Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Positively speaking, it should conform to norms which are rational, informed with reason and guided by public interest, etc.

96. Another Constitution Bench decision in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] : (AIR 2014 SC 2140) dealt with a challenge to Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. This section was ultimately struck down as being discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14. A specific reference had been made to the Constitution Bench by the reference order in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2005) 2 SCC 317 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 241] : (2005 AIR SCW 758) and after referring to several judgments including Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258]: (AIR 1981 SC 487), Mardia Chemicals [Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311] : (AIR 2004 SC 2371), Malpe Vishwanath Acharya [Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC Patna High Court CWJC No.7860 of 2012 dt.06-05-2019 1] : (AIR 1998 SC 602)and McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] :

(AIR 1996 SC 1627), the reference, inter alia, was as to whether arbitrariness and unreasonableness, being facets of Article 14, are or are not available as grounds to invalidate a legislation.

97. After referring to the submissions of the counsel, and several judgments on the discrimination aspect of Article 14, this Court held: (Subramanian Swamy case [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] , SCC pp. 721-22, paras 48-49) : (AIR 2014 SC 2140 at p. 2160-2161, paras 47-48) '48. In E.P. Royappa [E.P. Royappa v.