Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. For a classification not to fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution, it need not be mathematically precise. The guarantee of the equal protection of the laws does not prohibit legislation, which is limited in the objects to which it is directed. Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required. (Constitutional Law, by Prof. Willis, 1st Edition, Page 578; State of Bombay & others v. F.N. Balsara[8]). 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 the classification in any given case. (Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re[9]; National Council for Teacher Education and Ors. v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and Ors.[10]; Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another[11]). It must also be borne in mind that hardship of a few cannot be the basis of determining the validity of any statute. (LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre[12]; Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka and Others[13]). A law should be adjudged for its constitutionality by the generality of cases it covers, not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs. (R. S. Joshi, S.T.O. Gujarat & others v. Ajit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. [14]). Exceptional situation cannot form the basis of declaring a law ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The possibility of a person having twins from a second pregnancy would not, therefore, justify striking down the classification as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

57. Before examining whether the disqualification prescribed by the 2019 Amendment to the 2016 Act, by insertion of Section 8(1)(r) thereto, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary for us to take note of the tests to be applied in determining whether a classification fulfills the requirement of a valid classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Classification means segregation in classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational basis, and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily. (Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re[9]; National Council for Teacher Education and Ors.[10]; Subramanian Swamy[11]). What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation, and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Article 14 permits a reasonable classification which accommodates the practical needs of society. A classification violates Article 14 only when there is no reasonable basis. (Binoy Viswam[30]; Col. D.D. Joshi and others v. Union of India and others[35]). In determining the validity or otherwise of a statute, the Court should examine whether such classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from those left out of the group, and whether such differentia has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute. (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors.[36]; Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Vithal Rao and Ors.[37]; and Subramanian Swamy[11]).

77. The classification may be founded on different basis; 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 the classification and the object of the Act under consideration. (Budhan Choudhry and others v. State of Bihar[59]; Ram Krishna Dalmia[36]; Subramanian Swamy[11]). 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 a nexus between them. (Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re[9]; Subramanian Swamy[11]). Classification, to meet the test of Article 14, must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. When there is no reasonable basis for a classification, the legislation, making such classification, may be struck down as to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. (S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N.[60]).

81. The Constitution has assigned, to the Courts, the function of determining as to whether the laws made by the legislature are in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. In adjudicating the constitutional validity of statutes, the Courts discharge an obligation which has been imposed upon them by the Constitution. Courts would be shirking their responsibility if they hesitate to declare the provisions of a statute to be unconstitutional where the provisions are found to be violative of the Articles of the Constitution. (State of Punjab v. Khan Chand[63]; Subramanian Swamy[11]; Independent Thought[21]). If the law under challenge violates the fundamental rights of the citizens, the law is arbitrary, or is discriminatory, the Courts can either hold the law to be totally unconstitutional and strike down the law, or the Court may read down the law in such a manner that the law when read down does not violate the Constitution. While the Courts must show restraint in dealing with such issues, it cannot shut its eyes to the violations of fundamental rights of citizens. If the legislature enacts a law which is violative of the fundamental rights of citizens, is arbitrary and discriminatory, the Court would be failing in its duty if it does not either strike down the law or read down the law in such a manner that it falls within the four corners of the Constitution. (Independent Thought[21]). When Courts strike down laws they are only doing their duty. No element of judicial arrogance should be attributed to Courts when they determine whether or not the law made by the legislature is in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. (State of Punjab v. Khan Chand[63]; Subramanian Swamy[11]; Independent Thought[21]).