Supreme Court Invalidates Excessive Caste-Based Reservations

The Supreme Court held that the State's executive order, which classified socially and educationally backward classes based solely on caste and reserved an excessive 68% of seats, was invalid. The Court emphasized that reservations under Article 15(4) should not exclude the rest of society and suggested a reasonable reservation should be below 50%. The Court restrained the respondents from implementing the order and highlighted the importance of a rational and scientific approach to achieve social and economic justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4).
2. Classification and determination of socially and educationally backward classes.
3. Extent and reasonableness of reservation under Article 15(4).
4. Allegation of fraud on the Constitution by the State's executive order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4):

The petitioners argue that the order passed by the State of Mysore under Article 15(4) is invalid as it allegedly violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). The State contends that the classification and reservation prescribed are justified under Article 15(4). The Supreme Court notes that Article 15(4) acts as an exception to Articles 15(1) and 29(2), allowing special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. The Court emphasizes that the impugned order must be justified under Article 15(4) to be valid.

2. Classification and determination of socially and educationally backward classes:

The petitioners challenge the basis of classification adopted by the State, arguing it is unintelligible and irrational. The State defends the classification as rational and intelligible. The Court examines the criteria used by the Nagan Gowda Committee and the State, noting that the classification was predominantly based on caste. The Court finds that while caste can be a relevant factor, it should not be the sole or dominant criterion. The classification must consider other factors like poverty, occupation, and place of habitation. The Court concludes that the State's classification based solely on caste is impermissible under Article 15(4).

3. Extent and reasonableness of reservation under Article 15(4):

The petitioners argue that the reservation of 68% is unreasonable and extravagant. The State contends that the extent of reservation is justified. The Court emphasizes that Article 15(4) authorizes special provisions but not to the exclusion of the rest of society. The Court highlights the importance of maintaining standards in higher education and the national interest. The Court finds that the reservation of 68% is inconsistent with Article 15(4) and suggests that a reasonable reservation should be less than 50%, though the exact percentage would depend on prevailing circumstances.

4. Allegation of fraud on the Constitution by the State's executive order:

The petitioners contend that the State's action amounts to a fraud on the Constitution. The Court explains that an executive action can be struck down as a fraud on the Constitution if it covertly or overtly transgresses constitutional authority. The Court finds that the impugned order categorizes backward classes solely based on caste and reserves an excessive percentage of seats, thus constituting a fraud on the constitutional power conferred by Article 15(4). The Court concludes that the impugned order is invalid and restrains the respondents from giving effect to it.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allows the writ petitions, restraining the respondents from enforcing the impugned order. The petitioners are entitled to costs. The Court emphasizes the need for a rational, broad, and scientific approach in implementing Article 15(4) to achieve social and economic justice.

---