Equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws should be general in character and universal in application. It does not mean that same laws should apply to all persons. Varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. In fact, equal treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. Therefore a reasonable classification is not only permitted but it is necessary if the society is to progress.
Equality is for equals, that is to say, those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. The guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in their circumstance and conditions. (Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 327).
So the guarantee of `Equal protection of Law' and Equity before law does not prohibit reasonable classification.
In Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 - It was observed -
The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been explained by Supreme Court in numerous cases. Principles as laid down inR.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 still hold valid ground, which are follows -
"While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the objects of the Act under consideration. Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure."
Similarly in Vajravellu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, AIR 1965 SC 1017 Supreme Court observed -
Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. But this does not preclude the Legislature from making a reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The said classification has to pass two tests, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons and things left out of the group and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
In State of W.B. v. Rash Behari Sarkar (1993) 1 SCC 479 - "Equality means equality in similar circumstances, between same class of persons for same purpose and objective. It cannot operate amongst unequals. But even amongst equals the legislature or executive may classify on distinction which is real. A classification amongst groups performing shows for monetary gains and cultural activities cannot be said to be arbitrary. May be that both groups carry out legislative objective of promoting social and educational activities and, therefore, they are alike but distinction between the two on monetary gains and otherwise is real and intelligible. So long the classification is reasonable it cannot be struck down as arbitrary. Likes can be treated differently for good and valid reasons. The State in treating the group performing theatrical shows for advancement of social and educational purpose, differently, on basis of profit making cannot be said to have acted in violation of Article 14 of Constitution."
(1) 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 but not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself.
(2) There is always a presumption in favour of the Constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of Constitutional principles.
(3) It must be presumed that legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that laws are directed to problem, made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate ground.
(4) The Legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to those cases where the need is deemed clearest.
(5) In order to sustain the presumption of Constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of Common Knowledge, matters of common report, the history of times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation.
(6) While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of the legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may be reasonably 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 hostile or discriminating legislation.
(7) The classification may be made on different basis e.g., geographical or according to objects or occupations or the like.
(8) The classification made by a legislature need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required.
(9) Article 14 applies to both, the discrimination of the substantive law as well as procedure law. If the classification satisfies the above propositions, the law will be declared Constitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment