In Balagis case the Supreme Court has held that the caste of a person cannot be the sole test

for ascertaining whether a particular class is a backward class or not. Poverty. Occupation, place of habitation may all be the sole test for determining the backwardness of a class. But if an entire caste is found to be socially and educationally backward it may be included in the list of Backward Classes.

Backward class of citizen in article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of caste and not only on economic basis.

The majority in the case of Indra Sawhney case that a caste can be and quite often is a social class in India and if it is backward socially it would be a backward for all purpose of article 16(4). Caste alone cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of identification of backward classes. A backward class of citizens can not be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria.

It was held that it would defeat the very object of Article 16(4) to give adequate representation to backward classes in the services. Article 16(4) is not aimed at economic upliftment or alleviation of poverty. It is specifically designed to give a due share in the state power to those who have remained out of it mainly on account of their social and therefore, educational and economic backwardness. The court struck down the economic criterion for reservation on the ground that Art. 16(4) do not mention. The court held that caste could be used for the purpose identifying backward class.

The court directed the Government of India to set up a commission within four months from the decision specifying the basic applying the relevant and requisite socio-economic criteria to exclude socially advanced sections, creamy layer, from other backward classes for the purpose of reservation should not be merely economic unless the economic advancement is so high that it necessarily means social advancement.

The courts judgment directing govt to eliminate creamy layer among backward classes is aimed at giving benefit of reservation to the poorest among backward.

Whether provision for reservation up to 10% comes within the purview of the prescribed power of the government to grant reservation in pursuance of the constitutional provisions? Article 14 declares that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It guarantees equality among equals but not among unequal. Equality among unequals may result injustice. It is established truth that the all persons are persons are not equals by nature, attainment and circumstances. The varying needs of difference classes or sections of people require differential and separate treatment. Thus, the equality with all persons would result inequality with such persons who need different treatment. Due to this factor article 14 guarantees equalities among equals but not among unequals1. Article 14 talks about general equality whereas particular equalities are given under article 15 and 16. What are the things implicaite in article 14 are made explicit in article 15 and 16. Thus, clause (4) of article 15 empowers the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class of citizen. Thus, if any law is made by the state for the advancement of above mentioned classes that law shall not be violative of fundamental right to equality embodied under clauses (1) and (2) of article 15. It means the law made for this purpose shall not be deemed to be the discriminatory law. Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article 15(4) rather it is mere illustration to it. Article 16(4) covers all those backward classes which are left by Article 16(4). Backward class of citizen in article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of caste and not only on economic basis. A backward class of citizens can not be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. It would defeat the very object of Article 16(4) to give adequate representation to backward classes. Article 16(4) is not aimed at economic upliftment or alleviation of poverty. It is specifically designed to give a due share in the state power to those who have remained out of it mainly on account of their social and therefore, educational and economic backwardness. The court struck down the economic criterion for reservation on the ground that Art. 16(4) do not mention. The courts judgment directing Governmentt to eliminate creamy layer among backward classes is aimed at giving benefit of reservation to the poorest among backward. Thus, caste could be used for the purpose identifying backward class. A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India and if it is backward socially it would be a backward for all purpose of article 16(4).

Chiranjeet lal v. Union of India.