Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
KUMARI K.S. JAYASREE & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1976
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2381 1977 SCR (1) 194
1976 SCC (3) 730
CITATOR INFO :
R 1985 SC1495 (18,67,127,146)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950--Art. 15(4)--Reservation of
Seats for socially and educationally backward classes in
educational institutions Annual family income test if
valid.
HEADNOTE:
A Commission appointed by the State Government to en-
quire 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 institutions of seats based
solely on caste or community was being enjoyed by the rich
among the backward communities and found that the lower
income groups of certain communities constituted the social-
ly 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 deserv-
ing sections and exclude the wealthier sections. The State
Government accordingly stipulated that applicants who are
members of certain communities and whose family income was
below Rs. 10,000/- per annum would only be entitled to seats
reserved for those students The petitioner who belonged to
one of the socially and educationally backward classes,
submitted a certificate of annual income of the family to be
above Rs. 11,000/-, as a result of which her 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 it 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).
Dismissing the writ petition
HELD: The basis of the reservation is not income but
social and educational backwardness. Backward classes for
whose umprovement special provisions are contemplated by
Art. 15(4) are in the matter of their backwardness compara-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
ble 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
aste of a citizen 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 back-
wardness. [197 G-H]
The object of the reservation under Art. 15(4) is to recog-
nise the factual existence of socially and educationally
backward classes in the country and to make a sincere at-
tempt to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the
community. Article 15(4) gives effect to this principle.
The concept of backwardness in Art. 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. [198 B-C]
In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citi-
zens 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 caste and poverty in determining the
backwardness of citizens. In evolving proper criteria for
determining the socially and educationally backward classes,
sociological and economic considerations come into play.
This determination is the function of the State. The Courts
jurisdiction 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 citi-
zens. Special provision is contemplated for classes of
citizens and not for individual citizens as such,
195
and so. though the caste of the group of citizens 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 socially 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
backward classes of citizens in Art. 15(4) cannot be equated
with castes. [199 G; 200 D-H]
R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1964]
6 S.C.R. 368 referred to.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1975.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and P. Kesva Pillai, for the peti-
tioners.
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 peti-
tion challenge the Government 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 respond-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
ents, viz, the State and the. Principal of the Medical
College at Trivandrum to allot a seat to the first petition-
er.
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 State of Kerala. Clause 8 sub-clause
(vi) in the prospectus for commission 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 educationally
backward classes.
The petitioner produced the certificate from the Tahsil-
dar, 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 candi-
dates belonging 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 Octo-
ber 1975 and the first petitioner was not selected though
candidates belonging to Ezhava community who had obtained
less marks than the first petitioner had been selected.. The
petitioners further allege that the list shows that candi-
dates 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.
196
Clause 11 of the prospectus for 1975-76 for admission to
M.B.B.S. Course in Medical Colleges in the State is as
follows :--
"11. Selection for admission, reservation
for S. Cs/S. Ts/ Socially and educationally back-
ward 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.O. Ms. M.O. No. 216/71 Health
dated 6.7.1971 and subject to the provisions con-
tained in G.D.(P) 208/66/Edn. dated 2.5.1966 and
subsequent orders of the Government regarding
reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and other socially and educationally back-
ward class, reservation for Malabar and Travanco-
reCochin, area etc. The decision of the Govern-
ment 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 of Ezhavas, whose aggregate annual income is
below Rs. 6,000/- 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 consideration of the report of the Commission
appointed by the State to enquire into the social and educa-
tional conditions of the people and report as to what sec-
tions of the people in the State of Kerala should be treat-
ed as socially and educationally backward classes.
The Commission assumed office on 14 July, 1964 and
submitted its report on 31 December, 1965. The recommenda-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
tion of the Commission 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 so-
cially and educationally backward classes for 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 mainte-
nance of a student in a professional or technical institu-
tion, 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. 6000/- per
annum and which belong to the castes and communities men-
tioned in the annexure to this Government Order will consti-
tute socially and educationally backward classes for pur-
poses of Article 15(4).
The order of the Government dated 2 May, 1966 was chal-
lenged in the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge
quashed the Government Order by decision dated 24 February
1975 reported in
197
A.I.R. 1975 Kerala 131. The State filed an appeal. The
validity of the Government Order dated 2 May, 1966 was
upheld by the Kerala High Court. The decision of the High
Court dated 14 July, 1975 reversing the Judgment of the
learned Single Judge is reported in 1975 Kerala Law Times
851 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kumari.(1) The High Court
held that the Commission had material before it. It is not
for the court to weigh the evidence. The question is wheth-
er 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. Pover-
ty 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 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.
6000/prescribed in the Government Order should be
appropriately raised. In the circumstances,
Government are pleased to enhance the income limit
of Rs. 6000/- prescribed to. Rs. 10000/- per annum
with effect from the academic year 1975-76
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 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 2 May, 1966 is not in violation of Article 15(4)
because the expression "backward class" in Article 15(4) is
not used 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
given time be backward and may on that account 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 provi-
sions are contemplated by Article 15(4) are in the matter
of their backwardness comparable to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. This Court has emphasised in decisions
that the backwardness under Article 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 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.
198
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 identified 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 reservation under Article 15(4) is to
recognise the factual existence of socially and educational-
ly 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 *_he
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 fur-
ther 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 community is to a considerable
extent, being enjoyed by the wealthy sections to the preju-
dice of the poorer sections. The Commission, therefore,
found that consideration of a means-rum-caste/community test
should be adopted for the classification so 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 occupa-
tion 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 eases, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
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 identifica-
tion of persons occupation-wiSe becomes more difficult in
their case.
The Commission referred to the habitational test..-The
Commission expressed the opinion that there are no great
social differences in the State merely on account of places
of’ residence. Complete and
199
reliable tests on the subject were not available to the
Commission to compare the people of the Malabar area to.
that of TravancoreCochin area: The Commission, howev-
er, said that Malabar is .educationally backward compared
to Travancore-Cochin area.
As regards educational backwardness of the classes of
citizens, the 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 communities which have an abnormal
fail 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 satis-
fied 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 back-
wardness, 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 citi-
zens 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 commu-
nities 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 communities 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 made the
sole or dominant test. Social backwardness is in the ulti-
mate 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 Com-
mission found that the lower income group constitutes so-
cially and educationally backward classes. The basis of
the reservation is not income but social and educational
backwardness determined on the basis of relevant crite-
ria. If any classification of backWard classes of citizens
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
is based solely on the caste of the citizen it will perpetu-
ate the vice of caste system. Again, if the classifica-
tion is based solely
200
on poverty it will not be logical. The society is taking
steps for uplift of the people. In such a task groups or
classes who are socially and educationally backward are
helped by the society. That is the philosophy of our Con-
stitution. 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 consid-
erations 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 educa-
tionally backward classes is undoubtedly not simple. Socio-
logical and economic considerations come into play in evolv-
ing 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 Commission has found on applying the
relevant tests that the lower income group of the communi-
ties 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 con-
sider the caste of the said group of citizens. It is neces-
sary 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 tests. 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 crite-
ria laid down by the Court. Evidence and material are placed
before the Commission. Article 15(4) which speaks of back-
wardness of classes of citizens indicates that the accent is
on classes of citizens. Article 15(4) also speaks of Sched-
uled 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.(1) this
(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368.
201
Court said that the classification of backward classes based
on economic conditions and occupations does not offend
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
Article 15(4).
The different castes that have been described in Appen-
dix 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 educa-
tional backwardness is reflected to a certain extent by the
economic conditions of the group.
For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed.
Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
P.B.R. Petition dis-
missed.
202