Legal Method Project.docx

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

Hidayatullah National Law University Raipur (C.G.)

A SPECIAL REPEAT PROJECT ON

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA SUBMITTED TO

MRS. SHRADDHA RAJPUT (FACULTY ) ( LEGAL METHOD)

SUBMITTED BY

AJAY

BHATT

ROLL NO.- 05 SEMESTER - I BA.LLB (HONS.) SUBMITTED ON- 03.12.2018 LEGAL METHOD

1

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I feel

highly elated

to

work on the

topic

“DOCTRINE

OF REASONABLE

CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA” because it has significant importance in the present scenario. The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I express my deepest regard and gratitude for our Faculty of Legal Method. His consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report. I would like to thank him generously for giving me the opportunity to delve into various developed, developing and underdeveloped economies of the world and understand their present status. I believe this will be of great importance in the near future. I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement, this project would not have been a reality. I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

AJAY BHATT BATCH XIV ROLL NO.- 05 B.A. LLB.(HONS.)

LEGAL METHOD

2

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….. TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………………………………….. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………

 Objectives of the Study..................................................................  Introduction.......................................................................................  What is Reasonable Classification In India ?................................  Legislative Classification..................................................................  About Equality Before Law: Article 14..........................................  Historical Aspect Of Article 14 & Reasonable classification .......  Dyce Rule of Law & Article 14 ........................................................  Old“Doctrine Of Reasonable Classification”...............................  Comparative study between Old and New doctrine .......................

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………….. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………. WEBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………….

LEGAL METHOD

3

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Art. V. U.N. AIR

-

Article Versus United Nation All India Reporter

TABLE OF CASES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

State of W.B. Vs.Anwar Ali, AIR 1952 SC Tingn Vs. Texas, (1940) 310 US 1417 Kedar Nath BajoriaVs. State Of W.B., AIR 1953 SC 404, 406. Roop Chand Adalkha Vs. DDA, Supp (1) SCC 116, 124: AIR1989 SC 307 Malpe Vishwanath v. State of Maharashtra Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959) Supp 1 SCR 528, 551 Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597;

LEGAL METHOD

4

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY     

What is Reasonable Classification In Article 14 analyze reasonable classification To study Dyce’s nature of law Discuss Historical aspect of “Equality Before Law”. Discuss the Basis of classification.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The Doctrinal research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic. Books and other reference as guided by Faculty of Economics have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred. This work is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic. Books and other references as guided by Faculty of Sociology have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites and articles have also been referred. Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a particular provision of law. Uniform citation has been followed.

LEGAL METHOD

5

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality through Articles 14 and 18. “Equality is one of the magnificent corner-stones of Indian democracy.” The doctrine of equality before law is a necessary corollary of Rule of Law which pervades the Indian Constitution. Art. 14 Out ways discrimination in a general way and guarantees equality before law to all persons. In view of a certain amount of indefiniteness attached to the general principle of equality enunciated in Art. 14, separate provisions to cover specific discriminatory situations have been made by subsequent articles. Thus, Art.15 prohibits discrimination against citizens on such specific grounds as religion, race, caste, sex or gender, religion or place of birth.Art. 14 guarantee to every person the right to equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The first expression “Equality Before the Law” which is said to have been taken from the English common law is a declaration of equality of all persons within the territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. Social equality and equal access to public areas: Article 15 of the constitution states that no person shall be discriminated on the basis of caste, colour, language etc. Every person shall have equal access to public places like public parks, museums, wells, bathing ghats and temples etc. However, the State may make any special provision for women and children. Special provisions may be made for the advancements of any socially or educationally backward class or scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Article 14 guarantees to every person the right to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. The first expression “equality before law” which is said to have been taken from the English common law, is a declaration of equality of all persons within the persons within the territory of India implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. The constitutional command to the State to afford equal protection of its laws sets a goal not attainable by the invention and application of a precise formula. Therefore, classification need not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or things. The courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case. Classification is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary.

LEGAL METHOD

6

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

WHAT IS REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION ? 

Underlying principles As no two human beings are equal in all respects, the same treatment to them in every respect would result in unequal treatment for example the same treatment in all respects to a child as to an adult or to a sick or physically challenged to a healthy person or to a rich person or to a rich person as to poor or to a woman as to man will result in unequal treatment or treatment which nobody justify or support. Therefore, the underlying principle of equality is not the uniformity of treatment to all in all respects in which they are different. In nutshell it is stated: Equals must be treated respects while unequal must be treated differently. For the application of the principle of equality in real life we must, therefore, differentiate between those who are equal and those who are different. This exercise is expressed as reasonable classification that we will discuss below. But let us clarify that even though no two human beings are similar in all respects, they are all similar in one respect, namely, they are all human beings. Therefore, human beings they require the same treatment, i.e., they mustall be treated as human beings in the language of rights, even though we are all different from one another in one in all respect or the other and may be given different treatment in those respects we are all entitled to equal treatment as human beings. In that respect we are all equals. As human beings in Kantian terms we all have equal worth and in Dworkin’s words are entitled to equal respect and concern.1 Any classification or absence of it that ignores this aspect violates equality and cannot be justified under Art.14. Therefore, as we have noted above very briefly and will not in detail below, especially under Art. 15 and 16, equality not only prohibits unequal treatment but it also demands equal treatment. Therefore, the state must not only not treat people inequality but it must also, take positive steps to remove existing inequalities, especially those inequalities, which treat human beings less than human beings. Our common humanity, which is also formulated as human dignity, demands distributive justice both of which dignity and distributive justice are essential to equality.

The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same.

1

R.Dworkin, “Taking Rights Seriously”,223 (1977).

LEGAL METHOD

7

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

LEGISLATIVE CLASSIFICATION The right to equality as incorporated in Art. 14 and discussed above requires legislation for its operation so that equals may be treated equally and unequal may be treated differently. The principle of equality, we have noted, does not mean that every law must have universal application to all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. The varying needs of different classes of persons require different treatment. In fact, public welfare requires that persons, property and occupations be classified and be subjected to different and appropriate legislation. Governance is not a simple exercise. It encounters and must deal with the problems which come from persons in an infinite variety of relations. Classification is the recognition of these relations, and in making it, a legislature must be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment.2 The Indian statutory law is full of instances of special legislation applying only to a particular class or groups. Lawyers, doctors, money-lenders, landlords, drivers of motor-cars, insurance companies, minors and indeed, most other classes are subject to special legislation. Such classification undoubtedly differences between persons belonging to one class and the others, but that by itself does not make the legislation obnoxious to Art. 14. The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that Art. 14 do not rule out classification for purposes of legislation. In KedarNathBajoria v. State of W.B.3 “The equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Art. 14 of the constitution doesnot mean that all the laws must be general character and universal in application and that the state is no longer to have the power of distinguishing and classifying persons or things for the purposes of legislation.”

The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and 27.

2

Tingn vs.Texas, (1940) 310 US 1417. AIR 1953 SC 404, 406.

3

LEGAL METHOD

8

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Artcles 14 to 18 constitutes the right to equality. In other constitution generally the right to equality is expressed only as, as it is expressed in Art.14. As The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India.” 

Equality in matters of public employment: Article 16 of the constitution lays down that the State cannot discriminate against anyone in the matters of employment. All citizens can apply for government jobs. There are some exceptions. The Parliament may enact a law stating that certain jobs can only be filled by applicants who are domiciled in the area. This may be meant for posts that require knowledge of the locality and language of the area. The State may also reserve posts for members of backward classes, scheduled castes or scheduled tribes which are not adequately represented in the services under the State to bring up the weaker sections of the society. Also, there a law may be passed which requires that the holder of an office of any religious institution shall also be a person professing that particular religion. According to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003, this right shall not be conferred to Overseas citizens of India



Abolition of untouchability: Article 17 of the constitution abolishes the practice of untouchability. Practice of untouchability is an offense and anyone doing so is punishable by law. The Untouchability Offences Act of 1955 (renamed to Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976) provided penalties for preventing a person from entering a place of worship or from taking water from a tank or well.



Abolition of Titles: Article 18 of the constitution prohibits the State from conferring any titles. Citizens of India cannot accept titles from a foreign State. The British government had created an aristocratic class known as RaiBahadurs and Khan Bahadurs in India — these titles were also abolished. However, Military and academic distinctions can be conferred on the citizens of India. The awards of Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan cannot be used by the recipient as a title and do not, accordingly, come within the constitutional prohibition". The Supreme Court, on 15 December 1995, upheld the validity of such awards.

The State, in the exercise of its governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating differently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies, and it must possess for that purpose large powers of distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be subjected to such laws.

LEGAL METHOD

9

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

HISTORY OF ARTICLE 14 & REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION Article 14 guarantees to every person the right to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. The first expression “equality before law” which is said to have been taken from the English common law, is a declaration of equality of all persons within the persons within the territory of India implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. Prof. Dicey, explaining the concept of legal equality aitperated in England, said “with us every official, from the prime minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without any legal justification as any other citizen.” The second expression.’ the equal protection of the laws’, which is rather a corollary of the first and is based on the last clause of the first section of the 14th amendment to the American constitution, directs the equal protection shall be secured to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the union in the enjoyment of their rights and privileges without favoritism are discrimination. It has been said that ‘the equal production of the laws’ is place of protection are guarantee of equal laws. The two expressions are simultaneously used in art. 7 of the universal declaration of the human rights, which may have influenced the formulation of art. 14. The underlined purpose of the two expressions is to give as wide amplitude to art. 14 as possible. Article 14 uses the two expressions to make the concept of equal treatment of binding principle of state action. For long the nature and the extent of the guarantee has been understood to be the same under both the expressions. Patanjalisastri, C.J. observed that the second expression was a corollary of the first. Indeed, it will be difficult to imagine any violation of ‘the equal protection of the laws’, which would not also be a violation of ‘equality before the law’. However, the court has also observed that even if there is much in common between the two expressions in art. 14, they do not mean the same thing. “The word ‘law’ in the former expression is used in a generic sense - a philosophical sense – whereas the word laws in the latter expression denotes specific laws.” It has not explained this statement any further, but it means that equality for all is the law or standard norm of the land. As we will also notice below under the head of expanding horizons of equality, some of the judges have been pointing out from the very beginning that equality is a dynamic concept which goes on changing with change in times and social context and must be understood in that sense. Such understanding has opened new avenues for the application of art. 14 not used until mid 1970’s similarly, the expression equal the existing inequalities untouched by its laws, it fails in its duty of providing equal protection of its laws to all persons.

LEGAL METHOD

10

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

DICEY’S RULE OF LAW & ARTICLE 14 Rule of law is the basic rule of governance of any civilised policy. Equality before law is corelative to the concept of rule of law.A basic postulate of the rule of law is that “justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done” It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government. Englishmen are ruled by the law, and by the law alone; a man may with us be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else. It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law courts; the ‘rule of law’ in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizensor from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals; there can be with us nothing really corresponding to the ‘administrative law’ (dro it administratif) or the ‘administrative tribunals’ (tribunaux administratifs) of France. The notion which lies at the bottom of the ‘administrative law’ known to foreign countries is, that affairs or disputes in which the Government or its servants are concerned are beyond the sphere of the civil courts and must be dealt with by special and more or less official bodies. This idea is utterly unknown to the law of England, and indeed is fundamentally inconsistent with our traditions and customs.”

According to Dicey, The Rule of Law, as he formulated it, was a principle of the English Constitution. The preface to the first edition says that the book “deals with only two or three guiding principles which pervade the modern Constitution of England,” and the book shows that the Rule of Law is one such principle. This is important, for the modern version of that rule does not assert that it is a principle of the English Constitution, but that the rule is an ideal by reference to which that Constitution must be judged. In his “Law of the Constitution”, Dicey did not refer to the prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari by which superior courts exercised control over administrative action and adjudication. These writs belong to public law and have nothing to do with private law, and had he noticed those writs he could not have denied the existence of administrative law in England. “The right to equality is also recognized as one of the basic features of the constitution.”

LEGAL METHOD

11

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

OLD DOCTRINE OF RESONABLE CLASSIFICATION Although the doctrine of arbitrariness is extra-Constitutional, its application to legislations might still be fruitful if it would serve some greater purpose, beyond what is being already served by the existing doctrine of reasonable classification. An analysis of decisions shows that with regard to statutes whose provisions are challenged as discriminatory or arbitrary, the judiciary is still applying the old doctrine, even while sometimes claiming to have applied the new doctrine of arbitrariness.In State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.4,the court categorically held that no enactment can be struck down merely on the ground of unreasonableness. Where the statute gives discretion to the executive to classify, the question does not hold much relevance because in such cases, there is not much difference between the application of the old and new doctrines.5 Under both the doctrines, the Court examines whether the legislature has provided enough guidance to prevent an arbitrary exercise of power by the administrator. Two cases have been particularly relied upon by Chandrachud where legislations were invalidated as violative of Article 14 on the application of arbitrariness doctrine. The first of these cases is Malpe Vishwanath v. State of Maharashtra where the court declared provisions of the Bombay Rent Act as violative of Article 14 on the ground that the legislation had become arbitrary with the passage of time. It is interesting to observe, however, that all the precedents relied on by the court to reach this conclusion used the old doctrine.These cases clearly state that passage of time may obliterate the considerations of necessity and expediency, and the grounds which justified a classification may cease to be valid. Hence, the old doctrine also allows for invalidating outdated legislation on the ground of violation of Article 14.6Another interesting aspect is that even in this case, the court examined the object behind the legislation and noticed how the provision is no longer in furtherance of the same. The next case upon which Chandrachud’s comment is based is Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India7where the requirement of deposit, by the borrower, of 75% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was held to be unreasonable, hence, violative of Article 14. It is important to note that the concept of arbitrariness was applied here in the sense of the statute being discriminatory, which must be distinguished from a case where a provision is struck down as being arbitrary per se. The Court here observed the importance of provision providing a reasonable protection to the borrower, it was struck down. 4

[1996] 3 S.C.R. 721. See also Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2007) 4 M.L.J. 1153 See, e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Babubhai and Co. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1985 SC613. 6 38 See Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 594, where it was held that if the continuance of a previously valid provision on the statute book will imply the creation of a privileged class without any rational basis and nexus with the object for reasonable classification of such class no longer exists by lapse of time, it can be struck down as being violative of Article 14. 7 AIR 2004 SC 2371. 5

LEGAL METHOD

12

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

of appeal in a statute which enabled drastic measures to be taken against the borrower. The Court held that in such a case, the conditions like the 75% deposit requirement, after the secured assets of the borrower have already been taken over, made the remedy illusory. This is an inherent infirmity leaning one-sidedly towards one party. The court also stated that in the absence of any other grievance redressal mechanism,the provision for appeal was equivalent to filing a suit in first instance. Hence, this is a case where an important remedy under the statute, providing for grievance redressa land justice delivery mechanism, was itself one-sided and hence amounted to an unequal remedy. The 75% condition was not struck down as merely being strict and disproportional. The Court noted that certain provisions of the statute “may also be a bit harsh for some of the borrowers but on that ground the impugned provisions of the Act cannot be said to be unconstitutional in view of the fact that the object of the Act is to achieve speedier recovery of the dues…to help in growth of economy”. However, considering that the provision for appeal failed to achieve its object of providing a reasonable protection to the borrower, it was struck down. It is also possible to reach the same decision without applying the arbitrarinesstest. The 75% condition has no rational basis, more so, considering the object of appeal is to provide the borrower an adequate and effective grievance redressalmechanism. There is no rational nexus to this object. In fact, the remedy is almost illusory for him.Chandrachud’s comment totally ignores the reasonable classification doctrineand that even in absence of arbitrariness test, an adequate remedy is available. The courts now claim that Article 14 aims to prevent arbitrariness and reasonable classification is merely a test to determine whether the impugned act is arbitrary.8However, the purpose of Article 14 is to prevent discrimination. Examining the reasonableness/arbitrariness of classification made by a legislation is a way to determine whether the right to equality has been violated, rather than the doctrine of arbitrariness being the end and reasonable classification being a mere means to determine so. We must however point out that reasonable classification is not the only test that must be applied under Article 14. It is merely a formula to examine the violation of right to equality, and can be replaced by a better test in the future. However, as explained above, the doctrine of arbitrariness lies outside the right to equality itself and thus redefines the right. It is not merely a formula, but has an ambit beyond the right to equality, replacing the right itself. If an extra-constitutional doctrine is sought to be brought within the legal framework, it must assist in filling some manifest void or it must lead to some substantial benefit to the legal position already existing.9.

8

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 722 For example, although basic structure doctrine is extra-constitutional, it may be justified on the ground that in its absence, the legislature may virtually redraft the Constitution by amending any of its provisions. If the Supreme Court had not brought this doctrine, such a situation could not have been prevented due to the void in law in this regard. This is a justifiable exercise because without it, “there would have been no Constitution and no independent judiciary worth the name”.Srikrishna, supra note 17 at 24. 9

LEGAL METHOD

13

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

THE OLD AND NEW DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION : COMPARATIVE DISCUSSION Article 14 "combines the English doctrine of the rule of law with equal protection of clause of the 14th Amendment" — Das C.J. in BashesharNath v. CIT, 10 Article 14 mandates that the State shall not deny equality before law and equal protection of laws to any person within the territory of India. By incorporating in Article 14 the British doctrine of rule of law as propounded by Prof. Dicey and the "equal protection of law" clause of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the framers of our Constitution had in their zeal infused extra vigour and vitality in the right to equality. However, Parliament has repeatedly tried to curtail the scope and vigour of Article 14 in order to carry out the welfare programmes.11Apart from it, the Supreme Court had sapped some of the vigour of Article 14 by showing "fanatical reverence" to the theory of classification or the nexus tests". Finally in 1974 the Supreme Court evolved the new doctrine that Article 14 is a guarantee against arbitrariness 12Thus the Supreme Court has evolved two different and distinct doctrines for tackling attack on State action on the ground of violation of Article 14. An attempt is being made in this paper to analyse objectively the merits and demerits of the old and new doctrines. It is only understandable that our Supreme Court should have applied the theory of classification, evolved by the American Supreme Court for giving content and true meaning to right to equality. According to this doctrine "equal protection of laws" prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification of persons or things. By expressly incorporating in the second part of Article 14 the language of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Constituent Assembly impliedly had approved the interpretation of that clause by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, from the very beginning the Indian Supreme Court has had no hesitation in applying the theory of classification while testing the Constitutional vires of legislations and State actions impugned on the basis of their being violative of Article 14. The classic nexus test was enunciated by S.R. Das, J. in the Anwar Ali Sarkarcase,13 thus In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. (1959) Supp 1 SCR 528, 551

10 11

Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 blunted the attack on the ground of violation of Article 14 for allowing smooth passage of Zamindari Abolition Acts of various States. Constitution (25th Amendment) Act introduced Article 31-C for giving overriding effect to Articles 39(a) and (b) over fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 31. Later on this overriding effect was given by 42nd Amendment to all the Directive Principles over these articles. R 12 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (l974) 4 SCC 3 13 State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.

LEGAL METHOD

14

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them."14On the basis of these tests, better known as nexus tests, innumerable cases have been decided by the Supreme Court and various State High Courts. Supreme Court has from time to time tried to summaries the principles enunciated by it in its previous decisions under Article 14.15 These classic tests of permissible classification have been repeated so many times that the Supreme Court in 1960 remarked that "they now sound platitudinous".16Apart from staleness of repetition, it was feared that the fanatical reverence shown to these tests might ultimately replace the doctrine of equality and rob Article 14 of its "glorious content". Some academic literature regarding the right to equality also appeared pointing out the shortcomings of the nexus tests. However, only two of such studies may be noted in this brief paper. K.K. Mathew, J. highlighted the negative concept of the doctrine of "equality before the law", as traditionally understood and posed the question whether the command of Article 14 is merely to ban creation of equality or to eliminate inequalities ? According to him "Formal equality before the law has been found to be a sham in many areas".17 Thus, legal thinking in the country was slowly moving towards giving a positivistic or activist twist to the right to equality.

14

http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.html

15

(a) State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318. (b) R.K. Dalmia v. JusticeTendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538. (c) In re Special Courts Bill, 1978, (1979) 1 SCC 380. 16 Chandrachud. C.J. in Special Courts Bill, 1978, Re, (1979) 1 SCC 380, 423 : "As far back as 1960 it was said by this Court in KangsariHaldar that the proposition applicable to cases arising under Article 14 have been repeated so many# times that they now sound platitudinous. If it was so in 1960, it would be even more true in 1979." 17

K.K. Mathew : Democracy, Equality and Freedom, p. 63

LEGAL METHOD

15

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

CONCLUSION In the whole research we found that the research is based on Art. 14 of Indian Constitution that talks about “Equality Before Law” in this law every people has a right that to equal in case of justice or in case of law in this law everybody are equal in this law. In short term we had seen the first that is reasonable classification in this aspect we had studied Article 14 that is related to “Equality Before Law” or the Article 14 is deals with “Right To Equality”in our Indian Constitution. The constitutional command to the State to afford equal protection of its laws sets a goal not attainable by the invention and application of a precise formula. Therefore, classification need not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or things. The courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case. Classification is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary. The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. In the last term in all research If an extra-constitutional doctrine is sought to be brought within the legal framework, it must assist in filling some manifest void or it must lead to some substantial benefit to the legal position already existing. And then the old doctrine of reasonable classification rationally understand the new doctrine of reasonable classification. All this research the “Equality Before Law” Article 14 and that term we understand.“The Doctine of Reasonable Classification in India.”

LEGAL METHOD

16

DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IN INDIA

BIBLIOGRAPHY C0NSTITUION OF INDIA , M.P. JAIN PAGE NO. 48,49 V.N.SHUKLA’S INDIAN CONSTITUTION

WEBLIOGRAPHY http://www.legalblog.in/2011/02/right-to-equality-article-14-reasonable.html http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm http://www.nalsarstudentlawreview.com/ http://www.legalblog.in/2011/02/right-to-equality-article-14-reasonable.html

LEGAL METHOD

17