M. R. BALAJI VS STATE OF MYSORE : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in M R Balaji & Ors Vs State of Mysore (1963) AIR 649 held that special provision made under Article 15 (4) should be less than 50% . The Supreme Court also held that caste cannot be sole criteria of reservation and there cannot be sub-classification of Backward Classes.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Sate of Mysore issued order dated 31st July, 1962 under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution making special provision for advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the State of Mysore.
Prior to this order the State of Mysore had issued several orders in this regard which have been struck down by Courts. State of Mysore appointed Mysore Backward Classes Appointments Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. R. Nagan Gowda. The Report observed that caste and communities can be basis of classifying backward classes.
On the basis of report of this Committee the Government issued aforesaid order dated 31st July, 1962. Under this order the Backward Classes were divided under two categories – (i) Backward Classes and (ii) More Backward Classes. 50% was reserved for other Backward Classes out of which 28 % was reserved for Backward Classes and 22% was reserved for More Backward Classes. 15% was reserved for Scheduled Castes and 3% was reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
The result of this order was that 68% of seats were reserved and 32% of seats were only available for merit pool.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
It was contended by the Petitioners that classification made under Article 15(4) is irrational and 68% reservation is fraud on Article 15 (4).
It was also contended by the Petitioners that State is not competent for the State to make an order under Article 15 (4) unless a commission has been appointed under Article 340 (1) and a copy of report is laid before the Parliament. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court observed that report by Commission is not condition precedent for issuing order under Article 15 (4). Further Union or State Government has to take action under Section 340 (1) and not the President.
It was also contended by the Petitioners that provision under Section 15 (4) can be made only by legislation and not executive order. This argument was also rejected the Supreme Court. The Court noted that Government is covered under definition of State. Wherever legislation is required to be passed, the same has been prescribed by Constitution.
The Supreme Court rejected sub-classification of Other Backward Classes in Backward Classes and More Backward Classes. Article 15 (4) provides special provision for really backward classes.
The Supreme Court also observed that caste cannot be sole criteria for making special provisions in favour of Backward Classes. Other factors have also to be taken into consideration.
It was contended by the State that there was no limitation of reserving seats under Article 15 (4). The argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that a provision which is in nature of exception cannot completely exclude the rest of society and the same is clearly outside scope of Article 15 (4). The Supreme Court also held that special provision should be less than 50%, how much less will depend on relevant prevailing circumstances.
The Supreme Court observed that order issued by the State was fraud on Article 15 (4) and allowed the Writ Petition.
______________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.