Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.39 seconds)
Hemlal Sahu vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2021 cites

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958

"41. Legislature's primary function is to make laws for all or different groups or classes of persons. The lawmakers as elected representatives are in a better position than any other body which is removed from local and other circumstances, to know the needs, requirements and expectations of citizens. It, therefore, seems only logical that the legislature possesses the power to distinguish and classify persons or things subjected to such laws. Such a classification, however, must pass the muster of Article 14 which proscribes hostile and invidious discrimination. Recognising that Article 14 does not entirely prohibit classification by grouping certain persons with special peculiarities in a special category to meet certain specific ends, this Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar24 had postulated two conditions which must be satisfied for a classification to withstand a challenge under Article 14, namely: (i) the classification should be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of 22 the group; and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation or nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 1003 - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors on 29 August, 2001

In State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi25, this Court had further elucidated that a challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment will not sustain when the legislature intends to classify persons under a well-defined class. A classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete and would be justified unless it is palpably arbitrary. The test to judge the validity of any classification has to be practical and pragmatic by looking beyond the classification to the purpose of the law, that is, the purpose or object of the legislation and the circumstances which had prevailed when the law was passed and which had necessitated passing of that law. Not only this, there is a presumption as to constitutional validity of an enactment predicated on the belief that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to only those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. The hardship that may result from the classification cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute. This requires distinguishing between under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness. The former classification does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated whereas over-inclusiveness includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd vs Government Of Kerala & Others on 16 April, 1986

In support of that contention, the decision in Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. v. Government of Kerala4, has been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that case, it has been observed that as far as government undertakings and companies are concerned, it has to be held that they form a class by themselves, since any project that they may make would in the end result in the benefit to the members of the general public........"
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 33 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 1954

"18.It is well-settled law that Article 14 forbids class legislation, however, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Therefore, it is permissible in law to have class legislation provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Law also permits a classification even if it relates to a single individual, if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself. It should be presumed that the legislature has correctly appreciated the need of its people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. There is further presumption in favour of the legislature that legislation had been brought with the knowledge of existing conditions. The good faith on the legislature is to be presumed, but if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be 21 regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. The law should not be irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as there must be nexus to the object sought to be achieved by it. (Vide Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar2 and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar3.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 271 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next