Equality

Constitutional Law
Fund ment l Rights
Philos (J n 2022)
a
a
a
Article 14
Art. 14 thus means that ‘equals should be treated alike’; it does not mean that ‘unequals
ought to be treated equally’. It does not however operate against rational classification.
Mere differentiation does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of
the equal protection clause.
Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification of

persons, objects and transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of achieving
specific ends.
Comparative unreasonableness
Two Prong Test
Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the two prong test

(1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and
substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it.
(2) The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75) act was held invalid because the government could
choose and pick hold be subject to the prosecution under the special court - necessity of a speedier trial was held
to be too vague and and in definite criteria
Kathi Raning Rawat v. Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123 - this was held valid as the cons “found a policy which was
stated in the preamble and there were select offences classes of offences et cetera
Non-Comparative Unreasonableness
Proportion lity Test
Wherever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of rule of law

Art. 14 enacts primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness and inhibits state action, whether legislative or
executive, which suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.
EP Royappa Bachan Singh
“Every state action must be non-arbitrary and reasonable. Otherwise, the court would strike it down as
invalid.”
This new dimension of Art. 14 transcends the classificatory principle. Art. 14 is no longer to be equated with the
principle of classification.
The doctrine of classification has been evolved only as a subsidiary rule for testing whether a particular state
action is arbitrary or not. If a law is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of Art. 14.
a
Executive Action
This Article secures all persons in India protection “not only against arbitrary laws but also against arbitrary
application of laws.”
Non-arbitrariness, being a necessary concomitant of the rule of law, it is imperative that all actions of every public
functionary in whatever sphere must be guided by reason and not humour, whim, caprice or personal predilections
of cases
This principle manifests itself in the form of the following propositions:

(1) A law conferring unguided and unrestricted power on an authority is bad for arbitrary power is discriminatory.
(2) Art. 14 illegalises discrimination in the actual exercise of any discretionary power.
(3) Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in administrative action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.
15(4)
Why w s it inserted.
State of Madras v. Champkam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226 (Allotted seats in State Medical Colleges
on the basis of community)
Jagwant Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1952 Bom. 461 (Government order requisitioning land for
construction of a colony for Harijans)
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Inserted Clause (4) to Article 15
Argument that 15 (4) only envisaged ‘positive action’ unlike 16(4) which specifically mentions
‘reservation’ and thus ‘positive discrimination’ - Rejected in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
a
Socially and Educationally Back Classes (SEBC)
Balaji v. State of Mysore - Classification was solely based on caste - ‘Backward’ and ‘More Backward’ classification included
Note. - 1. Also held the m ximum is 50%. 2. E. V. Chinn i h v. St te of A.P. (341 only one list)
Chitralekha v. State of Mysore - (Income of 1,200 per year and occupation of agriculture, petty business etc - Caste was
ignored)
P. Rajendran v. State of Madras (Caste based and the manner in which the list was decided)
The backwardness envisaged by Art. 15(4) is both social and educational and not either social or educational. This
means that a class to be identified as backward should be both socially and educationally backward
Poverty alone cannot be a test for backwardness
Backwardness should be comparable, though not exactly similar, to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes poverty
alone cannot be the test of backwardness in India
Caste maybe a relevant factor but cannot be a sole/even the dominant factor
Maybe classified without reference to caste also
a
a
a
a
15(5)
Insertion
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481

PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537
Held that reservation in non-minority aided educational institutions is a
unreasonable restriction on 19(1)(g)
Constitution (Ninety third) Amendment, 2005 inserted clause (5) to Article
15.
Challenged in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1
Article 16 - Public Employment
•Under Article 16(3) - Parliament has enacted the Public Employment (Requirement to Residence)
Act, 1957 (Only until 1974) AVS Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Constitutionality)
•Seats secured on General Merit not to counted
•Articles 310 and 355
•16(4) - adequately represented
•Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar (1988) 2 SCC 214 - Single post no reservation (Post Graduate
institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association (1998) 4 SCC 1
•Backward Classes to be similarly identi
ed as SEBC - KC Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (AIR
1985 SC 1495) - Commission to decide backwardness - What criteria to be used - 5 Judges each
emphasises on di erent things
ff
fi
Article 16(4A)
Insertion
•‘Matters of employment’ - not restricted to only initial appointment -

General Manager, S. Railway v Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36 (3:2)
•Indra Swahney prospectively overruled Rangachari (Five year period)
•In response to the Indra Sawhney Case - Constitution 77th
Amendment Act - (Note that it is only for SC and ST not OBC)
Insertion of 16(5A)
•MR Balaji Case - 50% -

•T Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) 4 SCR 680 - ‘Carry Forward Rule’ - 65% in the 3rd Year -
Held that 16(4) is an proviso or an exception and cannot be interpreted to nullify the rule (4:1)
There Minority (Subba Rao J.) expressed the opinion that it was not a proviso but a facet of
16(1)
•The Minority opinion in Devadasan was adopted my the Majority in State of Kerala v. N.M.
Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 - characterised the 50% limit as a rule of caution -
•ABSk Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 246 - Carry forward rule for 3 years held
to be valid upto 66%
•Indra Swahney stated that the upper-limit including carry forward is only 50%
Mandal Commission
•Commission appointed on the basis of Article 340 - OBC is nearly 52% of the population - 27% to be reserved for OBC -
total to 50% - o ce memorandum -
•Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 -
•Could only the legislature do it? -
•Reservation also means ‘concessions, preference and exemptions’ -
•16(4) is mainly social backwardness (per contra SEBC) -
•State can exclude ‘creamy layer’ - Creamy layer to be decided on basis of social improvement and non economic
improvement alone -
•16(4) talks about ‘adequate representation’ not ‘proportional representation’ - should not exceed 50% barring
extraordinary circumstances -
•Court di erentiated between horizontal reservation and vertical reservation -
•overall reservation including carry forward to be 50% -
•Only appointment and not for promotion (Hence prospectively overruled Rangachari) -
•In some posts reservation need not be provided -
•rejected the 10% reservation made on purely economic grounds - Periodic revision of OBC list -
•Kerala State Legislature passed an enactment in 1995 stating that there shall be no creamy layer in that state -
Constitutionality was challenged in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (II) (2000) 1 SCC 168 - Held to be unconstitutional
ff
ffi

Equality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law

Fund ment l Rights

Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification of

Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the two prong test

Wherever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of rule of law

This principle manifests itself in the form of the following propositions:

TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481

•‘Matters of employment’ - not restricted to only initial appointment -

•MR Balaji Case - 50% -

You might also like