My Article Page!
Referring to Article 41 of the Constitution which deals with right to work, to education and to public assistance, the Supreme Court gave reasons why this important right has been placed in Part IV and not in Part III of the Constitution. The Court observed thus:
In AIIMS Students’ Union vs. AIIMS (2001 AIR SCW 3143), it was held that institutional reservation of 33% coupled with 50% reservation disciplinewise and percentile system made in Post Graduate Course I, would ensure admission to all students graduating from AIIMS, and amount to super reservation but is certainly not a source of entry. It was further held that higher the level of the course, lesser should be the reservation. Extending reservation beyond under graduate medical education, it was held, is keeping the crippled crippled for ever.
In the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Nallamilli Rami Reddy (2001 AIR SCW 3386), tenants under the religious institutions were held to form a special class by themselves and such classification is made, so far as tenants are concerned, to achieve the object of protecting the interest of the religious institutions.
Observing that the scheme provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, is also equally beneficial like the one provided under Section 121 Cr.P.C. was held to be not discriminatory or unconstitutional. (DANIAL LATIFI vs. UNION OF INDIA {2001 AIR SCW 3932)}.
In Chairman & M.D., Indian Airlines vs. Binod Kumar Sinha (2001 AIR SCW 3967), a certain circular issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation to the effect that “no Air Taxi operator shall employ anyone already serving any of the national carriers, namely, Air India, Indian Airlines, Vayudoot and Pawan Hans without obtaining a ‘No objection certificate’ from the employer with whom they are working” was challenged. It was held that it does not offend article 19(1)(g) or the provision of the Contract Act. It was further held that directions were issued only to such permit holders falling within the scope of Rule 134(3) of the Aircraft Rules and the circular was not violative of the Article 14.
In Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal vs. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 2766), the appellant made an offer of concessional rate if tender offered by him was finalised within a short period. This offer was made at the time of submitting the tender. The respondent also made a similar offer but after opening the tender. It was held that the acceptance of tender offered by the appellant which was made at the time of submission of tender itself, was not illegal or arbitrary.
Cancellation of benefit of concessional rate of tax for tourist buses was held to be not arbitrary in M/s. SHARMA TRANSPORT vs. GOVT. OF A.P. (AIR 2002 SC 322). It was further held that the tests of arbitrary action applicable to executive action and delegated legislation were different.
Classification of buildings with 5 or more floors as against buildings with lesser floors for the purpose of computation of tax, was held to be not arbitrary in TATA IRON STEEL CO. LTD., vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (AIR 2002 SC 2246).
In M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit vs. Indian Coffee Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others (AIR 2002 SC 3055) the appellant and respondent were both lessees of plots from Government. The Appellant was prior lessee. But his lease was cancelled and then subsequently regranted. Respondent’s lease was also cancelled but it was restored in writ petition filed by the respondent. Plea raised by the appellant was that the land granted to the respondent was part of the land earlier granted to him. He was a necessary party to the petitition of the respondent and an order affecting him could not be passed in his absence. It wad held to be untenable as plots granted to the appellant and the respondent though adjoining were different.
Written examination was held for appointment to the posts of Gram Sevak-cum-Secretaries of Panchayats. Grant of additional 10% marks for residents of concerned district and 5% for residents of rural areas was ordered on the ground that persons selected from urban areas are reluctant to work in far-flung areas. That was held to be discriminatory. It was observed that criteria of merit cannot be allowed to be diluted by taking resort to such artificial differentiation and irrelevant assumptions. {HARSHENDRA CHOUBISA vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AIR 2002 SC 2897)}.
In Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2002 SC 109), categorising prisoners i.e., prisoners released on parole and prisoners released on furlough for counting period of release towards total period of sentence of imprisonment, was challenged. Conditions of temporary release on parole are contained in Section 3. A prisoner released on parole to meet his urgent pressing personal problem is not entitled for counting period of release towards total period of sentence of imprisonment. Classification was held to be based on reasonable criteria and S. 3 therefore was not discriminatory.
While considering the principle “Equal pay for equal work”, it was held that temporary adhoc, daily wagers or casual workers like N.M.Rs. are not entitled for equal pay with regularly employed permanent staff in the establishment in STATE OF ORISSA vs. BALARAM SAHU (AIR 2003 SC 33).
In P. Tulsi Das vs. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 2003 SC 43), validity of Secs. 2 and 3(a) of A.P. Educational Service Untrained Teachers (Regulation of Services and Fixation of Pay), Act in so far as they purport to take away the rights of untrained graduate teachers of particular subject regarding minimum of pay scale as payable to school Assistant from 10.2.1967 and obligates those who had them to repay or restore it back to the State was held liable to be stuck down as arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution.
While holding that not granting refund of purchase tax in regard to paddy, cotton and oil seeds was not violative of Article 14, in M/s. SATNAM OVERSEAS (EXPORT) vs. STATE OF HARYANA (AIR 2003 SC 66), it was held that selection of goods for taxing is based on policy of raising revenue.
In Comptroller and Auditor General vs. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta (AIR 2003 SC 1096), the decision of CAG to empanel only partnership firms of Chartered Accountants to do the work of audit of Govt. companies was held to be arbitrary.
In Welfare Association vs. Ranjit P. Gohil (AIR 2003 SC 1266), while laying down the test to determine what is meant by reasonable classification, it was held that the legislation intended for protection is well defined class of persons from getting evicted from requisitioned premises, was not open to challenge under Article 14.
In Sanaboina Satyanarayana vs. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 2003 SC 3047), the Government order rejecting a claim for remission to certain convicts while granting benefit of remission to a specified class of convicts excluding prisoners convicted for crimes against women such as S. 376 and S. 354 IPC was challenged. Observing that the exclusion is not merely confined to convicts under S. 376 and S. 354 of the Penal Code but it relats to crime agianst women in general, it was held that the appellant convicted under the Ss. 302, 498-A and 201 of Penal Code was not entitled to the benefit of remission under the Govt. Order. Further it was held that classification to keep away convicts for crimes against women from the benefits of remission, was reasonable, proper and not violative of Art. 14.
V. Article 14 prohibits procedural discrimination :
Equality before the law does not mean equality regarding substantive law only. It refers to the procedural law also. The Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. ANWAR ALI SARKAR (AIR 1952 SC 75) held Section 5 of West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 had as it created special procedure prescribed by Sections 6 to 15 of the Act. But in KANTHI RANING RAWAD vs. STATE OF SOURASHTRA (AIR 1952 SC 123), the Supreme Court upheld in validity of the Sourashtra State Public Safety Measures ordinance which created Special Courts and laid down special procedure. In KEDARNATH BUJORIA vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (AIR 1953 SC 404) the Supreme Court held that Special Courts constituted under West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act did not violate Article 14. In respect of the Special Courts Bill 1978 (AIR 1979 SC 478), the Supreme Court gave the opinion that establishment of Special Courts to try persons who committed offences during the period of emergency was constitutional.
In Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (AIR 2003 SC 328), procedural illegality by bank official in issuing bank guarantee causing loans to bank had been alleged. Report of Deputy Governors of Reserve Bank of India fixed responsibility only on the then Chief Managing Director of the Bank. It was held that undue burden thus foisted on to one particular individual, whereas others were not assigned any role, ran counter to the entire banking practice. Central Vigilance Commission was directed to investigate matter.
VI. Expansion of Article 14 by Judicial interpretation : (Reasonableness, Arbitrary action and Discretion)—The original understanding that the guarantee of ‘equal protection’ in Article 14 would be satisfied once the Court found a reasonable classification behind the discrimination made by the State has now been replaced by much wider test for the validity of the State act. The Supreme Court upon a wider interpretation of a combined reading of Article 14, 19, 21 has held that in order to satisfy a challenge under Art. 14, the impugned State Act must not only be non-discriminatory, but also immune from arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness (substantially or procedurally) and also constant with public interest.
{See RAMANNA vs. I.A.A.I. (AIR 1979 SC 1628) NAKARA vs.
UNION OF INDIA KSTDC vs. R.S.T.A.T. (AIR 1986 SC 2039)
MANEKA GANDHI vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1978 SC 597)
KASTURI vs. STATE OF J.&K. (AIR 1980 SC 1992)
MEENAKSHI MILLS vs. VISHWANATH (AIR 1955 SC 13)
AJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1967 SC 885)
SHRI SITA RAM SUGAN CO. LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1990 SC 1277)}.
Cont....
--| <--Back Next--> |--
