Kuldip Singh, J.[1]
340. Secularism is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It envisages a cohesive, unified and casteless society. The Constitution has completely obliterated the caste-system and has assured equality before law. Reference to caste under Article 15(2) and 16(2) is only to obliterate it. The prohibition on the ground of caste is total, the mandate is that never again in this country caste shall raise its head. Even access to shops on the ground of caste is prohibited. The progress of India has been from casteism to egalitarianism – from feudalism to freedom.
341. The caste system which has been put in the grave by the framers of the Constitution is trying to raise its ugly head in various forms. Caste poses a serious threat to the secularism and as a consequence to the integrity of the country. Those who do not learn from the events of history are doomed to suffer again. It is, therefore, of utmost importance for the people of India to adhere in letter and spirit to the Constitution which has moulded this country into a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic and has promised to secure to all its citizens justice, social economic and political, equality of status and of opportunity.
342. Caste and class are different ethymologically. When you talk of caste you never mean class or the vice-versa. Caste is an iron frame into which people keep on falling by birth. M. Weber in his book ‘The Religion of India’ has described India as the land of ‘the most inviolable organisation by birth’. Except the aura of caste there may not be any common thread among the caste-fellows to give them the characteristic of a class. On the other hand a class is a homogeneous group which must have some live and visible common traits and attributes.
343. Professor Andre Beteille, Department of Sociology, University of Delhi in his book “The Backward Classes in Contemporary India” has succinctly brought out the distinction between ‘caste’ and ‘class’ in the following words :
“Whichever way we look at it, a class is an aggregate of individuals (or, at best, of households), and, as such, quite different from a caste which is an enduring group. This distinction between an aggregate of individuals and an enduring group is of fundamental significance to the sociologist, and, I suspect, to the jurist as well. A class derives the character it has by virtue of the characteristics of its individual members. In the case of caste, on the other hand, it is the group that stamps the individual with its own characteristics. There are some affiliations which an individual may change, including that of his class; he cannot change his caste. At least in principle a caste remains the same caste even when a majority of its individual members change their occupation, or their income, or even their relation to the means of production; it would be absurd from the sociological point of view to think of a class in this way. A caste is a grouping sui generis, very different from a class, particularly when we define class in terms of income or occupation.”
344. Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India in clear terms states that “no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.” In Juxtaposition Article 16(4) states that “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provisions for the reservations of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State”. On a bare reading of the two sub-clauses of Article 16 it is obvious that the Constitution forbids classification on the ground of caste. No backward class can, therefore, be identified on the basis of caste.
345. We may refer to some of the judgments of this Courts on the subject.
346. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, (1964) 6 SCR 368 : AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1823 this Court observed as under :
“The important factor to be noticed in Article 15(4) is that it does not speak of castes, but only speaks of classes. If the makers of the Constitution intended to take castes also as units of social and educational backwardness, they would have said so as they have said in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Though it may be suggested that the wider expression “classes” is used in cl. (4) of Article 15 as there are communities without castes, if the intenteion was to equate classes with castes, nothing prevented the makers of the Constitution from using the expression “backward classes or castes”. The juxtaposition of the expression “backward classes” and Scheduled Castes” in Article 15(4) also leads to a reasonable inference that the expression “classes” is not synonymous with castes ….. This interpretation will carry out the intention of the Constitution expressed in the aforesaid Articles ….. If we interpret the expression “classes” as “castes”, the object of the Constitution will be frustrated and the people who do not deserve any adventitious aid may get it to the exclusion of those who really deserve. this anomly will not arise if, without equating caste with class, castes is taken as only one of the considerations to ascertain whether a person belongs to a backward class or not. On the other hand, if the entire sub-caste, by and large, is backward, it may be included in the Scheduled Castes by following the appropriate procedure laid down by the Constitution…. But what we intend to empahsize is that under no circumstance a “class” can be equated to a “caste”, though the caste of an individual or a group or individual may be considered along with other relevant factors in putting him. in a particular class. We would also like to make it clear that if in a given situation caste is excluded in ascertaining a class within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution, it does not vitiate the classification if it satisfied other tests.”
347. In Triloki Nath v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1969) 1 SCR 103 : AIR 1969 SC I this Court observed as under :
“Article 16 in the first instance by cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on the ground, inter alia, of religion, race, caste, place of birth, residence and permits an exception to be made in the matter of reservation in favour of backward classes of citziens. The expression “backward class” is not used as synonymous with “backward caste” or “backward community ….. In it ordinary connotation the expression “class” means a homogeneous section of the people grouped together because of certain likenesses or common traits, and who are identifiable by some common attributes such as status, rank, occupation, residence in a locality, race, religion and the like. But for the purpose of Article 16(4) in determining whether a section forms a class, a test solely based on caste, community, race, religion, sex, descent, place of birth or residence cannot be adopted, because it would directly offend the Constitution.”
348. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon, (1975) 2 SCR 761 : AIR 1975 Supreme Court 563 the following observations of this Court as relevant :
“The expression ‘classes of citizens’ indicates a homogeneous section of the people who are grouped together because of certain likeliness of and common traits and who are identificable by some common attributes. The homogeneity of the class of citizens is social and educational backwardness. Neither caste nor religion nor place of birth will be the uniform element of common attributes to make them a class of citizens.”
349. Finally in Kumari K.S. Jayasree v. The State of Kerala, (1977) 1 SCR 194 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2381 this Court held as under :
“It is not necessary to remember that special provision is contemplated for classes of citizens and not for individual citizens as such, and so though the caste of the group of citizen may be relevant, its importance should not be exaggerated. If the classification is based solely on caste of the citizen, it may not be logical. Social backwardness is the result of poverty to a very large extent. Caste and poverty are both relevant for determining I the ackwardness.”
350. It is, thus, obvious that this Court has firmly held that ‘class’ under Article 16(4) cannot mean ‘caste’ Chitralekha’s case is an authority on the point that caste can be totally excluded while identifying a ‘backward class’. This Court in Pradip Tandon’s case has held that caste cannot be the uniform element of common attributes to make it a class.
351. Secular features of the Constitution is its basic structure. Hinduism, from which the caste-system flows, is not the only religion in India. Caste is an anathema to Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. Even Arya Samajis, Brahmo Samjis, Lingyats and various other denominations in this country do not believe in caste-system. If all these relgions have to co-exist in India – can ‘class’ under Article 16(4) means ‘caste ? Can a caste be given a gloss of a ‘class ? Can even the process of identifying a ‘class’ begin and end with ‘caste ? One may interpret the Constitution from any angle the answer to these questions has to be in the negative. To say that in practice caste-system is being followed by Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists in this country, is to be oblivious to the basic tenants of these religions. The prophets of these religions fought against casteism and founded these religions. Imputing castesystem in any form to these religious is impious and sacrilegious. This Court in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, (1963) Supp 1 SCR 439 held as under :
“……Besides, if the caste of the group of citizens was made the sole basis for determining the social backwardness of the said group, that test would inevitably break down in relation to many sections of Indian society which do not recognise castes in the conventional sense known to Hindu society. How is one going to decide whether Muslims, Christians or Jains, or even Lingayats are socially backward or not ? The test of castes would be inapplicable to those groups.”
352. I, therefore, hold that ‘class’ under Article 16(4) cannot be read as ‘caste’. I further hold that castes cannot be adopted as collectivities for the purpose of identifying the “backward class” under Article 16(4). I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached by R. M. Sahai, J. to the effect that occupation (plus income or otherwise) or any other secular collectivity can be the basis for the identification of “backward classes”. Caste-collectivity is unconstitutional and as such not permitted.
[1] This article is an excerpt from the judgment of Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448