The document discusses the meaning of "backward classes" and the role of the Nagan Gowda Committee in classifying castes and communities as backward classes in the state of Mysore in India. The committee used caste as the primary basis for determining social backwardness. It also considered educational and economic factors. The committee recommended reserving 68% of seats for backward classes, which the court found to be an excessive reservation inconsistent with the constitution.
The document discusses the meaning of "backward classes" and the role of the Nagan Gowda Committee in classifying castes and communities as backward classes in the state of Mysore in India. The committee used caste as the primary basis for determining social backwardness. It also considered educational and economic factors. The committee recommended reserving 68% of seats for backward classes, which the court found to be an excessive reservation inconsistent with the constitution.
The document discusses the meaning of "backward classes" and the role of the Nagan Gowda Committee in classifying castes and communities as backward classes in the state of Mysore in India. The committee used caste as the primary basis for determining social backwardness. It also considered educational and economic factors. The committee recommended reserving 68% of seats for backward classes, which the court found to be an excessive reservation inconsistent with the constitution.
The document discusses the meaning of "backward classes" and the role of the Nagan Gowda Committee in classifying castes and communities as backward classes in the state of Mysore in India. The committee used caste as the primary basis for determining social backwardness. It also considered educational and economic factors. The committee recommended reserving 68% of seats for backward classes, which the court found to be an excessive reservation inconsistent with the constitution.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 11
WHAT DOES THE TERM “BACKWARD CLASSES”
REFER? • Backwardness does not mean that any classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of the society. • the classification on the basis of caste system grew up in the society and eventually created a feeling of inferiority in some particular castes. • If the classification of backward classes of citizens was based solely on the caste of the citizen, it may not always be logical and may perhaps contain the vice of perpetuating the caste themselves. • Social backwardness is on the ultimate analysis the result of poverty, to a very large extent. The classes of citizens who are deplorably poor automatically become socially backward. • The occupations and the place of habitation of citizens may also contribute to make classes of citizens socially backward. ROLE OF NAGAN GOWDA COMMITTEE
• The committee was inclined to treat caste as sole basis for determining the social backwardness. However the general economic conditions were also viewed. • In its preamble, the order of July 10, 1961, clearly and unambiguously states that the Committee had come to the conclusion that in the present circumstances, the only practicable method of classifying the Backward Classes in the State is on the basis of castes and communities and the State Government accepts this test. • The next question to consider is in regard to the educational backwardness of the classes of citizens. • If the State average is 6.9 per thousand, a community which satisfies the said test or is just below the said test cannot be regarded as backward. • Classes of citizens whose average of student population works below 50% of the State average are obviously educationally backward classes of citizens. • Therefore , the State was not justified in including in the list of Backward Classes, castes or communities whose average of student population per thousand was slightly above, or very near, or just below the State average. • Lingayats should not be treated as Backward Classes because that average is 7.1 per thousand. • Order of July 10, 1960, states that That is how the State average was raised from 6.9 to 7 per thousand. • Muslim community as a whole should be treated as socially backward. (The average of student population in respect of this community works at 5 per thousand and that, in our opinion, is not so below the State average that the community could be treated as educationally backward in the State of Mysore.) Sub- classification by the order
• The sub-classification made by order between Backward Classes and More
Backward Classes does not appear to be justified under Art. 15(4). Art. 15(4) authorises special provision being made for the really backward classes. • The classification of the two categories, therefore, is not warranted by Art. 15(4). EXTEND OF SPECIAL PROVISION UNDER ART 15(4)
• The learned Advocate - General contends that this Article must be
read in the light of Art. 46, and he argues that Art. 15(4) has deliberately and wisely placed no limitation on the State in respect of the extent of special provision that it should make. • It would be extremely unreasonable to assume that in enacting Art. 15(4) the Parliament intended to provide that where the advancement of the Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was concerned, the fundamental rights of the citizens constituting the rest of the society were to be completely and absolutely ignored. ROLE PLYED BY UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMISSION
• It would be against the national interest to exclude from the portals of
our Universities qualified and competent students on the ground that all the seats in the Universities are reserved for weaker elements in society. • Therefore, considerations of national interest and the interests of the community or society as a whole cannot be ignored in determining the question as to whether the special provision contemplated by Art. 15(4) can be special provision which excludes the rest of the society altogether. Nagan Gowda Committee
• It emphatically expressed its opinion that the reservation of 68%
recommended by the Nagan Gowda Committee would not be larger interests of the State. • Therefore, the reservation of 68% directed by the impugned order is plainly inconsistent with Art. 15(4). • The learned Advocate-General has made an earnest and strong plea before the bench that they should not strike down the order, but should strike down only such portions of the order which appear to us to be unconstitutional on the doctrine of severability. What is true in regard to Art. 15(4) is equally true in regard to Art. 16(4). There can be no doubt that the Constitution-makers assumed, as they were entitled to, that while making adequate reservation under Art. 16(4), care would be taken not to provide for unreasonable, excessive or extravagant reservation, for that would, by eliminating general competition in a large field and by creating wide-spread dissatisfaction amongst the employees, materially affect efficiency. Therefore, like the special provision improperly made under Art. 15(4), reservation made under Art.16(4) beyond the permissible and legitimate limits would be liable to be challenged as a fraud on the Constitution. PETITION ALLOWED
