SC quashes Centre's decision to include Jats in OBC quota

The apex court said that the inclusion of politically organised class like Jat would adversely impact the welfare of the other backward classes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the reservation for Jats, introduced through a notification in March last year, in nine states, terming it unconstitutional.

The government had included the Jat community in the central list of Other Backward Classes for nine regions, namely Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur districts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Laying down rules for possible future claims for backwardness, the Supreme Court said: “The perception of a self-proclaimed socially backward class of citizens or even the perception of the “advanced classes” as to the social status of the “less fortunates” cannot continue to be a constitutionally permissible yardstick for determination of backwardness, both in the context of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.”

The judgment, delivered by Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R F Nariman declared that “backwardness cannot be a matter of determination on the basis of mathematical formulae evolved by taking into account social, economic and educational indicators. Determination of backwardness must also cease to be relative; possible wrong inclusions cannot be the basis for further inclusions, but the gates would be opened only to permit entry of the most distressed. Any other inclusion would be a serious abdication of the constitutional duty of the State.”

The court applied these principles and held that the inclusion of the “politically organised classes (such as Jats) in the list of backward classes mainly, if not solely, on the basis that on same parameters other groups who have fared better have been so included cannot be affirmed.”

The Union Cabinet had rejected the advice tendered by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) against the inclusion of Jats in the list, claiming that the advice “did not adequately take into account the ground realities.” The judgment asserted that NCBC’s opinion was reasonable and supported its view.