My Article Page!
Right to Equality
—JUSTICE NAGENDRA K. JAIN
I. Source of Article 14 :
The Source of Article 14 is partly from Irish Constitution and partly from American Constitution. The article is in two parts and it is negatively worded. It read thus:
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
II. Meaning and Scope :
In Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (AIR 1958 SC 538), the Apex Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind in determining the validity of a statute on ground of violation of Art. 14 as under:
“It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. It condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.”
The Apex Court futher observed that the following principles will have to be constantly borne in mind by the Court when it is called upon to adjudge the constitutionality of any particular law attacked as discriminatory and violative of the equal protection of the laws:
(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not able to others, that single individual may be trained as a class by himself;
(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a class transgression of the constitutional principles;
(c) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;
(d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to chose cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest;
(e) that in order to sustan the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common respect, history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and
(f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstance brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.
In Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477) it is held that Article 14 has to be understood in the light of Directive Principles of State Policy.
III. Limitation : The guarantee of “equal protection of law” is available agianst State action only. It cannot be invoked against the action of a private individual. The concept “equality before the law” does not mean that it is applicable to every situation of life. The Constitution itself has conferred certain privileges on the President of India and the Governor of a State. The Special Courts Act, 1979 which established Special Courts to try certain persons was declared valid in V.C. SHUKLA vs. STATE (AIR 1980 SC 1382).
IV. The Doctrine of Classification : Article 14 does not prohibit classification on ‘reasonable basis’. Equal protection of law means right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. The two conditions are:
(i) The classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others;
(ii) The differential must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the law under challenge.
This aspect was dealt with in the following cases:
1. Chiranjilal vs. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41)
2. State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75)
3. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (AIR 1963 SC 649)
The following are recent rulings on the subject:
1. In K. Thimmappa vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, SBI (2001 AIR SCW 62)
2. N. John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 2902)
3. Javed vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 3057)
It was held therein that equality clause does not prohibit reasonable classification but requires that such classification must have nexus with the object of legislation. Classification need not be scientifically perfect. Mere discrimination or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination.
The rules regularising some part time lecturers were unsuccessfully challenged in State of Karnataka vs. B. Suvarna Malini (2001 AIR SCW 231).
The rule that a public contract shall be awarded to the lowest tenderer, applies only when all things are equal and not when the lowest bidder fails to satisfy the conditions subject to which bids are invited. See. West Bengal Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. (2001 AIR SCW 322).
Differential treatment to residents of separate geographical regions, may be justified on account of historical reasons. Law does not become discriminatory merely because some differences arise in one or other States. Such differences are bound to arise in a federal set up. {CLARENCE PAIS vs. UNION OF INDIA (2001 AIR SCW 890)}.
Equality clause cannot be used to perpetuate mistake. Where Pension had been erroneously granted to some BSF retirees, it was held that the mistake cannot be directed to be perpetuated on the ground of hardship or discrimination. {UNION OF INDIA vs. RAKESH KUMAR (2001 AIR SCW 1458)}.
In District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company (2001 AIR SCW 2927) where Section 2 of the Cess and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act was challenged as discriminatory on grounds that it authorises levy and collection uptil 4.4.91, it was laid down that a person who has not paid tax and has challenged the same stands on a different footing from a person who has chosen to pay and has not challenged the same. Overruling the previous verdict in 1996 AIR SCW 3189, the Apex Court upheld the validity of the said Act.
Cont....
--| <--Back Next--> |--
