Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

194 US 267, 269 2004 (2) SCR 224 State of Tamil Nadu17 held that arbitrariness of State action is sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 14. Thus, it came to be recognized that the equality doctrine as envisaged in the Constitution not only guarantees against comparative unreasonableness but also non-comparative unreasonableness.18 This Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of MP19, invoked the proportionality test while testing the validity of the statute and rules that sought to regulate admission, fees and provided reservations for postgraduate courses in private educational institutions. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India20, the Court used the proportionality test to determine if the offence of criminal defamation prescribed under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC violates the freedom of speech and expression under Section 19(1)(a). In Justice Puttaswamy (9J) v. Union of India21, a nine judge Bench of this Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. The proportionality standard was used in the context of determining the limits that could be imposed on the right to privacy. The Constitution Bench then dealt with the proportionality test in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India22, to determine if the Aadhar scheme violated the right to privacy of an individual. Our Courts have used the proportionality standard to determine non-classificatory arbitrariness, and have used the twin test to determine if the classification is arbitrary. (1974) 4 SCC 3 See Tarunabh Khaitan, ‘Equality: Legislative Review under Article 14’ in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016) (2016) 7 SCC 353 (2016) 7 SCC 221 (2017) 10 SCC 1 (2019) 1 SCC 1 29 In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India23, the Court decided the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act 1914 prohibiting employment of “any man under the age of twenty-five years” or “any women” in the premises where liquor or intoxicating drugs are consumed. This classificatory provision was challenged for violation of Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 15 of the Indian Constitution. It was held that the law in effect perpetuates the oppression of women. In determining the validity of the provision, the Court applied the proportionality standard: