Table of Contents
I. Introduction
Balaji vs State of Mysore is related to reservation provided by State for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens under Art. 15. The case revolves around the identification of backward classes for giving reservation. Further, the case involves the idea of giving reservation solely on caste basis. The other questions were related to creating a category of backward class and more backward class.
II. Facts of Balaji vs State of Mysore
The government of Mysore, for upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes in the society started to give reservations relying upon Art. 15(4). The steps taken by the government of Mysore were challenged via several petitions on the ground that the process of providing reservation is not constituent with Article 15(4). The state denied the allegations and stated that it has acted reasonably. The state has appointed a committee called Mysore Backward Classes Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. R. Nagen Gowda.
The committee seen that the most practical method of providing reservation in the present time would be based on caste and communities. The state of Mysore departing away from committee suggestion provided reservation to Lingayats and Bhunts. The rational given by the state is that they live in rural areas, and they mainly do manual labour and suffer from all the consequences of illiteracy and poverty.
On 31st July 1962, the State passed order to provide reservation to SC/ST and Backward classes. Further, the backward classes are divided into two categories (1) Backward classes and (2) More Backward Classes. Due to this order the total reservation in state was 68% out of which 28% is given to backward classes, 22% is given to more backward classes, 15% to SC and 3% to ST.
During the hearing, the hon’ble Supreme Court also analyzed the order passed on 29th Jan 1953, the President appointed the Backward Classes Commission by virtue of power conferred on him under Article 340(1) to examine the condition of socially and educationally backward classes in India. The major findings of the committee were that while determining the backwardness status of caste is an important factor. The committee further examined whether the occupation can be good criteria for identifying backwardness.
The court examined the reports of both the committees. These two committees’ reports suggested that social status has generally been accorded on the basis of caste for centuries; and so, it takes the view that the low social position.
III. Issue Involved in Balaji vs State of Mysore
Whether the caste is sole factor for deciding backwardness of classes?
Whether test adopted by the state to measure educational backwardness permissible?
Whether the categorization into Backward class and more backward class permissible?
What is the extent of reservation that can be made under Article 15(4)?
IV. Cases referred in Balaji vs State of Mysore
Ramakrishna Singh Ram Singh v. State of Mysore[2]: In this case, the High Court of Mysore quashed the order where the Mysore government provided reservation to all communities except Brahmins, Baniyas and Kayasts and Muslims, Christians and Jains were classified as socially and educationally backward.
S.A. Partha v. The State of Mysore[3]: One of the orders of Mysore government was challenged 40% were reserved, 22% of which were reserved for Backward classes, 15% for Schedule Caste and 3% for STs.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan[4]: The validity of the Government Order was challenged for fixing proportion for admission in college.
V. Judgment
The court emphasized that the caste cannot be sole factor for providing the reservation. The court pointed out that Christians, Jains, and Muslims does not believe in caste system. So, it would be unreasonable to provide a reservation solely on caste basis. Secondly, the test average of the state per 1000 student 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.
VI. Analysis and Conclusion
Article 15(4) is added in the constitution by 1st constitutional amendment. The reason for providing this reservation was to streamline it with Article 16(4) and Article 29. In this case, the court has identified that caste is one of the important factor for providing reservation but it cannot be the sole factor as it would harm the other communities. The court also found out that excessive reservation can affect the general category. The position of court about classification into backward and more backward by the state is also important for upliftment of people who have been traumatized in past.
They stated that it is wrong to provide reservation on the basis of this classification as it prejudices and extend the ambit of reservation to 90% of people. Ultimately, if reservation is to be provided it must be within reasonable limits i.e., 50% anything above it would be void ab initio and hence the reservation provided by Mysore government was declared void.
The rational of reservation is to bring a positive change in society and if reservation is exceeding 50%, it does not directly affect as we have recently seen that economic consideration can be valid ground for providing reservation and 50% is flexible number. These kind of action by the government bring inclusion in society and it is necessary to include slightly higher than 50% than excluding the needy.
Read similar topics by clicking here.
Balaji vs state of mysore, Balaji vs state of mysore, Balaji vs state of mysore, Balaji vs state of mysore,
[1] M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.
[2] Ramakrishna Singh Ram Singh v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 Mysore 336.
[3] S.A. Partha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 Mysore 220.
[4] State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1962 SC 36.
Leave a Reply