) unless a Commission has been appointed
under Art. 340 ( 1) and a copy of the report of the
said Commission is laid before the House of Parlia·
ment under Art.
340(3). The argument is that
Art. 340 provides for the appointment of a Commi·
ssion to investigate the conditions of Backward Classes.
The Commission so appointed is required to make a
report recommending what steps should be taken to
improve the conditions of the Backward Classes
[Art. 340(2)]. When the Report is received by the
President, the President is required to cause a copy of
the Report together with the memorandum explaining
the action taken thereon to be laid before each House
of Parliament [Art. 340(3)]. It is the President who
is to take action on the Report and then lay it before
the Home of Parliament and it is only the President
who can, therefore, make special provision for the
advancement of the Backward Classes. That is the
effect of reading Articles 340 and 15( 4) together. In
our opinion, this contention is mis-conceived. It is
true that the Constitution contemplated the appointment of a Commission whose report and recommenda·
tions, it was thought, would be of assistance to the
authorities concerned to take adequate steps for the
advancement of Backward Classes; but it would be
erroneous to assume that the appointment of the
Commission and the subsequent steps that were to
follow it constituted a condition precedent to any
action being taken under Art. 15(4). Besides, it
would be noticed that Art. 340(1) 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
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME GOUR T REPORTS
457
Backward Classes ; and that means that the recommendations were to be made which would
be
implemented in their discretion by the Union and the
State Government and not bv the President.
Thus
Art. 340(1) ·itself shows that' it is the Union or the
State that has to take action in pursuance of the
recommendations made, and so, the ar.~ument that
the President alone has to act in this matter cannot
be accepted.
Then it is urged that even if special provision
cari be made by the State under Art. 15( 4 ), the said
provision must be made not by an executive order
but by legislation. This argument is equally misconceived. Under Art. 12, the State includes the
Government and the Legislature of each of the States,
and so, it would be unreasonable to suggest that the
State must necessarily mean the Legislature and not
the Government. Besides, where the
Constitution
intended that a certain action should be taken by
legislation and not by executive action, it has adopted
suitable phraseology in that behalf.
Article 16(3)
and (5) are illustrations in point. Both the said subclauses of Art. .16, in terms, refer to the making of
the law by the Parliament in respect of the matters
covered by them.
Similarly, Articles 341 (2) and
342 (2) expressly refer to a law being made by Parliament as therein
contemplated.
Therefore, when
Art. 15( 4) contemplates that the State can make the
special provision in question, it is clear that the said
provision can be made by an executive order.
Art. 15(4) authorises the State to make a special
provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens, as distinguished from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. No doubt, special provision can be made for
both categories of citizens, but in specifying the categories, the first category is distinguished from the
second. Sub-clauses (24). and (25) of Art. 366 define
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively,
1,62
Jf.