LexM.R. BALAJI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1~§,Q,R .. .. SUl,lll:&ME, ,COURT.~ '.'J?ORtS
439
_·- .• ':;
-:
J ",•""
.. ··.\ ~
.: .: ·'
•. \) : .. -.
-·_
.
::·
'
'
... , .,
':.
.-~. -~
which can be tried in courts. If the State contends
(h,aJ the :responden.ts have lost their citizenship ;M
India under s. 9 ( 2) of the Citizenship · Act, it is . open.,
to the appellant to move the Central Government to
consider and determine the matter.. and if the deci-
sion of the Central Government goes against the res-•
p6ndents, it -may be competent to the appellant td
tak~ app_ropriate a,cti?n against tpe respondents,. So,
far as . the appellants case agamst the respondents
under Art. 7 is concerned, the High Court was right
in 'holding that the· respondents were not foreigners
Within the ·meaning of c.l: 7' of the Order and call.flcit;
thetefore, be prosecuted .under s. 14 of the .Act. '.(be
appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.. . • '
'
Appeal dismissed:
.
M.· R. BALAJI . AND OTHERS .
;,
v.
STATE. OF MYSORE
.•
(B. P. SniIIA, c. ]., P. B. GAJE~DRAGADKAR,~
K, N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
]. C. SHAH, JJ.)
. , , . . . Admission into O~lleges~Reservation of seats for ·socially
1<114:. educationally . bachurard c/,asses gnd Sohedukd Castes· and
·Schedukd.
Tribes~Scope
of~Directive Principles-Supr.ern•
(Jourt not to fix pe<~tage-Oonstit'!'tion of India, Arts. 15. (4),
)6.(4),29>(2),46,340. '.·' .
'·•. · ..
· · ·· On July 26, 1958, the State of Mysore . fasued an order
tl:!at ·all the· communities excepting the Brahm in community;
fell within the definition of educationally and socially backward
!'la.ss(!S _aI\d Scheduled Castes _and Schedul_ed Tribes _'and 75% of
,~~J~ in ,~du~atio_nal_-institutio1:1-~· -~er~ J..:~~eryed for t\1.em ... ,_;~irpjJ11r
9(ders}"eservmg seats, V{ere .. 1_s':ued . on. May 14, 1,959 ,JU!~ ,4~,
~:.'\. .. "r':'.\' It . ..-.
~·.o·.--
.
~·~
-
.· ~;, _,·._ ..
~ '.i
1962
.~tate ~/Madhya
Priilleih
i<··~,~-.:~v.~·-, . ·, i_
Pe_er Xtfohd.
-,~_;;_p._.:·:.:·-
Gajendragadkar, J.
1962
·September, 28.
1i6Z
M. R. Blll1ji
v.
State of MJ""
44o SUPREME COURTREPORtS [1963) StJPP.
1959,June 9, 1960 andJuly IO, 1961. The percentage of scats
reserved varied in various orders, but all of them were set aside
when challenged.
On July 31, 1962, the State of Mysore passed another
order which superseded all previous orders made by the State
under Art. 15 (4) for reservation of seats. Under that order,
the backward classes were divided into two categories, backward
classes and more backward classes. The order reserved 68%
of the seats in the engineering and medical colleges and other
te~nical institutions for the educationally and socially backward
classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and left
only 32 per cent seats for the merit pool. The order was
challenged by 23 petitioners by a writ petition w1der Art. 32.
The petitioners contended that but for the reservations made by
the impugned order, they would have been entitled to admission
in the respective colleges for which they had applied. They
contended that the classification made under the order was
irrational and the reservation of 68% seats made by the order
was•· fraud on Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution.
Held, that the impugned order was a fraud on the consti-
tutional power conferred on the State by Art. 15 (4) and the
'ame be quashed. The impugned order categorises the backward
classes on the sole basis of caste which is not permitted by
Art. 15 (4). The reservation of 68% seats is inconsistent with
the concept of the special provision authorised by Art. 15 (4).
However, this Court would not attempt to Jay down definitely
and in an inflexible manner as to what should be the proper
percentage for reservation.
Reservation should and must be adopted to advance the
prospects of weaker sections of society, but while doing so, care
should be taken not to exclude admission to higher educational
centres of deserving and qualified candidates of other com·
munities. Reservations under Arts. 15 (4) and 16 f4) ltt"St be
within reasonable limits. The interests of weaker ~Hoos of
society, which are a first caarge on the States and the dentrc,
have to be adjusted with the interests of thr. community as a
whole. Speaking generally and in a broad way, 11 special
provislon should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must
depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.
The object of Art. 15 (Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.