1. Equality – a positive concept
Art. 14 : not meant to perpetuate illegality or
fraud
Though wrong decisions made in other
cases
Provision does not envisage negative
equality but has a positive aspect
Hijras (Third Gender) and Transgenders are
persons entitled to legal protection
State is bound to take affirmative action to
give them due representation in public
services
2. Art. 14 permits classification but
Prohibits class legislation
-All laws not general in character;
- application of laws differs in nature
- it does not mean that every law have
universal application;
for all persons are not by nature,
attainment or circumstances in the same
position
The varying needs of different classes of
persons requires separate treatment
3. Art. 14 – legislature controls the policy,
enacts laws in the best interest of,
safety and security of the State
Identical treatment in unequal circumstances
may amount to inequality
Art. 14 – forbids class legislation
But does not forbids reasonable
classification;
legislature is for the betterment of
mankind,
4. Art. 14 - Classification :: not be arbitrary,
not be artificial or evasive
Must be based on real and substantial
distinction bearing a just and
reasonable relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the legislature
Equality before law – application as to like
should be treated likely;
In different circumstances, unequals are
trated differently is justified
5. Class legislation is that
Which makes an improper discrimination
by conferring particular privileges
upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected
from a large society
Such class legislation is not based on any
justified reason;
Why some persons has privileges
And why not others is not clarified;
such is not the concept of Art. 14
6. Test of Reasonable Classification :
Art. 14 does not forbid reasonable
classification of
Persons, objects, transactions by the
legislature for the purpose of achieving
specific ends
Classification should not Arbitrary, artificial
or evasive
Should be based on real and substantial
distinction
7. Art. 14 – Reasonable Classification
Two conditions :
1 - Must be founded on an intelligible
differentia;
2. - the differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the Act (St. of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar)
Differentia and object of the Act are two
distinct things
To achieve the object and in different
circumstances, differentia can be applied
8. Art. 14 – Classification explained through
SC judgments :
1. A Law may be Constitutional even though
it relates to single individual
if on account of some special
circumstances or reasons
applicable to him and not applicable to
others
that single individual may be treated as a
class by itself
9. 2. Presumption in favour of constitutionality
of a statute and
the burden is upon him who attacks it
to show that there has been a clear
transgression of constitutional principles
3. Presumption may be rebutted in certain
cases by showing that on the fact of the
statute,
there is no classification at all
and no difference peculiar to any
individual or class
10. 4. It must be presumed that
The legislature understands and correctly
Appreciates the need of its own people
That the discriminations are based on
adequate grounds
5. In order to sustain the presumption of
constitutionality
The court may consider matters of common
knowledge, matters or report, the history of
the times and may assume every state of facts
which explains such classification
11. That the legislature is free recognise degrees
of harm and
May confine its restrictions as required
7. Presumptions is on the good faith and
knowledge of the existing conditions on the
part of legislature
8. Classification may be on different basis
9. Classification made by a legislature need
not be scientifically perfect or logically
complete
12. 10. Discrimination can be both in substantive
as well as procedural law
Article 14 applies to both
If the classification satisfies the test laid
down in the above propositions,
The law will be declared Constitutional.
The questions whether a classification is
reasonable and proper or not
must be judged more on commonsense
Than on legal subtleties
13. Education : basis of classification
SC in a case held that education can be basis
of classification on reasonable grounds
State of Bihar v. Bihar 10+2 Lecturers
Associations AIR 2007 SC1948
Classification wad made on the basis of
trained and untrained teachers
One class (of trained teachers) and
Another class (of untrained teachers) which
is left out;
14. held by the SC that
There is a clear distinction between trained
teacher (Lecturer) and untrained teacher
(Lecturer)
Such distinction is valid, rational and
reasonable
The classification is reasoable
And based on intelligible differentia
Which distinguish on class (traind) and
another class (untrained)
15. Such Classification or differentia has
a rational nexus or reasonable relation to the
object intended to be achieved
That is imparting education to students
Based on classification; if different pay scale
is fixed for such classification; it can not be
held illegal, improper,
Or unreasonable infringing Art. 14 of the
Constitution
Reasonable classification but satisfy two
tests, otherwise it will be artitrary
16. Protection against Arbitrariness
E.P. Royappa v. St. of Tamil Nadu,
SC drifted from the traditional concept of
equality
Which was based on reasonable classification
And laid down a new concept of equality
According to new doctrine, the doctrine of
classification is merely a judicial formula
For determining whether the legislative or
executive action is arbitrary,
And therefore constitutes a denial of equality
17. Art. 14 embodies a guarantee against
arbitrariness
If the action of State is arbitrary,
It cannot be justified even on the basis of
doctrine of classification
an act which is arbitrary,
it is violative of Art. 14
Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action
And ensures fairness and equality of
treatment
18. Age of retirement and pregnancy bar of air
hostess :
Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, AIR 1981
SC1829
Supreme Court struck down
the Air India and Indian Airlines Regulations
on the Age of Retirement and pregnancy bar
on the Services of air hostesses as
unconstitutional on the ground that
the conditions laid down therein were
entirely unreasonable and arbitrary
19. In this case
Regulation 46 provided -
Retirement on 35 years or marriage
If it took place within 4 years of service
Or on first pregnancy, whichever earlier
The Court held that this provisions are
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution
And struck down on the reason that
They are unreasonable and arbitrary
20. A.V. Nachane v. Union of India
(LIC bonus case)
SC upheld the constitutional validity of LIC
Amendment Act 1981 and
the Ordinance preceding it,
Rules framed : relating to bonus payable to
class III and IV employees
The Act was challenged on the ground of
excessive delegation of legislative functions
SC upheld the validity prospectively
21. K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. (1985)1SCC 524
The validity of A.P. Public Employement
(Regulation of Conditions of Service)
Ordinance was challenged on the ground of
Violative of Art. 14
Reduction of age of retirement of Government
employees
By Ordinance; age reduced from 58 to 55 yrs.
SC held that it is not arbitrary and
unreasonable ; and not violative of Art. 14
22. In Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR
1985 Sc 87
Issue was validity of nomination of
candidates for admission to medical college
in state of J. & K.
SC held that the selection must done on the
basis of merit,
Until such nomination criteria is predefined
for the admission;
SC quashed the nomination of candidates by
Bihar Government for such admission in
J&K; as it violates Art. 14
23. Bar on enrolment as an Advocate on the basis
of age –
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar
Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732
The validity of new Rule 9,
Added by BCI rules
Barred the entry of persons who have
completed the age of 45 yrs
On date of application for enrolment as an
advocate
Challenged as discriminatory and unreasonable
24. Contended that
Violative of Art. 14, & violative of S. 24 of
the Advocates Act 1961
BCI argued that rules intended to maintain
the dignity and purity of the profession by
Keeping those who retire from various Govt.
and quasi Govt. or other institutions;
Since they on being enrolled as advocate, use
their past contacts to canvass for cases;
affecting minds of young fresh entrants to the
profession
25. SC held that the rule is unreasonable and
arbitrary
First : no material to show that persons
mentioned as indulge in such canvassing
Second : while the rule debars the group of
persons who have crossed the age of 45 yrs,
it allows another group who were enrolled
but later taken some job and kept sanads in
abeyance, to revive their sanads even after
completion of 45
26. • The choice of age of 45 yrs is made keeping
only a certain group in mind ignoring the vast
majority of other persons,
• Who were in Govt. or other jobs is violative of
rule of equality
• The new Rule 9 is also ultra vires of Ss. 24 and
49of the Advocates Act
• Which empowers the BCI to make rules
prescribing conditions for right to practise as
an advocate, and not to make rules debarring
persons of 45 years of age from enrolment as
an advocate
