My Article Page!
The recent decisions touching on the plant are:
In State of Karnataka vs. G. Halappa (AIR 2002 SC 2477), two schemes were formulated by Govt. to give training to unemployed educated youth in rural areas. Facility of additional training provided exclusively for trainees under one scheme. The Objective and purpose of training under the two schemes and the eligibility criteria were therefore totally distinct and well defined. It was held that classification between candidates unde the two schemes was founded on intelligible differentia, and the refusal to give additional training to trainees under the other scheme was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
In Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers vs. M/s. Cipla Ltd. (AIR 2003 SC 3078), the Central Government had issued drugs policy laying criteria of bringing drugs under price control. Drugs Order 1995 was issued subsequently by the Central Government as delegation has to be substantially in conformity with the policy. Central Government was held to perform dual role of policy maker and delegate of legislative power.
While dealing with the nature of the power vested in the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal by special leave, it was held that the procedure is necessarily implicit in the power and it has to be exercised with scrupulous adherence to settled judicial procedure. {RAMAKANT RAI vs. MADAN RAI (AIR 2004 SC 77)}.
VII. Administrative Action/Order violative of Article 14 would be struck down :
The protection of Art. 14 can be invoked not only when the law was considered unconstitutional but even when the administrative order issued under a law of executive action based on statute were found to be arbitrary, they may be set aside as violative of Art. 14. {See GOPICHAND vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (AIR 1959 SC 609), INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1986 SC 515)}
Some recent decisions are :
In Krishna Mohan Pvt. Ltd., vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (AIR 2003 SC 2935), the power of Municipal Commissioner under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to declare any machinery to be part of land/building was held to be unguided and arbitrary.
In Asstt. Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore vs. M/s. Villiappa Textiles Ltd. (AIR 2004 SC 86), it was held that no opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the accused before grant of sanction for prosecution by Commissioner of Income-tax under S. 279.
In Govt. of A.P. vs. M.T. Khan (AIR 2004 SC 428), a prisoner convicted by Court situated outside State of A.P. but undergoing sentences in jails in State of A.P. had claimed benefit of remission under a Government order issued by the State of A.P. excluding ‘prisoners convicted and sentenced by Courts situated outside state of Andhra Pradesh’. It was held to be not constitutionally invalid. Exclusion of transferred prisoners from benefit of remission based on grounds of lack of authority of A.P. Govt., was not improper. It is a matter of policy. Courts cannot modify a Govt. order and extend benefit to a category of prisoners specifically excluded.
In Jasbir Kaur vs. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 293), safari suit of soothing colour (beige colour) in suitable fabric with badges of rank on shoulders, was prescribed as uniform to be worn by nurses. It was held that there was no violation of Art. 14, since Indian Military Nursing Service is a distinct but separate class by itself notwithstanding the fact that it is part of Indian Army.
In Ramrao vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association (AIR 2004 SC 1459), it was held that fixation of cut off date for eligibility for promotion was necessary.
VIII. Education/Administration in college :
Distribution of seats in Medical College according to Universities has been held to rest on a reasonable classification. Likewise, reservation of seats for candidates from different classes would not be unconstitutional if the classification is based on a rational intelligible differentia. {See. CHANCHALA vs. STATE OF MYSORE (AIR 1971 SC 1762), CHITRA vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1970 SC 36)}
In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Gopal D. Tirthani (AIR 2003 SC 2952), in the course of selection at State level for admission to Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses, allocation of 20% seats for in-services candidates had been made. Observing that it was not reservation but channel of entry and that in-service candidates and candidates not in service of Govt. are two classes based on an intelligible differentia and further that the laudable object sought to be achieved is that in-service candidates on achieving higher achievements would be available to be posted in rural areas by State Govt., it was held that the classification is valid.
Similarly in the matter of admission to P.G. Course, weightage was given to in-service doctors who had served in rural areas basing on the length of service. In case of male doctors it was 5 years whereas for female doctors it was 3 years. Observing that women are well defined class and that too for specified discipline i.e., Obstetrian and Gyanecology and Anaesthesia, it was held that distinction made is based on intelligible differentia and that rules relaxing criteria for female doctors were constitutionally valid. In Sourabh Chaudri vs. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 361), it was held that in the matter of admission, reservation and institutional preference were not violative of Art. 14. Institutional preference had to be to the extent of 50%. Admission should be on basis of one test held for all students seeking admission throughout the country. AIIMS had to hold exam till any legislation was passed by the Central Govt.
IX. Taxing Statute :
Article 14 applies to tax laws. It is well settled that tax laws are subject to fundamental rights. However, in East India Tobacco Co. vs. Andhra Pradesh (1962 AIR SC 1733), it was held that the wide latitude given by our Constitution to the legislature in classification for taxation was correctly described.
“A State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something. It was allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if it does so reasonably. The U.S. Supreme Court has been practical and has permitted a very wider latitude in classification for taxation.” }
See V.V.S. VERMA vs. UNION (AIR 169 SC 1094)}
Thus the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 10 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which grants certain tax exemptions to employees in public sector who retire voluntarily. An objection against this provision on the ground of violation of Article 14 {SHASHIKANT vs. UNION OF INDIA- JT 1990(3) SC 267}, was turned down by holding that there is a rational nexus between the legislation and its objects.
{See P.M. ASWATHANARAYANA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1989 SUPPL. (1) SCC 696}
R.D. SHETTY vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA {1979 (3) SCR 1014}
X. Relationship of Article 14 to other Articles 15, 16 and 17 :
The general and abstract principles of equality laid down in Art. 14 is described in greater detail in Arts. 15 and 16. If Art. 14 guarantees to all persons equality before the law, Art. 15(1) and 16(2) protect citizens against discrimination. But it must not be forgoten that the general right of equality guaranteed by Art.
14 would override the special provisions under Art. 15(4) if it is found that reservation is excessively of high percentage in technical institutions though ordinarily reservation in excess of 50% of available seats may not be upheld.
{See. RAJENDRAN vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1968 SC 507), BALAJI vs. STATE OF MYSORE (AIR 1963 SC 649), PERIA KARUPPAN vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (AIR 1971 SC 2303), K.C. VASANTHAKUMAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (AIR 1985 SC 1495), COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL vs. JAGANNATHAN (AIR 1987 SC 537)}.
--| <--Back |--
