Ram Singh v Union of India

Citation-(2015)4 SCC 697

Decided on-17th March, 2015

Coram-Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Facts:-

1. On 28th November, 1997, the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)
studied the claims of various individuals, organisations and associations for inclusion
of Jats in the Central List of Backward Classes for the States of Haryana, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and submitted the report on given date. The report
recommended the inclusion of only Jats of Rajasthan except of Bharatpur & Dholpur
districts, in the OBC Central list.

2. On 25th November, 2010, the NCBC also examined the claim for inclusion of Jats in
the Central List for the State of Delhi, and tendered its advice rejecting their claim.

3. On 3rd May, 2011, the National Commission for Backward Classes (Power to Review
Advice) Rules, 2011 was notified by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment. By virtue of the aforesaid Rules, the NCBC was empowered to review
its advice tendered to the Central Government under Section 9(1) of the Act. Rule 4 of
the Rules provides that the provision of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 shall mutatis mutandis apply to a review undertaken by the
Commission.

4. In 20th June, 2011, in their meeting, the NCBC deferred a decision on Jat
representations until the finalisation of the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011.

5. However, on 19th July, 2011, the NCBC approached the Indian Council of Social
Science Research (ICSSR) to conduct a comprehensive survey in Uttar Pradesh,
 Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat to ascertain the
communitys socio-economic status.

6. In October 2012, the NCBC decided to reduce the comprehensive survey to a 2%

sample survey which work, once again, was entrusted to the ICSSR.
7. On 4th June, 2013, the Prime Ministers Office informed the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment that a Group of Ministers chaired by the Finance Minister would
interact with Jat leaders regarding their demand for inclusion. The Group of Ministers
would also monitor completion of the ICSSR survey and facilitate an early decision
by the NCBC.

8. On 19th December, 2013, the Cabinet took the decision for requesting NCBC to tender
its advice based on existing material. The cabinet further took the decision that the
cases of States of Bihar, Uttarakhand and NCT of Delhi be also included in the
reference made to the NCBC.

9. February 2014-An ICSSR Expert Committee gathered all literature on the subject,
including reports of the various State Commissions regarding inclusion of Jats in State
OBC lists, and presented the NCBC a summary without recommendations. The
NCBC asked the States to fix public hearings in the respective State capitals, but on
receiving no response organised public hearings at Siri Fort Auditorium, Delhi.
On 26th February, 2014, the NCBC advised the Centre that Jats did not qualify for
inclusion in the Central List of OBC, as merely belonging to an agricultural community
cannot confer backward status. Ruling that Jats were neither socially or educationally
backward, the NCBC suggested the need for a non-caste based identification of backward
classes. It noted that Jats were adequately represented in public employment (Armed
Forces, Government services and educational institutions).

10. However, on 2nd March, 2014, the Union Cabinet decided that the advice tendered by
the NCBC did not adequately take into account the "ground realities." The Cabinet,
therefore, resolved not to accept the said advice and instead to include the Jat
Community in the Central List of Backward Classes for the States of Bihar, Gujarat,
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur districts of
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Thereafter, the impugned notification
 came to be issued on 4th March, 2014. The general election was notified the next day,
giving the decision a distinctly political taint.

Petitioners Arguments:

The petitioners alleged legal malice in the decision making process of the Union
Government, stating that the impugned notification is based on wholly extraneous
considerations and is actuated by political motives, namely, to gain electoral
advantages.
It contended that the notification clearly violates Section 9 of the NCBC Act, 1993
which provides that "advice of the Commission shall ordinarily be binding upon the
Central Government". Even in a situation contemplated by Section 11 of the Act, the
views of the NCBC would be equally compulsive and binding and should commend
for acceptance of the Central Government except in situations where there are strong
compelling and overwhelming reasons not to do so.
The petitioners also argued that the earlier reports of the NCBC for rejecting Jats
claims for inclusion in OBC list were based on elaborate reasoning and upon a
comprehensive consideration of all relevant materials, clearly explaining that Jats are
a forward community in all the states in questions, which was ignored by the Union
Cabinet.

Respondents Arguments:
No undue haste on the part of Union govt just because the notification came on
the eve of the general election.
Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution provides the power to make provisions for
reservation by inclusion of the eligible classes in the Central lists flow from
Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The advice of the NCBC, according to the
learned Attorney General, would not be very material inasmuch as even dehors
 the provisions of the NCBC Act the Union Government would not be denuded of
its powers to add or subtract from the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes.
It also contended that by referring to the specific conclusions of the NCBC
recorded in its report dated 26.02.2014, it has been contended that the conclusions
reached are wholly untenable and unacceptable being contrary to specific findings
recorded by the ICSSR or in the reports of the State Commissions with regard to
the social, economic as well as educational status of the Jats.

Supreme Court Observation:

The report of the Expert Committee constituted by the ICSSR was based on a study of
eight specific reports which were sent by the Group of Ministers to the NCBC at the
time of seeking a review of the earlier decision of the NCBC. The 8 reports were:-

1) Social Justice Committee Report, Uttar Pradesh (2001)

2) Socio-Economic Status of Farming Communities in Northern India, Uttar Pradesh
3) (2003)
4) Caste, Land and Political Power in UP, Uttar Pradesh
5) Justice Gurnam Singh Commission Report, Haryana (1990)
6) Justice K.C. Gupta Report, Haryana (2013)
7) Justice Gummanmal Lodha Commission Report, NCT of Delhi (1999)
8) Dr. Lipi Mukhopadbyay Report, Delhi (2005)
9) State Backward Classes Commission's Reports of State Governments of Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.

Apart from Justice KC Gupta report all the other reports as well as the literature on the
subject would be at least a decade old. The necessary data, on which the exercise has to be
made, as already observed by us, has to be contemporaneous. Outdated statistics cannot
provide accurate parameters for measuring backwardness for the purpose of inclusion in the
list of Other Backward Classes. This is because one may legitimately presume progressive
advancement of all citizens on every front i.e. social, economic and education. Any other
view would amount to retrograde governance. Also, the KC Gupta report was rejected by the
Apex Court on the grounds of bias as well as improper methods for survey which does not
comply with the guidelines given in Indra Sawhney case.

Significantly, the Court embraced the view expressed in the NCBC report that caste
need not be the primary basis on which a backward class is identified. It emphasized
that backwardness as envisaged under Article 16(4) is essentially social
backwardness. Educational and economic backwardness may contribute to social
backwardness but by themselves do not make a backward class under Article 16(4).
Moving away from existing precedent, 49 it held that the phrases backward class
and socially and educationally backward classes are not equivalent. Instead it
emphasized the need to move away from the identification of internally homogenous
(based on caste or occupation) to heterogeneous (based on disability or transgender
identity) social groups that may backward due to diverse social, cultural, economic,
educational or even political factors.

The Petitioners challenged the notification on the grounds that the Jat community is
not a socially and educationally backward class and that the Union government was
bound by the advice of the NCBC.

The Supreme Court substantially agreed with the Petitioners on both counts but clarified that
based on the observations in Indra Sawhney case and the provisions of Section 9 of the
NCBC Act, the advice tendered by the NCBC is only ordinarily binding on the Government
which may overrule or ignore such advice for strong and compelling reasons to be set out in
writing. As the NCBC Report in this case was well grounded, there was no reason for the
Union government to disregard its recommendations.

Judgment and Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held the notification dated 4th March, 2014 unconstitutional.
The Court also upheld the decision of Indra Sawhney that the terms "backward class"
and "socially and educationally backward classes" are not equivalent and further that
in Article 16(4) the backwardness contemplated is mainly social.
The Apex Court opined that the government is bound by the report/findings of the
NCBC as per Section 9 of the NCBC Act, 1993.
 The decision is landmark as it assists in lucidly explaining the scope of affirmative
action and prevented the abuse of constitutional provisions for vote-bank politics.
The State, therefore, cannot blind itself to the existence of other forms and instances
of backwardness. An affirmative action policy that keeps in mind only historical
injustice would certainly result in under-protection of the most deserving backward
class of citizens, which is constitutionally mandated. It is the identification of these
new emerging groups that must engage the attention of the State and the
constitutional power and duty must be concentrated to discover such groups rather
than to enable groups of citizens to recover "lost ground" in claiming preference and
benefits on the basis of historical prejudice. (Paragraph 52)
Politically organized groups cannot be provided affirmative action on the sole ground
of caste.