It was held by the court that such policy suffered from unreasonable classification and unjust. In this case, a preference policy which was adopted by the Government granting price preference to Public Sector Enterprises to the effect that the price quoted by them which was less than 10% of the lowest price would be reckoned while taking a decision on finalizing the tender was challenged. The Supreme Court quashed the new rule and held that the rule is discriminatory in nature as there exists no reasonable nexus and hence violated the right to equality.Ĭaterpillar India (P) Ltd. It was contended by the petitioner that the new rule violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. In this case, Rule 9 in Chapter 3 of Part 6 of the Bar Council of India rules which was added by a resolution was challenged as the rule prohibited those above 45 years of age to submit an application for enrolment as an advocate to the State Bar Council. India Council of Legal Aid and Advice v Bar Council of India: The SC held that such provision is not discriminatory in nature as the classification made is based on an intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved which is popularisation of family planning. In this case, the validity of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act was challenged as the statute stated that an individual would be automatically disqualified in contesting for Panchayat if the person has more than two children. Thus the basis of classification can be geographical area, sex, financial status, nature of offence, disabilities among others. The court held that the law can be applied to one person or one class of persons, if there exists a sufficient reason for such application.įor a classification to be reasonable, it must be founded on some intelligible differentia which differentiates persons or things that are grouped together from those left out of the group. The act was challenged for being unconstitutional for being arbitrary. This Ordinance was subsequently replaced by an Act of Parliament with similar provisions. Such classification must be reasonable and not arbitrary.Ĭhiranjit Lal Chowdhury v Union of India: In this case, the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1950 was promulgated which empowered the Central Government to take over the management and administration of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd., which was closed down due to disputes between the management and the employees. Landmark Judgements:īelow are landmark judgements pronounced by the judiciary of India pertaining to Article 14 with relation to classification, basis of such classification and the concept of arbitrariness.Ĭonstitution of Classification: Classification means a systematic and organized grouping of things into groups, classes or categories by following some definite scheme. The classification on the basis of differentia must reflect rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. there must exist some real and substantial distinction which differentiates persons or things grouped together in the category from others left out of it.Ģ. It should be based on intelligible differentia i.e. The classification should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. For a classification to be reasonable, it should fulfil the following two tests –ġ. However, there is no bar in forbidding reasonable classification of persons, objects or transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. What Article 14 of the indian constitution forbids is class legislation. Being a positive concept it provides for application of the same laws in a similar fashion and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated.Ĭoncept of Reasonable Classification in light of Article 14: The other concept is equal protection of laws which brings in the concept of like should be treated alike and unlike should be treated alike. This concept is negative in nature and it does not confer any special privilege in favour of any subject. Thus Article 14 acts as a bulwark against any arbitrary or discriminatory action of State by conferring right to equality, barring discrimination and prohibiting discriminatory laws.Īrticle 14 provides for two concepts, namely, equality before law and equal protection of all.Įquality before law means that no person is above the law irrespective of his rank or condition. Whereas the subsequent articles provides specific provisions of equality not covered under the general principle of Article 14. Article 14 forbids discrimination in a general way and provides equality before law to all persons. Right to Equality is guaranteed through Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution. “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |