Justice P.B. Sawant[1]
480. The next issue arising out of this question is whether economic criterion by itself would identify the backward classes under Article 16(4) and whether the expression “backward class of citizens” in the said Article would include “weaker sections of the people” mentioned in Article 46.
481. Article 46 enjoins upon the State to promote with special care, the educational and economic interests of the “weaker sections” of the people, and, in particular, of the SCs/STs, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. The expression “weaker sections” of the people is obviously wider than the expression “backward class” of citizens in Article 16 (4) which is only a part of the weaker sections. As has been discussed above, the expression “backward class” of citizens is used there in a particular context which is germane to the reservations in the services under the State for which that Article has been enacted. It has also been pointed out that in that context, read with Articles 15 (4) and 340, the said expression means only those classes which are socially backward and whose educational and economic backwardness is on account of their social backwardness and which are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Hence, the expression “backward class” of citizens in Article 16 (4) does not comprise all the weaker sections of the people, but only those which are socially and, therefore, educationally and economically backward, and which are inadequately represented in the services. The expression “weaker sections of the people” used in Article 46, however, is not confined to the aforesaid classes only but also includes other backward classes as well, whether they are socially and educationally backward or not and whether they are adequately represented in the services or not. What is further, the expression “weaker sections” of the people does not necessarily refer to a group or a class. The expression can also take within its compass, individuals who constitute weaker sections or weaker parts of the society. This weakness may be on account of factors other than past social and educational backwardness. The backwardness again may be on account of poverty alone or on account of the present impoverishment arising out of physical or social handicaps. The instances of such weaker sections other than SCs/STs and socially and educationally backward classes may be varied, viz., flood — earthquake – cyclone – fire – famine and project affected persons, war and riot torn persons, physically handicapped persons, those without any or adequate means of livelihood, those who live below the poverty line, slum dwellers etc. Hence the expression “weaker sections” of the people is wider than the expression “back ward class” of citizens or socially and educationally backward classes” and “SCs/STs”. It connotes all sections of the society who are rendered weaker due to various causes. Article 46 is aimed at promoting their educational and economic interests and protecting them from social injustice and exploitation. This obligation cast on the State is consistent both with the Preamble as well as Article 38 of the Constitution.
482. However, the provisions of Article 46 should not be confused with those of Article 16(4) and hence the expression ” weaker sections of the people” in Article 46 should not be mixed up with the expression “backward class of citizens” under Article 16 (4). The purpose of Article 16 (4) is limited. It is to give adequate representation in the services of the State to that class which has no such representation. Hence, Article 16(4) carves out a particular class of people and not individuals from the “weaker sections”, and the class it carves out is the one which does not have adequate representation in the services under the State. The concept of “weaker sections” in Article 46 has no such limitation.
In the first instance, the individuals belonging to the weaker sections may not form a class and they may be weaker as individuals only. Secondly, their weakness may not be the result of past social and educational backwardness or discrimination. Thirdly, even if they belong to an identifiable class but that class is represented in the services of the State adequately, as individuals forming weaker section, they may be entitled to the benefits of the measures taken under Article 46, but not to the reservations under Article 16 (4).
Thus, not only the concept of “weaker sections” under Article 46 is different from that of the “backward class” of citizens in Article 16 (4), but the purpose of the two is also different. One is for the limited purpose of the reservation and hence suffers from limitations, while the other is for all purposes under Article 46, which purposes are” other than reservation under Article 16(4). While those entitled to benefits under Article 16(4) may also be entitled to avail of the measures taken under Article 46, the converse is not true. If this is borne in mind, the reasons why mere poverty or economic consideration cannot be a criterion for identifying backward classes of citizens under Article 16(4) would be more clear. To the consideration of that aspect we may now turn.
483. Economic backwardness is the bane of the majority of the people in this country. There are poor sections in all the castes and communities. Poverty runs across all barriers. The nature and degree of economic backwardness and its causes and effects, however, vary from section to section of the populace. Even the poor among the higher castes are socially as superior to the lower castes as the rich among the higher castes. Their economic backwardness is not on account of social backwardness. The educational backwardness of some individuals among them may be an account of their poverty in which case economic case alone may enable them to gain an equal capacity to compete with others. On the other hand, those who are socially backward such as the lower castes or occupational groups, are also educationally backward on account of their social backwardness, their economic backwardness being the consequence of both their social and educational backwardness. Their educational backwardness is not on account of their economic backwardness alone. It is mainly on account of their social backwardness. Hence mere economic aid will not enable them to compete with others and particularly with those who are socially advanced. Their social backwardness is the cause and not the consequence either of their economic or educational backwardness. It is necessary to bear this vital distinction in mind to understand the true import of the expression “backward class of citizens” in Article 16(4). If it is mere educational backwardness or mere economic backwardness that was intended to be specially catered to, there was no need to make a provision for reservation in employment in the services under the State. That could be taken care of under Articles 15 (4), 38 and 46.
The provision for reservation in appointments under Article 16 (4) is not aimed at economic upliftment or alleviation of poverty. Article 16(4) is specifically designed to give a due share in the State power to those who have remained out of it mainly on account of their social and, therefore, eductional and economic backwardness. The backwardness that is contemplated by Article 16 (4) is the backwardness which Is both the cause and the consequence of non-representation in the administration of the country. All other kinds of backwardness are irrelevant for the purpose of the said Article. Further, the backwardness has to be a backwardness of the whole class and not of some individuals belonging to the class, which individuals may be economically or educationally backward, but the class to which they belong may be socially forward and adequately or even more than adequately represented in the services. Since the reservation under Article 16 (4) is not for the individuals but to a class which must be both backward and inadequately represented in the services, such individuals would not be beneficiaries of reservation under Article 16(4).
It is further difficult to come across a “class” (not individuals) which is socially and educationally advanced but is economically backward or which is not adequately represented in the services of the State on account on its economic backwardness. Hence, mere economic or mere educational backwardness which is not the result of social backwardness, cannot be a criterion of backwardness for Article 16 (4).
484. That only economic backwardness was not in the contemplation of the Constitution is made further clear by the fact that at the time of the First Amendment to the Constitution which added clause (4) to Article 15 of the Constitution, one of the Members, Prof. K. T. Shah wanted the elimination of the word “classes” in and the addition of the word “economically” to the qualifiers of the term “backward classes”. This Amendment was not accepted. Prime Minister Nehru himself stated that the addition of the word economically” would put the language of the Article at variance with that of Article 340. He added that “socially” is a much wider term including many things and certainly including economically”. This shows that economic consideration alone as the basis of backwardness was not only not intended but positively discarded.
485. The reasons for discarding economic criterian as the sole test of backwardness are obvious. If poverty alone is made the test, the poor from all castes, communities, collectivities and sections would compete for the reserved quota. In such circumstances, the result would be obvious, namely, those who belong to socially and educationally advanced sections would capture all the posts in the quota. This would leave the socially and educationally backward classes high and dry although they are not at all represented or are inadequately represented in the services, and the socially and educationally advanced classes are adequately or more than adequately represented in the services. It would thus result in defeating the very object of the reservations in services, under Article 16 (4). It would, also provide for the socially and educationally advanced classes statutory reservations in the services in addition to their traditional but non-statutory cent per cent reservations. It will thus perpetuate the imbalance, and the inadequate representation of the backward classes in the services. It is naive to expect that the poor from the socially and educationally backward classes would be able to compete on equal terms with the poor from the socially and educationally advanced classes. There may be an equality of opportunity for the poor from both the socially advanced and backward classes. There will, however, be no equality of results since the competing capacity of the two is unequal. The economic criterion will thus lead, in effect, to. the virtual deletion of Article 16 (4) from the Constitution.
486. We may refer to some decisions of this Court on this point.
487. In Chitralekha (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1823), which was a case under Article 15 (4), it is observed :
“It is, therefore, manifest that the Government as a temporary measure, pending an elaborate study, has taken into consideration only the economic condition and occupation of the family concerned as the criteria for backward classes within the meaning of Article 15 (4) of the Constitution” (Emphasis supplied)
488. The Supreme Court upheld the said classification. However, it must be noted that the classification there was not only on the ground of economic condition but was also based on the occupation of the family concerned.
489. Parimoo (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 930) was a case under Article 16(4). On the test of backwardness, the Court has observed there as follows :
“It is not merely the educational backwardness or the social backwardness which makes a class of citizens backward; the class identified as a class as above must be both educationally and socially backward. In India social and educational backwardness is further associated with economic backwardness and it is observed in Balaji’s case (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 649) referred to above that backwardness, socially and educationally is ultimately and primarily due to poverty. But if poverty is the exclusive test, a very large proportion of the population in India would have to be regarded as socially and educationally backward, and if reservations are made only on the ground of economic considerations, an untenable situation may arise because even in sectors which are recognised as socially and educationally advanced there are large pockets of poverty. In this country except for a small percentage of the population the people are generally poor – some being more poor, others less poor. Therefore, when a social investigator tries to identify socially and educationally backward classes, he may do it with confidence that they are bound to be poor. His chief concern is, therefore, to determine whether the class or group is socially and educationally backward. Though the two words ‘socially’ and ‘educationally’ are used cumulatively for the purpose of describing the backward class, one may find that if a class as a whole is educationally advanced, it is generally also socially advanced because of the reformative effect of education on that class. The words “advanced” and “backward” are only relative terms – there being several layers or strata of classes, hovering between “advanced” and “backward”, and the difficult task is which class can be recognised out of these several layers as being socially and educationally backward.”
490. It will be observed from the above that poverty as the sole test of backwardness for Article 16(4) was discarded by this Court in the said decision. On the other hand, it is emphasised there that the poverty in question should be the result of social and educational backwardness.
491. This point has elaborately been dealt with by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Vasanth Kumar (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1495) where the learned Judge has taken pains to point out that although poverty is the dominant characteristic of all backwardness, it is not the cause of all backwardness :
“We, therefore, see that everyone of the three dimensions propounded by Weber is intimately and inextricably connected with economic position. However, we look at the question of ‘backwardness’, whether from the angle of class, status or power, we find the economic factor at the bottom of it all and we find poverty, the culprit-cause and the dominant characteristic. Poverty, the economic factor brands all backwardness just as the erect posture brands the homosapiens and distinguishes him from all other animals, in the eyes of the beholder from Mars. But, whether his racial stock is caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc., further investigation will have to be made. So too the further question of social and educational backwardness requires further scrutiny. In India, the matter is further aggravated, complicated and pitilessly tyrannised by the ubiquitous caste system, a unique and devastating system of gradation and degradation which has divided the entire Indian and particularly. Hindu society horizontally into such distinct layers as to be destructive of mobility, a system which has penetrated and corrupted the mind and soul of every Indian citizen.”
492. It is, therefore, clear that economic criterion by itself will not identify the backward classes under Article 16(4). The economic backwardness of the backward classes under Article 16(4) has to be on account of their social and educational backwardness.
[1] This article is an excerpt from the judgment of Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448