M.R Balaji and Others vs State of Mysore

Author: Harsita Karki

Edited by: Sulesh Choudhary

ABSTRACT:

“Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as a governing principle.” Dr, B.R. Ambedkar

Equality is a basic human right that every individual in a society craves. In the Constitution of India articles 14 to 18 deal with right to equality. More specifically article 15 deals with the prohibition of discrimination based on the caste, sex, religion, race, place of birth it basically used in the case of reservation. This case is best example of an ongoing tussle for social justice within the constitutional equality framework by reserving seats for historically disadvantage groups. This case led to classification of backward classes into more backword classes in the educational institutions. This case study delves into the constitutional principles involved, the judicial reasoning behind the verdict, and the broader implications for India’s reservation policy. It assesses how the decision seeks to harmonize merit-based principles with the need for equitable educational opportunities through affirmative action for marginalized groups. Additionally, it analyzes the ruling’s impact on India’s reservation policies and legal frameworks, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases and future legislative developments.

Keywords: Reservation, Article 15, Constitutional equality, India, education.

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Early Vedic literature gave rise to India’s caste system, which has resulted in discrimination, disregard, and underrepresentation of particular classes. Caste-based reservations have a long history; the British instituted them in 1902 as part of their divide and conquer strategy. Reservations were covered under the Indian Councils Act of 1909, the Government of India Act of 1919, and the Government of India Act of 1935. Post-constitutional changes, however, have not produced a constitutional obligation to permit positive discrimination for the underprivileged.[1] Discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, caste, sex, or any other basis is forbidden by the Indian Constitution. But in instances such as Champakam Dorairajan and the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, the idea of reservation has been called into doubt. Under the former, the State might provide specific arrangements for the educational and social improvement of socially and educationally disadvantaged communities, such Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes. But this clause begs the question of how one would define and classify a backward class. When an order granting reservation was contested in M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore, the issue of the statute of limitations was brought up.[2]

FACTS OF THE CASE

On July 31, 1962, the State of Mysore issued an order under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution with the objective of promoting the progress of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups of citizens. A Mysore Backward Classes Appointments Committee, led by Dr. R. Nagan Gowda, was established by the State to classify backward classes according to their caste and communities. Subsequently, the government issued a directive that classified the backward classes into two distinct categories: Backward Classes and More Backward Classes. Half of the seats were allocated for other backward classes, with 28% reserved for backward classes and 22% for more backward classes. 15% of the allocation was specifically designated for Scheduled Castes, while an additional 3% was earmarked for Scheduled Tribes. The arrangement led to 68% of seats being reserved and 32% being allocated for the merit pool. [3]

An Order was issued by the State of Mysore on 26 July 1958, in which all the communities of the States were put within the definition of educationally and socially backward classes and Scheduled Castes & Schedule Tribe and reserved 75% of seats in the educational institutes except leaving the Brahmin Communities of the State.[4]

Similar to this, other orders were also issued by the State for reserving seats with varied percentage on May 14 and July 22 of 1959 and June 9 of 1960 and July 10 of 1961 which all were challenged and put aside.  Once again after a year the State of Mysore passed another order on July 31 1962 which replaced all the previous orders of the State under Article 15(4) for reserving Seats.[5] In the new order States divided the Backward Classes into further two divisions namely, Backward and More Backward Classes.[6]

The State has reserved 68% from the total seats only for educationally and socially backward classes and Scheduled tribe and Schedule classes in all the engineering, medical and technical colleges. And left only 32% of seats for the merit pool.

Then this order of State was challenged by the 23 petitioners by the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Honourable Supreme Court who had applied for admission in these Colleges and Contended that the Classification and Reservation made by this impugned order is a fraud on Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the classification made by States between ‘Backward class and more Backward class’ solely based on Caste is permissible under Article 15(4).[7]
2. Whether States can exceed the limit up to 68% for reservations in the educational institution is reasonable under Article 15(4).

• Whether the orders were validly issued by the State government of Mysore under Article 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1991 and July 31, 1962.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner submitted that under Article 340 actions regarding socially and educationally backward classes must be taken based on the commission report, appointed by the President of India and not by the State. The prepared report then to be presented to the President and then after in the both houses of the parliament before making any final decision.[8]
2. The petitioner also contends that even under Article 15(4) the special provision can be made by the State but only by the legislation and not by an executive order.

• The petitioner also argued that sub-classification under Article 15(4) made by the State order between Backward and more Backward classes was not justified and it also resulted in 90% of the state population falls under Backward Classes. Further, it was argued that the distribution of classes solely based on Caste is not permissible as it violates the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 14 of the constitution.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that Article 15(4) prudently and wisely did not put any extent of limitation on the State to make the special provision and it must be read with respect to Article 46, which mandates the State to take steps towards promoting the advancement for socially and weaker section of the society.
2. The council contended that the impugned order is a colourable exercise of the State’s power and amounts to a fraud on the Constitution is disputed. And classification made by the impugned order by the State is both rational and intelligible. The reservation made by said order is fully justified and valid by Article 15(4) of the Constitution.[9]

 RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India –

Article 15(4) – (4) “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.”[10]

Article 16(4)- (4) “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”[11]

Article 29(2) –  “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”[12]

Article 46: “The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.”[13]

Article 340: “it empowers the president to appoint commissions for backward classes.”[14]

JUDGMENT:

The petitioners’ argument that the President can only issue an order pursuant to Article 15(4) of the Constitution was dismissed by the court presided over by Gajendra Gadkar. The court laid out the parameters for reservation, saying that socially and educationally deprived classes—rather than just caste—should be the basis for it. A reservation of 68% is irregular, and the reservation cap cannot be exceeded. The court contended that while the reserve should benefit the less fortunate members of society, it shouldn’t bar eligible applicants from attending universities. The court granted the writ petitions, declaring that the reservation order is an abuse of the constitutional authority granted to the state by Article 15(4) and that a suitable writ should be issued to prevent the three respondents from carrying out the order. The court came to the conclusion that reservations are meant to help the less fortunate members of society grow and prosper.[15] The court reiterated that the caste cannot be the sole criteria for determining backwardness. The court held that it would be irrational to award reservations based only on caste to communities that reject the caste system, including Muslims, Jains, and Christians. The Lingayats had an average of 7.1%, placing them on the list of committees with lower performance than the state, which had a test average of 6.9 for a sample of 1000 kids. The notion of a creamy layer was deemed irrelevant at the time, and the court stressed that reservations should be made within reasonable bounds. The court also underlined the significance of fair boundaries, noting that granting reservations greater than fifty percent would discriminate against neighbouring communities.[16]

RATIO DECIDENDI:

Justice Gajendragadlkar decreed that the allocation of seats for disadvantaged groups could not surpass 50% of the overall number of seats, as doing so would contradict the principle of equal treatment. According to Article 15(4) of the Constitution, discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, or place of birth is prohibited. The Court interpreted the terms of Article 15 and analyzed the extent of affirmative action for disadvantaged groups in relation to the supreme principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. Balaji asserted that caste should not be the exclusive factor for determining the disadvantaged, and the Court had the responsibility to ensure that specific measures for disadvantaged groups would not undermine the right to equality as protected by Article 14. The Court employed a proportionality test to evaluate if too much reservation was desirable against the right to equality.[17] The Court of Appeal found that the segregation of backward classes is not justified under Article 15 (4) of the Indian Constitution and is against the power of the State. The petitioners contended that the decision of Mandamus against the defendant and two selection committees is confusing and unreasonable, and the categorization formed on this basis is not compatible with the determination of provisions and outside them. The State stressed that the classification formed is sensible and clear, and the reservation needed by the decision is entirely warranted under Article 15 (4) of the Indian Constitution. The dispute between the parties was founded on the case of Ramakrishna Singh Vs The State of Mysore, where the State created a committee to research the matter and advise the Government on criteria to designate pedagogically and socially backward classes. The Central Government asked the government to implement a common policy to define backward classes.[18]

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

• In this landmark case of reservation court has provided various reasoning throughout the Judgment.
• Reservation which is provided by the state to elevate weaker sections and to give equal opportunities to the needy peoples in the society does not exclude the rights of the rest of the society. In this regard, the Court rightly laid down that if it is solely based on ‘Caste’ criteria it will not only hamper the rights of people, it will create discrimination among society, which will be not appropriate and will only be limited to Hindu Communities.
• The court also rejected the report prepared by the Nagan Gowda committee which was appointed by the State only to prepare the reservation criteria. It was the suggestion of the committee’s report to divide the backward classes into 2 further classes.
• The court observed that Article 15(4) was amended in Article 15 in the case of State of Madras vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan and the State of Madras vs C.R Srinivasan[19] and clause 1 of Article 15 is an exception or proviso of Article 15(1) and 29(2) which protects the citizen rights against disapproval of admission into any State educational institute.
• The court said that under Article 15, the State cannot divide the Backward Classes on the Caste criteria for giving reservation as it would be against the sole meaning of the whole provision.
• The court also laid down that reservations cannot exceed the 50% limit as it would exclude the rest of the society. Reservations should be given in balanced proportion so that it does not hamper and citizen rights.

Conclusion & Comments

Reservations are generally considered the exception to general equality. The Honourable Supreme Court rightly uphold the reservation criteria beyond the 50% which helps in maintaining balance and equality. And Caste cannot be considered same as Class under the provision of Article 15 and thus Caste based reservation cannot be given by the State. The M.R. Balaji and Others vs. State of Mysore Supreme Court verdict on reservations and affirmative action in India has spurred disputes on the need for a more nuanced approach to defining backward classes. The court highlighted that caste alone cannot be the sole factor for defining backwardness, and reservations must not exceed 50% to maintain a balance between merit-based opportunities and social fairness. This ruling set a precedent for future reservation programs, restricting the scope of state powers in adopting affirmative action and respecting the ideals of equality in the Constitution. To guarantee benefits reach the truly disadvantaged, the criteria for establishing backward classes should be changed to include elements such as socio-economic position and educational achievement. A periodic evaluation of reservation rules and their impact should be done, with commissions appointed to analyze the progress of certain communities.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

• State of Madras vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan and the State of Madras vs C.R Srinivasan https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149321/

Important Statutes Referred

• The Constitution of India 1950, art 15(4).
• The Constitution of India 1950, art 16(4).
• The Constitution of India 1950, art 29(2).
• The Constitution of India 1950, art 46.
• The Constitution of India 1950, art 340
• The Constitution of India 1950, art 15.
• The Constitution of India 1950, art 14

[1] Mahek Shivnani, ‘The Fight for Backwardness – Elucidating Casteism and Reservation in India | ProBono India’ (Probono-india.in2020) <https://probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=113> accessed 1 August 2024.

[2] Shoronya Banerjee, ‘The Reservation Debate in Balaji v. State of Mysore’ (iPleaders22 July 2021) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-reservation-debate-in-balaji-v-state-of-mysore/> accessed 1 August 2024.

[3] Mukesh Suman, ‘M. R. BALAJI vs STATE of MYSORE : CASE SUMMARY – Mukesh Suman’ (Mukeshsuman.com13 August 2024) <https://mukeshsuman.com/m-r-balaji-vs-state-of-mysore-case-summary/> accessed 14 August 2024.

[4] Justice HN Nagamohandas, ‘Increasing the Reservation of Scheduled Caste and  Scheduled Tribe in Karnataka’ (2020) <https://twd.karnataka.gov.in/WebPages/PDF2022/JusticeHNMohandasSEP.pdf> accessed 25 July 2024.

[5] D Wadhwa, M Rao and M Shah <https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/16589.pdf>.

[6] Ibid.

[8] ‘Mr Balaji vs State of Mysore (1962) – Case Analysis’ (Testbook2024) <https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/mr-balaji-vs-state-of-mysore> accessed 5 August 2024.

[9] ‘Manupatra Academy’ (www.manupatracademy.com) <https://manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0080_1962> accessed 1 August 2024.

[10] The Constitution of India 1950, art 15(4).

[11] The Constitution of India 1950, art 16(4).

[12] The Constitution of India 1950, art 29(2).

[13] The Constitution of India 1950, art 46.

[14] The Constitution of India 1950, art 340

[15] ‘M.R. BALAJI v. STATE of MYSORE 1962 – Legal Vidhiya’ (Legal vidhya20 June 2023) <https://legalvidhiya.com/m-r-balaji-v-state-of-mysore-1962/> accessed 1 August 2024.

[16] legalsynk, ‘Summary of Balaji vs State of Mysore (1963): Remarkable Landmark Judgment on Reservation – Legal SYNK’ (legalsynk.com12 September 2023) <https://legalsynk.com/balaji-vs-state-of-mysore-landmark-judgment-on-reservation/> accessed 1 August 2024.

[17] S Sathe, ‘Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience’ (2001) 6 Law & Policy 2001 <https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=law_journal_law_policy>.

[18] LI Network, ‘M.R Balaji and Ors. Vs State of Mysore – LAW INSIDER INDIA- INSIGHT of LAW (SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT and JUDICIARY’ (LAW INSIDER INDIA- INSIGHT OF LAW (SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT AND JUDICIARY9 December 2021) <https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/m-r-balaji-and-ors-vs-state-of-mysore#google_vignette> accessed 14 August 2024.

[19] The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam Dorairajanandthe on 9 April, 1951

Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525, AIR 1951 SUPREME COURT 226, 1987 CALLJ 379 1964 MADLW 430, 1964 MADLW 430