The main legal point established in the judgment is that reservations based on social and educational backwardness, as well as achievements in athletics, can be justified under Art.15(4) of the Constitution, but such reservations must have a rational basis and be in line with the objectives of admitting the best students to professional colleges.

1. The first and second respondents in O.P. No. 1266 of 1963 are the appellants before us. They are the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government, and the Principal of the Medical College, Trivandrum.

2. The controversy relates to the validity of Ext. R-1, an order of the Government regarding the selection of candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State. The order is dated the 7th June 1963, and is the successor of earlier orders on the subject.

3. Ext. R-1 reserves thirteen per cent of the seats for the M.B.B.S. Course to Ezhavas, nine per cent to Muslims and three per cent to Latin Catholics inclusive of Anglo-Indians. The first question for consideration is whether these reservations can be sustained in the light of Art.14, 15 & 29 of the Constitution.

4. Art.14 of the Constitution provides that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Clause (3) of Art.13 of the Constitution defines the expression "law" for the purposes of that article. According to that definition the expression, unless the context otherwise requires, includes "any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law."

5. A contention on behalf of the appellants is that Ext. R-1 being a mere executive direction will not come within the ambit of the definition, and as a result no question of any violation of the equality before the law guaranteed by Art.14 of the Constitution can possibly arise for consideration. We do not agree. Any threat to the equality enshrined an Art.14 - whether it emanates from the legislature or the executive - is met by the Constitution. As stated by the Supreme Court in Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax (AIR. 1959 SC. 149):

"The very language of Art.14 of the Constitution expressly directs that 'the State' which by Art.12 includes the executive organ, shall riot deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Thus Art.14 protects us from both legislative and executive tyranny by way of discrimination."

6. The question as to whether Ext. R-1 is discriminatory in character and thus violative of Art.14, therefore, does arise for consideration and has to be dealt with on the merits. The discussion that follows, however, will show that there is a rational basis for the governmental action, and that the reservation of seats in favour of the three communities mentioned in Para.3 above cannot be considered as a violation of the fundamental right embodied in Art.14 of the Constitution.

7. Art.15(1) of the Constitution provides that "the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them"; and Art 29(2) that "no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State Funds on grounds only or religion, race, caste, language or any of them." Clause (4) of Art.15 of the Constitution which was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, says that nothing in that article or in clause (2) of Art.29 "shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

8. We are not concerned in this case with any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; and the only question for consideration - in view of Art.15(4) of the Constitution - is whether the Ezhavas, Muslims and Latin Catholics inclusive of Anglo-Indians can be considered as "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens." In M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (AIR. 1963 SC. 649) the Supreme Court said:

"The backwardness under Art.15(4) must be social and educational. It is not either social or educational, but it is both social and educational."

9. In these regions