Justice R.M. Sahai [1]
817. In Balaji (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 649) it was held “that the sub-classification made by the order between Backward Classes and more backward classes does not appear to be justified under Article 15(4). Article 15(4) authorises special provision being made for the really backward classes. In introducing two categories of backward classes, what the impugned order, in substance, purports to do is to devise measures for the benefit of all the classes of citizens who are less advanced compared to the advanced classes in the State and that, in our opinion is not the scope of Article 15(4).
The result of the method adopted by the impugned order is that nearly 90% of the population of the State is treated as backward, and that illustrates how the order in fact divides the population of the State into most advanced and the rest, and puts the latter into two categories of backward and more backward. The classification of the two categories. therefore, is not warranted by Article 15(4).” The correctness of this holding is questioned before us by the counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that in principle there is no justification for the said holding. It is submitted that even among backward classes there are some who are more backward than the others and that the backwardness is not and cannot be uniform throughout the country not- even within a State. In support of this contention, the Respondents rely upon the observation of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Vasant Kumar (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1495), where the learned Judge said :
“We do not see why on principle there cannot be a classification into Backward Classes and More Backward Classes, if both classes are not merely a little behind, but far behind the most advanced classes. In fact such a classification would be necessary to help the More Backward Classes; otherwise those of the Backward Classes who might be a little more advanced than the More Backward Classes might walk away with all the seats.”
818. We are of the opinion that there is no constitutional or legal bar to a State categorising the backward classes as backward and more backward. We are not saying that it ought to be done. We are concerned with the question if a State makes such a categorisation, whether it would be invalid? We think not. Let us take the criteria evolved by Mandal Commission. Any caste, group or class which scored eleven or more points was treated as a backward class. Now. it is not as if all the several thousands of castes/groups, classes scored identical points. There may be some castes groups classes which have scored points between 20 to 22 and there may be some who have scored points between eleven and thirteen. It cannot reasonably be denied that there is no difference between these two sets of castes/groups/classes. To give an illustration, take two occupational groups viz., goldsmiths and vaddes (traditional stone-cutters in Andhra Pradesh) both included within Other Backward Classes. None can deny, that gold-smiths are far less backward than vaddes. If both of them are ground together and reservation provided, the inevitable result would be that gold-smiths would take away all the reserved points leaving none for vaddes.
In such a situation, a State may think it advisable to make a reservation even among other backward classes so as to ensure that the more backward among the backward classes obtain the benefits intended for them. Where to draw the line and how to effect the sub-classification is, however, is matter for the Commission and the State – and so long as it is reasonably done, the Court may not intervene.
In this connection, reference may be made to the categorisation obtaining in Andhra Pradesh. The Backward Classes have been divided into four categories. Group-A comprises of “Aboriginal tribes, Vimukta jatis. Nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes etc”. Group-B comprises professional group like tappers, weavers, carpenters, ironsmiths, goldsmiths, kamsalins etc. Group-C pertains to “Scheduled Castes converts to Christianity and their progeny”, while Group-D comprises of all other classes/communities groups, which are not included in Groups A, B and C. The 25% vacancies reserved for backward classes are sub-divided between them in proportion to their respective Population. This categorisation was justified in Balram (1972(3) SCR 247 at 286). This is merely to show that even among backward classes, there can be a sub-classification on a reasonable basis.
819. There is another way of looking at this issue. Article 16(4) recognises only one class viz., “backward class of citizens”. It does not speak separately of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as does Article 15(4). Even so, It is beyond controversy that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are also included in the expression “back-ward class of citizens” and that separate reservations can be provided in their favour. It Is a well-accepted phenomenon throughout the country.
What is the logic behind it? It is that if Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes are lumped together, O. B. Cs. will take away all the vacancies leaving Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes high and dry. The same logic also warrants categorisation as between more backward and backward. We do not mean to say we may reiterate -that this should be done. We are only saying that if a State chooses to do it, it is not impermissible in law.
[1] This article is an excerpt from the judgment of Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448