FACTS OF THE CASE
On 26 July 1958 the State Government of Mysore passed an order which is for all the communities , except the Brahmins . The order generally for the category which comprise of educationally and socially backward classes , scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes . The above Order reserved 75% of the total seats in educational institutions for these communities . There were other similar orders had been passed but with varying percentages for the reservation purpose.
Thereafter , the Mysore Government once again issued an order on 1962 which has superseded all the previous orders which was related to the reservation of seats that were by passed by the Government Order Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
By the issuance of the order , the State classified the Backward classes into two categories , namely backward classes and more backward classes.
The State through the order, reserved 68% of the seats for the educationally backward classes , scheduled Caste , Scheduled Tribes in the State Engineering and Medical Colleges while leaving merely 32% of the seats for the merit pool .
The above mentioned order , which was passed by the state of Mysore was challenged by 23 petitioners before the Supreme Court through a writ petition under Article 32 States the Right to Constitutional Remedies .
Out of 23 petitioners , 6 were the applicant for the admission in Medical Colleges affiliated either to the Mysore University or the Karnataka University for the pre-professional class in Medicine , left 17 had applied in the University of Mysore for the five Years of integrated course of Bachelor of Engineering.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether the order was rightly passed by the State of Mysore under the Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution .
Categorising the backward classes into backward classes and more backward classes by the State was it justifiable.
Whether the reservation of 68% of the seats for the communities in educational institutions was reasonable.
Whether Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution empowers the State to provide reservation on the basis of Castes .
CONTENTIONS BY PETITIONER :
It was asserted by the petitioner that the State should require to appoint a commission as per the Article 340 of the Indian Constitution before the issuance of the order .
Under the Article 340 of the Indian Constitution , the State is required to appoint the commission and the commission has to make the report which gives the suggestion to improve the condition of Backward classes. Then the above respective report should send to President , who is requisite to cause it to laid before both houses of Parliament along with the memorandum briefing the action taken thereon.
This asserted that the special provision for the advancement of the backward classes merely made by the President . Therefore the State was incompetent to issue the order under the Article 15(4) in the present case.
Further , contented even if the State has the empower under Article 15 (4) to make that special provision it can only be made legislation not by the executive order.
They asserted that only because of the reservation they are not able to take the admission in respective colleges. Otherwise they are proficient or competent to take the admission in colleges . Further argued that those students who got fewer marks than petitioners had got easily admission to the said colleges but not the petitioners themselves.
Petitioners also contented that the criteria applied to list out the socially and educationally backward classes among citizens of the State was irrational and unreasonable.
Furthermore, the categorisation of the backward classes was inconsistent in the purview of Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution.
CONTENTIONS BY RESPONDENT :
Respondent contented that the State was concerned for the socially and educationally backward classes . They wanted them to advance in education for their growth and future success.
They asserted that the Article 15(4) empowers the State to make provisions for the fragile sections of the society for their welfare.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner that it is only the President who can pass an order under Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution .
Apex Court held that the report making and commission appointment as per the Article 340 of Indian Constitution are for the purpose of assisting concerned authorities to make special provision for the advancement of Backward Classes.
But the above mention appointment of such commission is not pre condition to take any action or to take any provision under Article 15(4).
The Court additionally Stated that Article 340(1) of Indian Constitution states that commission is required to make recommendation with regards to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to ameliorate the condition of Backward Classes , which evidently means that the Union or any State is supposed to implement the said recommendation in that direction and not the President.
Further , the court stated that the petitioners assertion about the special provision in purview of Article 15(4) could not be made by an executive order to be unreasonable . The court said that act 15(4) empowers the State to make such provision . And Article 12 of the Constitution clearly mentions that “ State” includes the government as well as the legislature of each of the State .
Nevertheless , the court held the impugned order to be invalid owing to several reasons
The impugned order categorised the backward classes on basis of castes .Article 15 (4) states only about ‘Classes’ not ‘Castes ‘ and these terms are not synonymous .Additionally Court said , though Caste is one of the factor but not the only factor that determine whether the class is backward or not , there are other factors too which are needed to recognise like poverty , place of birth , occupation etc . Hence , the court declared the impugned order to be bad .
The Court held that categorisation of backward classes done by the order into Backward classes and most backward classes was unjustified and beyond scope of Article 15(4).
Presently, in this respective case , the State included all those castes and communities in the classification of Backward classes whose average of student population per thousand was slightly above , slightly below or very near to State average , due to which 90% of State population fall in category of Backward Classes.
Court held such criteria of the State to be unjust and inconsistent with purview of Article 15(4) , and stated only those communities which were well below the average will be regarded as Backward Classes.
In the matter of reservation, the court stated that reserving 68% of the seats in technical institutions like Engineering and Medical Colleges would be deceitful upon the constitution .
The court said that reservation should be provided in order to advance the weaker section of society but not on the cost of those candidate that are qualified and deserving in taking admission in higher educational institutions while doing so.
The court held , the national interest would suffer , if the qualified and competent students are denied admission in higher educational institutions. Thus , the action of state to ignore rest of the society in keenness of promoting welfare of Backward Classes would be unjust and beyond the scope of Act 15(4) of Indian constitution.
The court elucidated that reservation under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution must be provided within reasonable limits and Court capped reservation cannot cross 50% but the exact percentages would depend on the prevailing circumstances of each case .
The court, therefore allowed the writ petition and directed to issue an appropriate writ for the purpose of restraining the respondent from giving effect to the impugned order.
CONCLUSION
The case M.R.Balaji v. State of Mysore led to one of the most remarkable discussions over reservation , in which the apex court answered and elucidated the interpretation of provision invoked by the govt to provide reservation .
The court in the case consented that reservation should be primarily provided to the fragile sections of the society in order to ameliorate them , but at the same time , the court said that it should not be done by avoiding the interest of the remaining section of society.
The powers provide to State in context of reservation under Article 15(4) as well as 16(4) are to promote the educational and economic interest of the weaker section so that they could be protected from social injustice .
Though providing irrational reservation to the weaker section , will do injustice with other sections of the society and it will ruin the meaning of the social equality and the importance of national interest will be in danger.
At last , Court elucidated that , reservation must not exceed 50% and the classification of Backward and more Backward Classes is invalid . Further Caste cannot be the only criteria to determine the Backward Classes because Article 15(4) talks “ Class” and it is not synonymous with “Caste”.
This article is written by Pragati Gautam of Maharishi Dayanand University – CPAS, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments