STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus P. SAGAR

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 27-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
v. 
P. SAGAR 
March 27, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMA.SWAMI AND G. K. MrrT!!ll, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 15(1) and (4)-Slate preparing a ll&t of 
backward c/arses within the meaning of cl. ( 4 )-Claiming to have done 
so on advice of experts who were satl&fied-re/evant tests were appli~ 
Not placing any material before court to consider validity of Ii.rt which 
ex-facie included 'castes' and not classes-Whether court can hold such 
Ust as valid. 
By an order of the State Government, Andhra Pradesh, .issued on July 
29, 1966, 20% of the Iola! number of seats for admission to medical 
colleges in the State were reserved fdr members of the backward classes 
described in a list prepared by the Government. This order and the list 
were challenged in writ petitions before the High Court on the ground 
that another list published by the State Gove~t on June 21, 1963 
determining backward classes for the purpose of. Art. 15(4) of the Con-
•tltlJtlon bad been declared invalid by the High Court in an earlier c:aae as 
being violative of Art. 15(1); it was contended that the State Govem-
ment had adopted substantially the &anlO list of backward claases with 
slight modifications and as the new list also made the reservation in 
fainur of castes and not clasoes, it infringed the guarantee under Art. 
15(1). On behalf of the State Government it. was urged that cute is 
one of the relevant tests in determining backwafdness, and cannot be ig· 
nored in determining socially and educationally backward clas"'5 and if a 
group bas been classified as backward on other relevont considerations, the 
classification is not liable to be challenged as invalid on the ground that 
for the purpose of classifying, the 00.ignation of caste is . siven. It was 
stated in an affidavit on behalf of the State that the new list had been 
prepared by a Cabinet sub-committee and approved by the Cabinet after 
a detailed enquiry of the conditions of tho castes in qµestiQD and on ex-
pert advice of the Director of Social Welfare as well as under tho guid-
ance of the Law Secretary; and that they were both satisfied that the 
correct tests were applied in the determination of the backward classeo. 
The High Court held that the reservations of seats for the members of the 
backward classes described in the list prepared by the Government were 
in,lllid. The State appealed to this Court by special leave. 
HEID : dismissing the appeal, 
Tho impugned list prepared by the State was ex-facle based on c:asle8 
or communities and wa·s substantiallv the same list which had been struck 
down by the High Court as invalid in the earlier case. No materials were 
placed on the record to enable the Court to decide whether the criteria 
laid down for detmnining that the list prepared by the Government cm-
formed to the requirements of cl. (4) or Art. IS we!re followed. 
Article IS guarantees by the first . clause a fundamental right of far-
reaching importance. Clause ( 4) is an exception engrafted upon .the 
guarantee in cl. (I), but being m the nature of an exceptfon condition• 
which justify departure must be strictly shown to exist. When a dispute 
is raised before a Court that a particular law which is inconsistent with 
the guarantee against disc:'rimination is valid on the plea that if is permitted 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 3 S.C.R. 
under cl. ( 4) of Art. 15, the mere assertion by the State that the officers 
of the State had taken into consideration the criteria 
which 
had 
h~n 
adopted by the courts for determining who the socially and educationaJh· 
backward classes of the Society are, or that the authorities had acted in 
good faith in determining the socially and educationally hack\\'ard clas:1es 
of citizens, \\IOuld not be sufficient to sustain the validity of the clain1. 
It 
a question arises \Vhethcr a la\v 'vhich prbna facie infringes a funda111cntal 
right is within an exception, the validity of that Jaw has to be determined 
by the courts on materials placed before them. By merely assertin~ that 
the law was made after full cons!deration of the relevant cvi<lcncl!' anJ 
criteria which have a bearing thereon, and was within the exception, the 
jurisdiction of the courts to determine whether by makin2 the law o 
fundamental right bas been infringed is not excluded. [603 c,GJ. 
Case law referred to. 
A 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 1336 c 
of 1967. 
Appeal by spe

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