Article 16(4) expressly permits the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
The words “backward class of citizens” occurring in Article 16(4) are neither defined nor explained in the Constitution though the same words occurring in Article 15 (4) are followed by a qualifying phrase, “Socially and Educationally”.
There is a galaxy of decisions of Supreme Court, explaining the words ‘backward class’ as occurring under Article 16(4) in relation to Articles 16(1) and 16 (2).
In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), analysing the term ‘backward’, the Supreme Court said,
46. The word ‘backward’ is very wide bringing within its fold the social backwardness, educational backwardness, economic backwardness, political backwardness and even physical backwardness.
47. To assimilate the expression ‘class’ in its legal sense, the said expression should be strictly construed and tested on the principles of agreed criteria which throw a flood light on its true meaning. In interpreting the words ‘backward class’, I am sorry to say there is no uniform and consistent view expressed by the Court by laying down a rigid formula exhaustively listing out the specific criteria. The battery of tests that are recognised by the Courts in determining ‘socially and educationally backward classes’ are caste, nature of traditional occupation or trade, poverty, place of residence, lack of education and also the sub-standard education of the candidates for the post in comparison to the average standard of candidates from general category. These factors are not exhaustive.
48. As to the questions (1) whether ‘caste’ can be taken as a criterion in determining and identifying a ‘backward class’ in Hindu society, and (2) whether it could be a pre-dominant factor or one of the factors in identifying the backward class, there is a cleavage of opinion.
49. Ray, C. J. in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon, 1975(2) SCR 761 at 766 has gone to the extent of saying that “when Article 15(1) forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste – caste cannot be made one of the criteria for determining social and educational backwardness. If caste or religion is recognised as a criterion of social and educational backwardness Article 15(4) will stultify Article 15(1)”. The effect of this judgment is that caste can never be a criterion. This decision has also ruled that the place of habitation and the environment are also the determining factors in judging the social and educational backwardness.
50. A good deal of arguments was advanced on the question whether caste can be the sole if not the dominant factor or at the least one of the factors or not at all. Whilst anti-reservationists contend that the Report should be thrown overboard on the ground that the reservation is made on the caste criterion, the pro-reservationists would forcibly refute that contention making counter submissions stating, inter alia, that caste can justifiably be taken as an important and dominant factor if not the sole factor in determining the social and educational backwardness for various reasons as pointed out in the Report. Since backwardness is a direct consequence of caste status and the discrimination perpetuated against the socially backward people is based on the caste system, the caste, criterion can never be divested while interpreting the word ‘class’.