Facts of case :
On July 26, 1958, the State of Mysore issued a rule. It said that all communities, except the Brahmin community, were considered educationally and socially backward, along with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This rule reserved 75% of seats in schools and colleges for these groups. Similar rules were issued on May 14, 1959, July 22, 1959, June 9, 1960 and July 10, 1961. The percentage of reserved seats varied in these rules, but all of them were challenged and put aside.
Then, on July 31, 1962, the State of Mysore made a new rule. This new rule cancelled all the previous rules that reserved seats under Article 15 (4) for certain groups. Instead, the backward classes were split into two groups: backward classes and more backward classes. This new rule reserved 68% of seats in engineering, medical colleges and other technical institutions for educationally and socially backward classes, as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Only 32% of seats were left for students with high merit.
Issues
• Can the State create two categories of backward classes known as “backward classes” and “more backward classes”?
• Is reserving 68% of seats In educational institutions a reasonable and feasible action?
• Does the State possess the constitutional authority under Article 15 (4) to enact such reservation orders?
Arguments in MR Balaji vs State of Mysore
Writ petitions were submitted in MR Balaji vs State of Mysore to challenge the validity of the order, as the petitioners argued that the classification introduced by this order lacks reasoning and the 68% reservation is a deception under Article 15 (4).
On January 29, 1953, these writ petitions were presented to contest the validity of the order and they were successful, leading to the cancellation of the challenged order. The petitioners’ concern is that the Impugned order, which has prevented their admission to respective colleges, is invalid according to Article 15 (1) and 29 (2).
Judgement :
The court emphasized that caste cannot be the sole factor for providing the reservation. The court pointed out that Christians, Jains, and Muslims do not believe in the caste system. So, it would be unreasonable to provide a reservation solely on caste basis. Secondly, the test average of the state per 1000 students was 6.9. The Lingayats with an average of 7.1% were mentioned in list of backward committees.
The court stated that 15(4) authorizes reservation for the backward classes and not for such classes as were less advanced than the most advanced classes in the State. The court held that reservation should be within reasonable limits. The concept of creamy layer was not in picture during this time, therefore, the court held that the reservation should be given to the most deserved ones to uplift them.
Court further held that giving reservation in excess to 50% would prejudice the other communities, therefore, it becomes important that reservation is given within reasonable limits.
Conclusion:
• 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.
• The classification of backward classes into two categories of ‘backward classes’ and ‘more backward classes’ is invalid and unconstitutional.
• 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.
“Nidhi verma, BBALLB (H) ;
“ 2nd year student
Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University (SRMU) Lucknow,
Comments