Reasonable Classification and Non-Arbitrariness
Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons[a], including citizens, corporations, and foreigners.[3][4][5] Its provisions have come up for discussion in the Supreme Court in a number of cases and the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar reiterated its meaning and scope as follows. Article 14 permits classification, so long as it is 'reasonable', but forbids class legislation. A classification of groups of people is considered reasonable when:[6]
The classification is based upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others that are left out of the group, and,
The differential has a rational relation with the objective of the act.
In addition, the classification must be non-arbitrary.[7][8] The Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa (1973) provided guidance on arbitrariness of an act:
"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies… Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14."
Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons[a], including citizens, corporations, and foreigners.[3][4][5] Its provisions have come up for discussion in the Supreme Court in a number of cases and the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar reiterated its meaning and scope as follows. Article 14 permits classification, so long as it is 'reasonable', but forbids class legislation. A classification of groups of people is considered reasonable when:[6]
The classification is based upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others that are left out of the group, and,
The differential has a rational relation with the objective of the act.
In addition, the classification must be non-arbitrary.[7][8] The Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa (1973) provided guidance on arbitrariness of an act:
"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies… Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14."
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق