Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
21
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:
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
22
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-
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
9. Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Hemlal Sahu Vs.
Union of India, (2021) 4 SCT 546 wherein a declaration was sought that Rule
56(1-e) of the Fundamental Rules, applicable and amended by Chhattisgarh
Shashkiye Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 is ultra
vires and also relief was sought for benefit of enhancement of age of
superannuation from 62 to 65 years as was enhanced for the class room
teachers has been rejected by a Division Bench and for the same analogy and
the ratio of the law considered in the light of the decisions of Supreme Court in
paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 28 which read as under :-
Kewal Singh vs Lajwanti on 4 October, 1979
In case of Kewal Singh Vs. Lajwanti reported in 1980
(1) SCC 290 Hon'ble Supreme Court while applying Article 14 of
the Constitution of India to the provisions under challenge has made
following observations:-
Deepak Sibal & Ors vs Punjab University And Another on 14 February, 1989
In case of Dipak Sibal vs. Punjab University reported
in (1989) 2 SCC 145 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
grounds raised challenging the Statute, has held thus :-
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........"
A.P.Dairy Dev.Corp.Federation vs B.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 2 September, 2011
In case of AP Dairy Development Corporation vs. B.
Narsimha Reddy reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286, Hon'ble
Supreme Court while considering the challenge made to Andhra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
19
Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act,
2006 on the ground of classification and hostile discrimination has
observed as under :-
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 regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 05-03-2024
11:01:25
20
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.)"
Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2019
inclusiveness includes not only those who are similarly situated
with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated
as well. The latter is frowned upon but the former may pass the
judicial test for the courts do exercise tolerance to under-
inclusiveness unless it is clear that there is no fair reason for the
law which would not require with equal force its extension to
those whom it leaves untouched (see Pioneer Urban Land &
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India26, decided on 9-8-
2019).