Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4). In support of the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned provision, besides observations made in the three-Judge Bench decision in Vineet Narain case reliance has also been placed on various decisions including S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [(1967) 2 SCR 703], Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 212], Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311] to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In Mardia Chemicals case a three-Judge Bench held Section 17(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to be unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 17(2) provides for condition of deposit of 75% of the amount before an appeal could be entertained. The condition has been held to be illusory and oppressive. Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 2 SCC 1], again a decision of a threeJudge Bench, setting aside the decision of the High Court which upheld the provisions of Sections 5(10)(b), 11(1) and 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 pertaining to standard rent in petitions where the constitutional validity of those provisions was challenged on the ground of the same being arbitrary, unreasonable and consequently ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, has come to the conclusion that the said provisions are arbitrary and unreasonable.” Article 14. The submission was resisted by the respondent (Union of India) on the ground that such a challenge is impermissible in view of the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709. But the Constitution Bench eventually declared the impugned provision unconstitutional not on the ground of it being arbitrary but on the ground it makes an unreasonable classification of an otherwise homogenous group of officers accused of committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without there being reasonable nexus between the classification and the object of the Act.35

64. Petitioners placed reliance on the last sentence which said that the “action of the Government and the provisions of the legislation were plainly arbitrary and discriminatory” in support of their submission that an Act could be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it is arbitrary.

65. We are of the opinion that Prabhakar Rao case is not an authority on the proposition advanced by the petitioners. The ratio of Prabhakar Rao case is that there was an unreasonable classification between the employees of the State of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of the date of their attaining the age of superannuation.

69. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that it is not permissible for this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it is ‘arbitrary’.

70. We shall examine the next facet of the challenge i.e. each of the four impugned clauses have created a class of persons who were eligible to contest the elections to Panchayats subject to their satisfying the requirements of law as it existed prior to the IMPUGNED ACT but are rendered now ineligible because they fail to satisfy one of the other conditions prescribed under clauses (t), (u), (v) and (w) of Section 175(1) of the Act. The case of the petitioners is that such a classification created by each of the impugned clauses amount to an unreasonable classification among people who form one class but for 41 In Municipal Committee Amritsar v. State of Punjab, (1969) 1 SCC 475, at para 7, this Court clearly ruled out the application of the doctrine of “due process” employed by the Court adjudicating the constitutionality of the legislation.

83. The question is - whether the impugned provision which disqualifies a large number of voter population and denies their right to contest for various offices under THE ACT is discriminatory and therefore constitutionally invalid for being violative of Article 14.

84. The learned Attorney General referred to Section 21 of THE ACT which catalogues the functions and duties of Gram Panchayat falling under 30 broad heads. To demonstrate the range of those heads, he pointed out some of the duties of a Gram Panchayat 45 and submitted that in the light of such responsibilities to be discharged by members elected to the Gram Panchayat, the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to prescribe a minimum educational qualification and such a prescription cannot be said to be making an unreasonable classification among the voters attracting the wrath of Article 14. Several judgments of this Court are referred to emphasise the 45 “Section 21. Functions and duties of Gram Panchayat.—Subject to such rules as may be made, it shall be the duty of the Gram Panchayat within the limits of the funds at its disposal, to make arrangements for carrying out the requirements of sabha area in respect of the following matters including all subsidiary works and buildings connected therewith:--