KUMARI K. S. JAYASREE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 20-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
194 
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE & ANR. 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
August 20, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitu!ion of India, 1950-Art. 15(4)-Reservation of seats fer socially 
f!lnd educationally backward classes in educational instit11tions-A11n11a/ family 
income rest-If valid. 
A Commission appointed by the State Government to enquire into the social 
and educational conditions of the people in the State and to recommend as to 
what sections should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes 
found that the benefit then in vogue relating to the reservation in educational 
institutio!15 of seats based solely on cas!e. or community was being enjoyed 
by the nch among the backward commumt1es and found that the lower income 
groups of certain communities constituted the socially and educationally back-
ward classes. It, 
therefore, recommended adoption of a 
means-cum-caste/ 
community test for the classification so as to take 
in 
poor and 
deserving 
se.ctions and exclude the wealthier sections. The State Government accordingly 
stzpulated that applicants who are members of certain communities and whose 
family income was below Rs. 10,000/- per aipmm would only be entitled to 
r.eats reserved for those students The petitioner who belonged to one of the 
mcially and educationally backward classes, submitted a certificate of annual 
income of the family to be above Rs. 
11,000/-, as a result of 
which hel1 
candidature could not be considered under the reservation scheme for a seat in 
the Medical College. In a writ petition under Art. 32 
of the Constitution 
i;t was contended that there was no reason to exclude an insignificant part of 
the community on the basis of income alone and that the income could not be 
the criterion of admission to determine the benefit of Art. 15 ( 4), 
E 
Dismissing the writ petition 
HELD : The basis of the reservation is not income but social and educa-
tional backwardness. 
Backward classes for whose improvement special provi-
sions are contemplated by Art. 15 ( 4) are in the matter of their backwardness 
comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
Backwardness under 
Art. 15(4) must be both social and educational. In ascertaining social back-
wardness of a class of citizens, the caste of a citizen cannot be the sole or 
( 
dominant test. 
Just as caste i1; not the sole or dominant test, similarly poverty 
) 
F 
is not th_e decisive and dete·rmining factor of &oeial backwardness. [197 G-H] 
G 
H 
The object of the reservation under Art. 15 ( 4) is to recognise the factual 
existence of socially and educationally backward classes in the country and to 
make a sincere attempt to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the 
community. 
Article 15 ( 4) gives effect to this principle. The 
concept 
of 
baakwardnesSi in Art. 15(4) is not intended to be relatiw in the sense that 
classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of society 
should be included in it. 
[ 198 B-C] 
In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens it may 
not be 
irrelevant to consider the caste of the group of citizens. 
Caste cannot however 
be made the whole or dominant test. 
Social backwardness is in the ultimate 
analysis the result of poverty to a large extent. 
Social 
backwardness 
which 
results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of caste. This 
shows the relevance of both r caste and poverty in determining the backwardness 
of citizens. In evolving proper criteria for determining the socially :ind educa-
tionally backward classes, sociological and economic consideratio~s ~'!le. inl;O 
play. This determinaiion is the function of the State. The Courts 1unsd1ct1on IS 
to decide whether the tests applied are valid. In dealing with the question as to 
whether any class of citizens is socially backward or not, it may not be 
irrelevant to consider the caste of the said group of citizens. Special provision 
is contemplated for Classes of citizens and not for individual citizens as such, 
KUMAR! K. S. JAYASREE V. KERALA (Ray, C.J.) 
0195 
and so. though the caste of ihe group of citizens1 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. 
When the Commission had determined a class 
to be 
so~ially and educationally backward it was not on the basis of income 
alone, and the determination 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.