STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus PRADIP TANDON & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 19-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
761 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
PRADIP TANDON & ORS. 
November 19, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, CJ., K. K. MATHEW AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of lndia, 1950-Ans. 15 (l )( 4) and 19(1)-Rewva~ions of 
scats in Medical Colleges in favour of hill and Uttrakha11d areas-Canst1tutwnal 
validity of-Tests for determining backwardness. 
For admission of students to medical colleges in the State, the State Govern-
ment had made reservation for rural, hill and Uttrnkhand areas on the ground 
that · people comini: from these are;;s belonged to sociallv ~nd educationally 
backward classes. The validity of these reservations was question~d •.n the H ;gh 
Court. The High Cou;t in one case struck them down as unconshtuhonal, with. 
out considering the earlier decision. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended on beha.lf of the ~tate that th.e 
object of the classificat;on was the advancement of medical educatmn for candi-
dates from the reserved areas and to give students ·from these areas the benefit 
of medical education. It was further contended that by Art. 41 and 46 of the 
Constitution the State is enjoined to promote with special care the educational 
and economic interests of the weaker se:tions of the people and that the reser-
vations were not on the grounds of place of birth but on the ground of residenee 
and. therefore, the reservations would not fall within the mischief of either 
Art. 15(1) or Art. 29. 
Art. 15(1) states that the State •hal! not discriminate apinst any citizen 
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, p'ace of birth or any of them. 
Art. 19(2) states that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational 
institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds 
only of religion, race, caste. language or any of them. 
Allowing the appeal in part, 
HELD: 
Reservation in· favour of candidates from r.ural areas is unconsti-
tutional. .The reservations for the hill and Uttrnkhand areas are severable and 
are valid: [773D] 
· 
( 1) The Constitution does not enabl·! the State to bring socially and educa-
tionally backward areas within the protection of Art. 15(4). The backwardness 
contemplated under Art. 15(4) is both social and edu;ational. Art. 15(4) speaks 
of backwardness of c'asses of citizens and. therefore, socially and educa'.ionally 
backward classes of citizens in Art. 15(4) could not be equated with castes. 
r··''SC-D] 
(2) Neither caste nor race nor religion can be made the basis of classification 
for the purposes of determining social and educational backwardness within the 
mcanir.g of Art. !5(4). When Art. 15(1) forbids discrimination on grounds 
only of religion: rnee and caste, caste cannot be 1'1ade one of the criteria for 
determining social ·and edu.oational backwardness. If cnste or religion is recog-
nised as a cri'.erion of social and educational 
backwardness Art. 15(4) 
will 
stultify Art. 15(1). When a c'assifi:ation takes recou.rse to cast~ as one of the 
criteria in determining sociat1y and educationaliy backwa•d clnsses the expression 
"dasses" in that case violates the rule of ex,pressio 1tnius e<t exclusio a/terius. 
The socially and educationally backward classes of citizens arc groups other than 
groups based on caste. [766F-G] 
· · ( 3) Th·e place of habitation and its environment is also a determining factor 
in judging the social and educat:onal backwardness. Backwardness is jud~d by· 
economic basis t.h.at eadi region has its own measurable po~sibilities for 
the 
maintenance of human numbers, standards of l:ving and fixed property. 
From 
an economic point cf view the classes of citiums are backward when they do not 
make effective use of resources. 
Neglected opportunities and people in remote 
places raise walls of soci.al backwardness of people. 
People in the hill an1 
2-L346SupC'T 17 5 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
Uttrakhand areas illustra~·.! the educationally backward classes of citizens because. 
A 
lack of educational faciWies keep .~hem stagnant and they have neither meaning 
and values nor ~wareness for education. 
[767A; E-01 
State of An(ih.·a Prad;~sll &: Anr. v. P. Sagar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595 and Tiiloki 
Nath & Anr, 
v. 
State of Jammu &: Kashmir &: Ors. [1969] 1 S.C.R. 103, 
referred to. 
(4) The test of poverty is not the determining factor of social ba::kwardm:ss. 
~~ 
B 
M. R. Ba!aji &: Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963] Supp; 1 S.C.R. 439, held 
inapplicable. 
J. P, Parimo

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