Heggade Janardhan Subbarye v. The State of Mysore and Another (And connected petition)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.P. Sinha (C.J.), P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta, J.C. Shah

Date of Judgment: 05 November 1962

Citations: 1963 AIR 702; 1963 SCR Supl. (1) 475

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings comprise Writ Petitions Nos. 130 and 133 of 1962 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Heggade Janardhan Subbarye and Ravindra Prabhu. The petitioners had applied for admission to the Pre-Professional Class in Medicine at the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli. Their applications were to be considered by a Selection Committee (respondent No. 2) appointed by the State of Mysore (respondent No. 1).

The petitioners contended that they would have secured admission but for reservations mandated by State orders issued under Article 15(4) of the Constitution dated July 10, 1961, and July 31, 1962. Alleging that these orders were ultra vires, they sought an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned orders and requiring consideration of their applications on the merits.

The petitions were heard in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the State of Mysore’s impugned orders issued under Article 15(4), directing additional reservations in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, were valid.
2. Whether the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contained in the same series of orders was affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore and thereby liable to be struck down, or whether it continued to operate unaffected.
3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to an appropriate writ restraining enforcement of the impugned orders and requiring consideration of their admission applications on merit.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The impugned State orders under Article 15(4) were ultra vires.
• But for the reservations mandated by those orders, the petitioners would have been admitted to the Pre-Professional Medical course at Karnatak Medical College, Hubli.
• They sought a writ restraining the respondents from enforcing the orders and requiring consideration of their applications on merits.

Respondents' Arguments

• In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, the respondents’ counsel drew attention to a doubt whether the reservations for Scheduled Castes (15%) and Scheduled Tribes (3%), consistently fixed by the State across five orders under Article 15(4), had also been struck down.
• They sought clarification from the Court on whether the SC/ST reservation remained valid and operative notwithstanding the quashing of the orders insofar as they related to additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

• The Court observed that the points raised were covered by its earlier decision in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, and it was common ground that the petitioners were entitled to an appropriate writ.
• Addressing a doubt raised by the respondents, the Court examined the scope of the challenge in Balaji. It noted that:
  • The State had consistently fixed reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at 15% and 3% respectively across five orders under Article 15(4).
  • In Balaji, the only attack concerned the additional reservation for socially and educationally backward classes; the SC/ST reservation was not assailed.
  • The petitioners’ counsel in the present case did not dispute that the SC/ST reservation had not been challenged in Balaji.
• On that basis, the Court clarified that its judgment in Balaji did not affect the validity of the SC/ST reservation. That reservation is distinct, separate, and independent from the additional reservation for socially and educationally backward classes that had been challenged.
• The Court therefore concluded that the impugned orders were to be quashed solely with reference to the additional reservation for socially and educationally backward classes. The SC/ST reservation continues to be operative, and respondent No. 1 is justified in giving effect to it.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Petitions allowed. The Court directed issuance of an appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the two impugned orders. Costs were awarded to the petitioners (except hearing fee).

Implications: The immediate effect is that the State cannot enforce the impugned orders insofar as they provide additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes. At the same time, the Court expressly clarified that the reservation for Scheduled Castes (15%) and Scheduled Tribes (3%) remains valid and operative, as it was not challenged and is distinct from the additional reservation struck down. The decision grants relief to the petitioners and provides clarification on the continued validity of SC/ST reservations; it does not purport to set a new precedent beyond following and applying M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.