Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.84 seconds)The Special Courts Act, 1979
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 5 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Special Courts Act, 1979 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 13 in The Special Courts Act, 1979 [Entire Act]
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950
Article 14 of our Constitution, it is well known, corre-
sponds to the last portion of section 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the American Constitution except that our
article 14 has also adopted the English doctrine of rule of
law by the addition of the words "equality before the
law." It has not, however, been urged before us that the
addition of these extra words has made any substantial
difference in its practical application. The meaning, scope
and effect of
334
article 14 of our Constitution have been discussed and laid
down by this Court in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury
v. The Union of India and Others (1). Although Sastri J.,
as he then was, and myself differed from the actual deci-
sion of the majority of the Court, there was no disagree-
ment between us and the majority as to the principles
underlying the provisions of article 14. The difference of
opinion in that case was not so much on the principles to
be applied as to the effect of the application of such
principles. Those principles were again considered and
summarised by this Court in The State of Bombay v.F.N.
Balsara (2). It is now well established that while arti-
cle 14 is designed to prevent a person or class of persons
from being singled out from others similarly situated for
the purpose of being specially subjected to discriminating
and hostile legislation, it does not insist on an
"abstract symmetry" in the sense that every piece of
legislation must have universal application. All persons
are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances, equal and
the varying needs of different classes of persons often
require separate treatment and, therefore, the protecting
clause has been construed as a guarantee against discrimi-
nation amongst equals only and not as taking away from the
State the power to classify persons for the purpose of
legislation. This classification may be on different bases.
It may be geographical or according to objects or occupa-
tions or the like. Mere classification, however, is not
enough to get over the inhibition of the Article. 'The
classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational,
that is to say, it must not only be based on some quali-
ties or characteristics which are to be found in all the
persons grouped together and not in others who are left
out but those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In
order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled,
namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others
(1) [1950] S.C.R. 869. (2) [1951] S.C.R. 682.