MR Balaji v. State of Mysore

In 1962 the Mysore government passed a Government Order that divided backward classes into two categories: backward classes and more backward classes.

In the State's engineering and medical colleges, a total of 68% of the seats were reserved. This included the share for backward and more backward classes as well as the share for S.C. and S.T. Only 32% of the seats were left for general merit.

Twenty-three petitioners, who did not get admission even though they ranked higher on merit, challenged the order in the Supreme Court under Article 32. They argued that it was a misuse of Article 15(4).

Background: Article 15(4) allows the State to make special provisions, such as reservation in education, for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was added by the First Amendment of 1951, after the Supreme Court struck down Madras's caste-based admission order in the Champakam Dorairajan case.

1. Was the order reserving 68% of seats valid under Article 15(4), or was it a fraud on the Constitution?

2. Did the State of Mysore have the power to divide backward classes into two categories, backward and more backward?

3. Was a 68% reservation within a reasonable limit, and did it serve the purpose of Article 15(4)?

Petitioners: Only the President, not a State government, can declare backward classes, and a commission must first be set up under Article 340. Reservation can be introduced only through legislation (a law), not through an executive order. A caste-based list is irrational, and backwardness cannot be decided purely on the basis of caste. A 68% reservation is far too much and amounts to a fraud on Article 15(4). Any such provision must be reasonable and balanced.

State of Mysore: The classification was rational and intelligible. Besides caste, occupation and poverty were also taken into account. Article 15(4) lays down no percentage limit, and if necessary even 100% could be reserved. The classification was welfare-based, not caste-based, and its main aim was social upliftment and equal opportunity for backward people.

The five-judge bench, with the judgment written by Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, held the Mysore Government Order unconstitutional.

On the technical points, the Court sided with the State: a special provision under Article 15(4) can be made through an executive order, and neither a separate declaration by the President nor a commission under Article 340 is necessary.

On the main questions, the Court agreed with the petitioners. The order misused the power under Article 15(4) and was a fraud on the Constitution, meaning a use of constitutional power that looks valid on the surface but actually works against its purpose.

The Court held that caste cannot be the sole test of backwardness. It held that reservation must stay within reasonable limits and should broadly be less than fifty percent, so the 68% reservation was excessive and violated equality.

The Court noted that under the method used in the order, almost 90% of the State's population had been treated as backward. Only classes considerably below the State average fall within Article 15(4), so the division into backward and more backward was not held to be justified.

The Court read Article 15(4) as an exception to Article 15(1) and spoke of applying it narrowly.

Constitution of India, Article 15(4); Article 15(1); Article 32; Article 340; Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951

Balaji is the first major milestone in India's reservation cases. It is the origin of the fifty percent ceiling rule, which is not written anywhere in the Constitution. That rule was later reaffirmed in Indra Sawhney (1992), confirmed again in the Maratha reservation case (2021), and debated afresh in the Janhit Abhiyan case on E.W.S. (2022). It also drew a clear line between caste and class.

Students must also know the later changes. Indra Sawhney (1992) allowed sub-classification into backward and more backward classes. State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas and Indra Sawhney treated such provisions as an aspect of equality rather than an exception to it, a shift towards substantive equality.

Exam keywords: Article 15(4), fraud on the Constitution, caste not the sole test, 68% excessive, broadly less than fifty percent.

Hypothetical: A State government issues an order reserving 75% of medical seats. Backwardness is decided only by caste lists, and no study of poverty, occupation, residence or education is made. Prince and Zoya rank high in the entrance test but are denied seats, so they challenge the order.

Applying Balaji, the court would examine two things. First, caste alone has been used as the test of backwardness, which is not allowed. Second, the reservation goes well beyond the broad fifty percent limit without any extraordinary justification. The order would likely be struck down as a fraud on Article 15(4).

The fact that the reservation was made by executive order and not by a law would not by itself make it invalid.