In a 64-page judgment, a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman struck down the March 4, 2014 notification issued by the then UPA government to include the Jats in the Central list of OBCs for the nine States. The notification, which came on the eve of the issuance of the Model Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha elections, was issued despite a piece of advice to the contrary by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
Terming the notification an instance of “retrograde governance,” the court found that the government’s decision was based on statistics dated over a decade ago.
Hinting that the government bowed to political pressure, the judgment observed that the State should not go by the “perception of the self-proclaimed socially backward class or advanced classes” on who deserved to be categorised as the “less fortunates.”
Instead, Justice Gogoi, who wrote the judgment, held that the State should maintain an independent and high degree of vigilance to discover emerging forms of backwardness in a continually evolving society. “Possible wrong inclusions” into the OBC list in the past cannot be basis for further inclusions.
“The gates would be opened only to permit entry of the most distressed. Any other inclusions would be a serious abdication of the constitutional duty of the State,” the court warned.
The judgment said caste, though a prominent reason for historic injustice in the country, could not be the sole decider of backwardness of a class.
“Owing to historical conditions, particularly in Hindu society, recognition of backwardness has been associated with caste. Social groups who would be most deserving must necessarily be a matter of continuous evolution. New practices, methods and yardsticks have to be continuously evolved moving away from caste-centric definition of backwardness,” the judgment said.
It said inclusion of a community in the Central OBC list, based only on historical injustices like caste, would lead to the “under-protection of the most deserving backward class of citizens, which is constitutionally mandated.”
The government had argued that it was empowered under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution to overlook equality of opportunity in public employment. It said the inclusion of the Jats was based on the “compelling factor” that they had already been included in the State Lists over a decade ago. The Centre said it merely followed the constitutional scheme that it has to “work in tandem and not at cross purposes” with the States.
Dismissing this, the judgment held that the government was both judicially and statutorily bound to comply with the NCBC’s decisions.
