Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The question is one of constitutional importance to harmonize the personal law of the citizens and the constitutional goal, viz., to accord equal opportunity to the disadvantaged social segments, envisaged in Articles 16(4) and 15(4) of the Constitution. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that though the appellant is a Syrian Catholic (a forward class) by birth and had voluntarily married J. Yesudas, a Latin Catholic (Fishermen community), admittedly a backward class, she had entered into the marital home of her husband in the year 1982 and was received and recognised by the community as a member of the Latin Catholic, Due to her marriage, she has subjected herself and suffered all the environmental disabilities to which her husband, J. Yesudas, was subjected and to which all other members of backward class in the region are subjected to. She cannot therefore, be discriminated by denying equality given by Article 16(4) of the Constitution. He elaborated the contention arguing that birth by itself is not a determinative factor for claiming protective discrimination given to the backward classes. Environmental and social disabilities are also relevant factor to which the appellant had volunteered by subjecting herself to them and that, therefore, she is entitled to me same treatment as is available to the Latin Catholics (Fishermen) to which she was transplanted by marriage according to Canon Law. Therefore, the view of the Full Bench is not correct in law. He placed strong reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur v. K Mohan Rao, [1976] 3 SCR 1046 and N.E. Hero v. Jahan Ara Jai Pal Singh, [1912] 3 SCR 361.

Shri Nambiar, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents, contended that Articles 16(4) and 15(4) are intended to remove handicaps and disadvantages suffered by backward class citizens due to social and educational backwardness like the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, persons who by birth belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes alone are entitled to the benefit of Articles 16(4) and 15(4). By marriage, adoption or any other device, viz... by procuring false social status certificates, they are not eligible to avail of protective discrimination for appointment to any office or to a post under the State or admission in educational institution. What is relevant is inadequacy of representation of that class into an office or service under the State. The members belonging to that particular group which is not adequately represented alone are entitled to avail of the protective discrimination. The appellant, having had the advantage of starting life as Syrian Catholic being born in forward class, though she voluntarily married to a backward class citizen, cannot claim the status as a backward class to avail, of protective discrimination unless she further pleads and establishes that candidates like her suffered all the handicaps and disadvantages having been born as backward class citizens or Scheduled Castes or scheduled Tribes. Mere recognition of and acceptance by the community, after her marriage is not relevant for the purpose of availing of the benefit of Articles 16(4) and 15(4). Acceptance may be only for recognition as a legally wedded wife of a backward class citizen and nothing more. He distinguished the ratio of Mohan Rao's case (supra) contending that the parents of Mohan Rao initially belonged to the Scheduled Castes but later they converted into Christianity. On reconversion Mohan Rao was accepted to be a member of the Scheduled Castes and, therefore, his admission as a reserved candidates was upheld by this Court. The ratio therein cannot be extended to all the situations and has to be confined to special facts established in that case. As to Hero case, the submission was that it is not relevant for our purpose.

In A.S, Sailaja v, Kurnool Medical College. Kurnool & Ors., AIR (1986) A.P. 209, the petitioner, daughter of A.S. Radhakrishna, an advocate of Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh, had initially appeared for Common Entrance Examination for 1984-85 for admission into medical College but failed. For the Common Entrance Examination for 1985-86 she described herself to be daughter of natural father Radhakrishna but in the application for admission made on July 13, 1985, she claimed that she was adopted by one B. Sivaramaiah, (Shepard), a backward class in Andhra Pradesh and sought admission on that basis. She secured 417 marks out of 600 and when she claimed to be O.B.C., but was not given admission, she filed a writ petition in A.P. High Court for direction to the College to admit her as a backward class group-D, The High Court considered the inter-play of adoption under the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, 1956 and the protective discrimination under Article 15(4). It held that the native endowments of men are by no means equal. The mind of children brought up in culturally, educationally and economically advanced atmosphere, is accounted highly as they are bound to start the race of life with advantages. It would apparently have its inevitable profound effect on the quality of the child born in that atmosphere. The children born amongst backward classes would not start the race of life with the same quality of life. It would, therefore, be necessary to identify the competing interests between diverse sections of the society and it is the duty of the Court to strike a balance between competing claims of different interests. Citizens belonging to a group of backward classes identified by the appropriate authority or the commission, as a part of that class, fulfilling the traits of socially and educationally backwardness among that group, would alone be eligible for admission as a backward class citizens under Article 15(4). In that event, the Court declined to go into the question whether such person is socially or educationally backward which is an exclusive function of the commission/authority appointed under Article 340 of the Constitution. But any person who would attempt, by process of law and seeks to acquire the status of such a backward class should satisfy that he/she suffered the same handicaps or disadvantages due to social, educational and cultural backwardness. A person born in upper caste and having early advantages of education is not entitled to the benefit of Article 15(4). In that context, it was held that caste will be one of the considerations along with other factors applicable to homogeneous group of the people. A homogeneous group together being identifying as a class for the purpose of Article 15(4) or 16(4) would become mockery. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner, though by adoption became a member of the backward class, was not eligible for admission into medical college under Article 15(4) since she did not undergo any sufferings or disadvantages, handicaps or ignominy to which the members of the homogeneous backward class are subjected to.