Reasonable Classification
Reasonable Classification
1
Chandigarh.
Component - II
Structure:
1. Introduction
2. Learning Outcome
3. Right to Equality- Fundamental Right Guaranteed By Article 14
4. Article 14 Permits Reasonable Classification
5. Article 14 Strikes at Arbitrariness
6. Article 14 Provides Positive and not Negative Equality
7. Rules of Natural Justice Implicit in Article 14
8. Conclusion
9. Summary
2
1. Introduction
In a system wedded to freedom and democracy, it is only fair that the fundamental rights of the
citizens enshrined in the Constitution should have primacy over any privileges or special rights of any
class of people, including the elected legislators, and that all such claims should be subject to judicial
scrutiny, for situations may arise where the rights of the people may have to be protected even against the
Parliament or against captive or capricious parliamentary majorities of the moment. 1 These observations
were made by Supreme Court in Justice Ripusudan Dayal (Retd) v State of MP2 where the validity of
certain letters were challenged which were issued by Secretary, Vidhan Sabha with regard to a case
registered by the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials
of the Vidhan Sabha alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan
Sabha.3 Thus, the basic law that all citizens should be treated equally before the law holds good in the
case of members of Parliament as well. They have the same rights and liberties as ordinary citizens except
when they perform their duties in the Parliament. The privileges, therefore, do not, in any way, exempt
members from their normal obligation to society which apply to them as much and, perhaps, more closely
in that as they apply to others.4
2. Learning Outcome
Equality clause, embodied in Article 14 does not speak of mere formal equality before the law but
embodies the concept of real and substantive equality which strikes at the inequalities arising on account
of vast social and economic differentiation and is thus consequently an essential ingredient of social and
economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution states that the State shall not deny to any person equality
before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.5 It talks about two expressions
1
Justice Ripusudan Dayal (Retd) v State of MP , (2014) 4 SCC 473, 497, Para 51(v), Justice Sathasivam.
2
(2014) 4 SCC 473.
3
Id. at 480, Para 1, Justice Sathasivam.
4
Id. at 498, Para 52, Justice Sathasivam.
5
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 14.
3
The phrase “equality before law” finds place in almost all written Constitution that guarantee
fundamental rights. It is English in origin. It is a familiar feature of what Dicey called the “Rule of Law”.
“Rule of Law” means that no man is above the law and that every person whatever be his rank or
condition, is subjected to the ordinary law of the land and is amendable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary
tribunals. He observes: “With us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a
Collector or taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any
other citizen.6 “Equality before law” thus means absence of any special privileges for any particular
person. It also strikes at arbitrary power on the part of the Government. It is, therefore, a negative
concept. This, however, is not an absolute rule and there are a number of exceptions to it i.e., Foreign
The phrase “equal protection of laws” is based on section 1 of the fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States of America adopted on July 28, 1868 which runs as: “nor shall any State
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” 8 This phrase is interpreted to
mean “subjection of equal laws applying to all in the same circumstances.” It means that all persons have
the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities
imposed by laws. It requires that equal laws should be applied to all in the same situation and that there
should be no discrimination between one person and another. Thus, the phrase “equal protection of laws”
lays down the rule that “like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.” 9 It is
6
V N Shukla, Constitution of India, 37 (Revised by Mahendra P Singh, 10th edn, EBC Publishing (P) Ltd 2007).
7
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 930 (Revised by Justice Ruma Pal and Samaraditya Pal, 6th edn 2011).
8
Supra note 6 at 37.
9
Supra note 7 at 931.
4
All persons are not equal by their nature, attainment or circumstances. The varying needs of different
classes of persons often require separate treatment. As a consequence the legislature must have power to
make laws distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and things upon which its laws are to
operate.10
Article 14 permits classification. Classification is merely a systematic arrangement of things into groups
or classes, usually in accordance with some definite scheme. It must be reasonable and not arbitrary,
artificial or evasive.
4.2 Principles For Determining Reasonable Classification as Laid Down in Dalmia’s Case11,
Further Elaborated in Re Special Courts Bill, 197812 and followed by Courts
1. The basic principle of Right to Equality is that all persons similarly circumstanced should
be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
2. The State is vested with power to determine, who should be regarded as a class for
purposes of legislation and in relation to a law, enacted on a particular subject, by the
process of classification.
10
Id., at 931.
11
Ram Krishan Dalmia v Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
12
AIR 1978 SC 478.
5
3. Classification mean segregation in classes which had a systematic relation usually found
in common properties and a rational basis of characteristics its postulated.
4. Tests for reasonable classification - The classification must have some basis i.e. must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group. The differentia must have a nexus
with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
5. Single individual may be treated as a class by himself on account of some reasons
applicable to him and not applicable to others.
6. The Court will always presume in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the
burden is upon the person who alleges violation of constitutional norms to prove any such
violation.
7. For application of this principle of constitutionality, the court may take into consideration
matters of common knowledge, the history of the times and may assume every state of
facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislature.
8. Where classification is not based on reasonable grounds then this presumption of
constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some
undisclosed reasons for subjecting certain individuals to discriminating legislation.
9. Members of Parliament as well as State Legislative Assembly are the representatives of
the people. They understand their need and make laws in order to find solution to their
problems.
10. Legislature is free to identify the degree of harm and may limit its restrictions to those
cases where the need is deemed to the clearest. Thus, it could recognize the degree of
harm but that classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
11. The statute itself cannot be condemned as discriminatory if it has clear and definite
legislative policy, an effective method of carrying out that policy and discretion vested
upon a body of administrators for selective application of law to certain classes or groups
or persons.
12. Discretionary power would not necessarily mean discriminatory powers. It cannot be
assumed that the authority would always act in an arbitrary manner if discretion is
conferred upon it by law.
13. A practical assessment of the operation of the law in a particular circumstance is
necessary.
4.3 Basis of Reasonable Classification
6
Classification to be reasonable must be founded on some intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from those left out of the group. There may be different
basis of classification referable to different considerations in each case like geographical basis,
historical basis, nature of business, nature of persons, nature of offences, educational qualification etc.
7
Nature of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti- Social Such kind of organized crimes has become
Offence Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 provides epidemic in the society and has to be dealt with an
that the accused under the Act shall be tried iron hand.Thus, classification between an accused
by Special Court. (Dharmendra Kirthal v who faces trial in other courts and the accused in
State Of UP, AIR 2013 SC 2569.) the special courts is valid.
Geographical A law may be applicable to one part of the In Kishan Singh v State of Rajasthan, it was held
Area territory of India and not to the other parts that Article 14 only prohibits unequal treatment of
depending on particular circumstances and persons similarly situated and a classification might
peculiar geographical conditions prevailing in properly be made on territorial basis, if that was
that area. germane to the purposes of the enactment and no
tenancy legislation can be held to contravene the
article solely on the ground that it does not apply to
the entire State.( AIR 1955 SC 795.)
State The term person in Article 14 does not include
The contention was that Section 3-A of “State”. Therefore, a classification which treats the
Bombay Housing Board Actwhich exempts State, differently from persons, may not be
lands or buildings belonging to or vested in violative of the rule of equal protection of law. A
the Board from the operation of the Bombay law which exempted the lands, buildings or factory
Rent Act offends against the equal protection run by the Government from operation but applied
clause of the Constitution.( Buburao v to other factories, was held not to be
Bombay Housing Board, AIR 1954 SC 153. discriminatory.
8
Transgender) community.( Suresh Kumar of nature constitute different classes and the people
Koushal v Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1) falling in the latter category cannot claim that
Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness
and irrational classification.
Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. This new approach was developed by Supreme Court in E.P.
Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu.13 It was observed that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects
and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire
limits.14 The court reiterated the same opinion in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India15 where it is observed
that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. This
new approach has been consistently applied by the courts in determining the true scope of the equalizing
principle. Though there cannot be any exact definition of arbitrariness but a basic and obvious test to
apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned
5.1 Doctrine of Justice, Equity, Fairness and Reasonableness in the State Action
Every decision of the State as well as its agencies/instrumentalities to grant largesse must be founded on a
sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy. It shall be made known to the public by
publication in the Official Gazette. Such policy must be executed by adopting a non- discriminatory and
non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefitted by the
policy.
13
AIR 1974 SC 555.
14
H M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 437 (4th edn, Volume 1, Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd 2013).
15
AIR 1978 SC 597.
9
Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1834) officer of the State.
held that it is open to the State and the authorities to take economic and management decision depending
upon the exigencies of a situation guided by appropriate financial policy notified in public interest. 16
Arbitrary
16
Pathan Mohammed Suleman rehmatkhan v State Of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 156, 163. It was observed by the
Supreme Court that it is well settled that non-floating of tenders or absence of public auction or invitation alone is
not a sufficient reason to characterize the action of a public authority as either arbitrary or unreasonable or amounted
to mala fide or improper exercise of power.
10
prohibits holding of a performance of dance, stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and the individual Articles
of any kind or type, in any eating house, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, creed, religion or gender.
permit room or beer bar having facilities Thus, once the prima facie proof of the arbitrary classification of the
below the rank of 3 star.( State of establishments under Sections 33A and 33B was given, it was duty of the State to
Maharashtra v Indian Hotel & justify the reasonableness of the classification.
Restaurants Assn, AIR 2013 SC 2582.)
The pick and choose methodology adopted The Supreme Court held that State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from
by the State in resisting the claim of amongst similarly suited persons, to pursue legal proceedings against some and
similarly situated doctors regarding payment not to do so consciously against others. Such an approach would be ex facie
of Non Practicing Allowance payable to arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14.
them and which shall be taken into
consideration for calculating their pension.(
K C Bajaj v Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC
777.)
Law Relating to the The constitutional validity of the The evolution of the law relating to the criteria for a political
Recognition of amendment of the Election Symbols party to be recognized as a State Party clearly indicates that
Political Party as State (Reservation and Allotment) Order, the Election Commission, in its wisdom, was of the view that
Party 1968 was challenged as it mandates in order to be recognized as a political party, such party
(Desiya Murpokku that in order to be recognized as a should have achieved a certain bench-mark in State politics.
Dravida Kazhagam v State party in the State, it would have In order to gain recognition as a political party, a party has to
Election Commission to secure not less than 6% of the total prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player
of India, AIR 2012 valid votes polled in the State and in the political arena of the State.
SC 2191.) should also have returned at least 2
members to the Legislative Assembly
of the State.
Requirement of The Government of India 2011 Haj It is reasonable as some of the PTOs after getting registration
“Minimum Office Policy required a private and allocation of seats instead of carrying the pilgrims
Area” for Private Tour operator/travel agent to have themselves sold the seats to other PTOs. The Ministry
Operator (PTO) for "minimum office area of 250 sq. ft." decided to take action against such unscrupulous PTOs. A
Ferrying Pilgrims for as one of the eligibility conditions for genuine PTO should be having an office with a reasonable
Haj (Union of India v registration for ferrying pilgrims for area. Its purpose is to protect the interests of the pilgrims.
Rafique Shaikh Hajj.
Bhikam, AIR 2012 SC
2453.)
Prescribing Age of 18 The Juvenile Justice (Care and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
Years under Juvenile Protection of Children) Act, 2000 2000, is in tune with the provisions of the Constitution and
Justice Act is provides age of understanding as one of the other considerations which weighed with the
Reasonable. (Salil Bali eighteen years. Keeping in view the legislation in fixing the age of understanding at eighteen
v Union Of India, involvement of large number of years is on account of the scientific data that indicates that the
AIR 2013 SC 3743.) juveniles in commission of crimes, brain continues to develop and the growth of a child
whether it is reasonable. continues till he reaches at least the age of eighteen years and
that it is at that point of time that he can be held fully
responsible for his actions.
Adoption by Muslims The institution of adoption is not Adoption by Muslims is permitted vide JJ Act, 2000. They
under Juvenile Justice recognized under Muslim law. can adopt a child with full rights as natural parents under
Act.( Shabnam Keeping in view the restriction provisions of Section 41 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Hashmi v. Union of imposed on them by personal law Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It was further observed
India, (2014) 4 SCC whether they could make adoption that personal laws cannot dictate the operation of provisions
1.) under Juvenile Justice Act ( J J Act, of an enabling statute like JJ Act, 2000 and cannot come in
2000). the way of person who chooses to adopt a child under JJ Act,
2000. It is a secular law and a small step in reaching the goal
of Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of Constitution.
11
6. Article 14 Provides Positive and not Negative Equality
Any action or order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment.
Natural justice is held to be the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to
be ranked as fundamental.
Natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice
to citizens. Rules of natural justice are `basic values' which a man has cherished throughout the ages.
Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to
reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which
relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and
fairness. The underlying object of rules of natural justice is to ensure fundamental liberties and rights of
subjects. They thus serve public interest. The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the
12
doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. 17 These
observations are made by the Apex Court in Justice P D Dinakaran’s case where he had objected to the
inclusion of Shri P P Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India in the Committee constituted by the
Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.18
The adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice,
including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of
reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice.19 Even the State Information Commission
exercising powers under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is performing adjudicatory
functions where two parties raise their respective issues to which the State Information Commission is
expected to apply its mind and pass an order directing disclosure of the information asked for or declining
the same.20
8. Conclusion
In the end, it is submitted that Article 14 ensures equality before law and strikes at arbitrary and
discriminatory state action. If power conferred by statute on any authority of the State is vagrant and
unconfined and no standards or principles are laid down by the statute to guide and control the exercise of
such power, the statute would be violative of the equality clause, because it would permit arbitrary and
capricious exercise of power, which is the antithesis of equality before law. 21 Our Constitution envisages
a society governed by rule of law. Absolute discretion uncontrolled by guidelines which may permit
denial of equality before law is antithesis of rule of law.22 The exercise of all administrative power vested
in public authority must be structured within a system of controls informed by relevance and reason,
relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard to the manner in which it
attempts to do so.23
9. Summary
17
Justice P.D. Dinakaran v Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee, AIR 2011 SC 3711, 3727, Para 22, Justice G S
Singvi.
18
Id. at 3715, Para 1, Justice G S Singvi.
19
Manohar Manikrao Anchule v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013SC 681, 686, Para 17, Justice G S Singvi.
20
Id. at 686, Para 17, Justice G S Singvi.
21
Supra note 7 at 963.
22
Id., at 964.
23
Id., at 969.
13
Equality before law is a negative concept whereas equal protection of laws is a positive concept.
Equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality.
Equality does not mean absolute equality. It permits reasonable classification.
Article 14 provides that there should be justice, equity, fairness and reasonableness in state action
as it is against arbitrariness.
Principles of natural justice are an integral part of Article 14.
------------------
14