Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi & Anr on 6 May, 2014
15. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment with reference to several
indeed numerous other pronouncements that have reiterated and followed the
ratio of the decisions to which we have referred hereinabove for we would
remain content with a reference to a recent Constitution Bench decision in
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 2140) where
this Court was examining whether Section 6A(1) of the PC Act, 1988 was
constitutionally valid insofar as the same required approval of the Central
Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged
to have been committed under the said Act where such allegations related to
employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and
above and officers as are appointed by the Central Government in
Corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies,
societies etc. Speaking for the Court Lodha, CJI observed:
The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952
10. The seminal question that falls for our determination in the above
backdrop is whether classification of Group Captains in the Indian Air
Force for purposes of age of superannuation, is offensive to Article 14 of
the Constitution. A long line of decisions of this Court that have
explained the meaning of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and laid down tests for determining the constitutional
validity of a classification in a given case immediately assume importance.
These pronouncements have by now authoritatively settled that Article 14
prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. Decisions
starting with State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75) down to
the very recent pronouncement of this Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v.
Director, CBI and Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 2140) have extensively examined and
elaborately explained that a classification passes the test of Article 14
only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia between those grouped
together and others who are kept out of the group; and (ii) There exists a
nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. Speaking
for the Court Das J., in Anwar Ali’s case (supra) summed up the essence of
what is permissible under Article 14 in the following words:
Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 August, 1981
In Air India v. Nargesh Mirza and Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 335, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court was examining whether a rule that permitted
retirement of Hostesses, within four years of her joining service, was
reasonable. This Court held that if the factors or circumstances that are
taken into consideration while fixing the age of superannuation are
inherently irrational or illogical, the decision fixing the age of
retirement will be flawed. The Court observed:
Kamlakar & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 14 May, 1999
In Kamlakar and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 756, this
Court was examining whether a distinction could be made between direct
recruits and promotees as regards equal treatment in the matter of pay
scales admissible to them. Rejecting the contention that such distinction
would be justified this Court held that once officers are placed in one
cadre the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears. The
birthmarks have no relevance for classification of Data Processing
Assistants who are directly recruited and others who are promoted. This
Court observed:
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
14. The dimensions of Article 14 were further enlarged by this Court in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, where Bhagwati, J. once
again speaking for the Court described the guarantee against arbitrariness
as a great equalising principle, a founding faith of the Constitution, and
a pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic.
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958
11. The principle was reiterated in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri
Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors. (AIR 1958 SC 538) in the following passage:
Lachhman Das On Behalf Of Firmtilak Ram ... vs State Of Punjab And Others[And ... on 23 April, 1962
In Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1963 SC 222), this Court
while reiterating the test to be applied for examining the vires of an Act
on the touchstone of Article 14 sounded a note of caution that over-
emphasis on the doctrine of classification may gradually and imperceptibly
deprive the Article of its glorious content. This Court observed: