Justice R.M. Sahai [1]
567. Thus the real issue is not the reservation but identification. Who, then, are the, ‘backward class of citizens ? What is the meaning of the word, ‘backward’, ‘class’ and ‘citizens’ individually and taken together. How are they to be identified. By their caste, occupation, status, economic condition etc. Although the issue of reservation has been agitated before this Court, time and again, the occasion never arose to lay down any principle or test for determination of other backward classes. Rajendran, Parimoo, Thomas, and Soshit Karamchari were no doubt concerned with Article 16 but they were cases of SC/ST who are constitutionally recognised as, backward class of citizens. Champakarn (supra), Tikku, Trilokanath and Perriakaruppan were concerned with reservation based on caste or religion. Balaji, Janardhan, Rajendran, Sagar, Balaram, Pradeep Tandon, Chitralekha and Jayshree were concerned with reservation under Article 15(4). Except for Vasantha Kumar no exercise was undertaken to lay down any principle for determination of backward class. Reason for absence of any discussion appears to be that this Court while explaining the word ‘backward’ in Balaji observed that backward classes intended to be covered in Article 15(4) were comparable to SC/ST which was accepted and applied while deciding backward class under Article 16(4) as well. But the kind of comparability ‘Whether of status, of disabilities suffered, of economic or educational conditions or of representation in government service’ was not elaborated nor it was undertaken even in Balram when the Court extended it to, ‘really backward’ even though not, ‘exactly similar in all respects’, as they were dealing with SC/ST.
568. The expression, ‘any backward class of citizens’ is of very wide import. Its width and depth shall be fully comprehended when significance of each word and the purpose of its use is explained. To preface the discussion on this vital aspect, on which divergence extended to. extremes both legally and sentimentally, it may be stated that in certain decisions given by this Court due weight was not, given to the words ‘class’ and ‘citizens’. Latter is explained in Chapter II of the Constitution. Any person satisfying those conditions is a citizen of this country irrespective of race, religion or caste. Member of every community Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Budh, Jain etc. who are citizens of this country and are backward and are not adequately represented in services are to be brought into National stream by protective or benign measures. Provisions of the Constitution apply to all equally and uniformly. Yardstick of backwardness must necessarily, therefore, has to be of universal application.
569. ‘Class’ has been linked with the word, ‘backward’ and has been read as one word, ‘backward class’ thus occasioning the debate that it should be understood as ‘backward caste’. Whether such reading is permissible is another aspect which shall be adverted to, presently, but if the word, ‘class’ is read individually or in conjunction with words ‘of citizens’ then its plain meaning and purpose is to exclude any reservation for individual. in other words reservation contemplated is for group or collectivity of citizens who are backward and not for any individual. The expression ‘any backward class of citizen’ thus is capable of being construed as class of backwards, backward among any class of citizens, backward class etc. depending on for whom the reservation is being made and why.
570. Backward may be relative such as professional or occupational backwardness or it may be economic, social, educational or it may be racial such as in America or caste based as in Hindu social system or it may be natural such as physically handicapped or even of sex. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equality of opportunity in services under the State. The meaning of the word ‘backward therefore, has to be understood with reference to opportunity in public employment. Since this is a constitutional issue it cannot be resolved by cliches founded on fictional mythological stories or misdirected philosophies or odious comparisons without any regard to social and economic conditions but on pragmatic, purposive and value oriented approach to the Constitution as it is the fundamental law which requires careful nevigation by political set up of the country and any deflection or deviation disturbing or threatening the social balance has to be restored, as far as possible, by the judiciary . Backwardness in such a vast country with divergent religions, culture, language, habits social and economic conditions arising out of historical reasons, geographical locations, feudal system, rigidity of caste is bound to have regional flavour. For instance, place of habitation and its environment was held in Pradeep Tandon (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 563) (supra) to be determinative for social and educational backwardness in bills of U.P. Interaction of various forces have been responsible for backwardness in different parts of the country. A caste backward in one State may be advanced in another. That is why Dr. Ambedkar while quelling misgivings of members in the Constituent Assembly Debate had stated, that backwardness was being, ‘left to be determined by the local government’, probably, with hope and belief that once the problem was tackled by the State and backward citizens were adequately represented in State services the problem at the National level shall stand resolved automatically.
[1] This article is an excerpt from the judgment of Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448