Fundamental Rights Flashcards
Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India
The law laid down that the law may be constitutional even though it applies to a single individual if on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him only, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself. However, in subsequent cases the Court explained that the rule of presumption laid down in Charanjit Lal’s case is not absolute, but would depend on facts of each case.
Right to equality also applies to juristic persons, i.e, companies
P. Rajandran v. State of Mysore
A provision for district-wise distribution of seats in State Medical Colleges on the basis of population of a district to the population of the State was held to be void. For a valid classification there has to be a rational nexus between the classification made by the law and the object sought to be achieved.
Indra Sawhney v Union of India
Right to equality is part of the basic structure of the constitution.
State of Bihar v Bihar State Plus 2 Lectures Association
It is well settled and cannot be disputed that Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and confers equal protection of laws. It prohibits the state from denying persons or class of persons equal treatment; provided they are equals and are similarly situated. It however, does not forbid classification. In other words, what Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classification if otherwise such classification is legal, valid and reasonable.
Classification could be geographical, occupational, etc. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.
A legal and valid classification may be based on educational qualifications.
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assns. v. Union of India, (2006)
and
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
“In our judgement, therefore, it is clear that every classification to be legal, valid and permissible, must fulfil the twin test; namely :
(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which must distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others leaving out or left out;
and
(ii) Such a differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute or legislation in question”
Dharam Dutt v Union of India (2004)
The Supreme Court held that held that laying down of intelligible differentia does not, however mean that the legislative classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete
Ram Kishan Dalmiya v. Justice Tendulkar
(i) Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification.
(ii) Permissible classification must satisfy two conditions, namely,
(a) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and
(b) the differentia must have a relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
(iii) The classification may be founded on different basis, namely geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like.
(iv) In permissible classification, mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required. Similarly, non identity of treatment is enough.
(v) Even a single individual may be treated a class by himself on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others; a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual who is in a class by himself.
(vi) Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by substantive law but by a law of procedure.
(vii) There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles.
R.K. Garg v. Union of India
The legislation under attack was the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981. It permitted
investment of black money in the purchase of these Bonds without any questions being asked as to how this
money came into the possession.
In public interest litigation it was contended that Article 14 had been violated, because honest tax payers were adversely discriminated against by the Act, which legalized evasion. But the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, taking note of the magnitude of the problem of black money which had brought into being a parallel economy.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
and
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628
and
Kasturi Lal v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992
The Supreme Court held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures a fairness and
equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981SC 487, the Supreme Court held
“…. what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve
negation of equality….. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the
legislature or of the executive or of an “authority” under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action
and strikes down such action.”
UP State Sugar Corporation v Sant Raj Singh
Possession of higher qualification can be treated as a valid base or classification of two categories of employees, even if no such requirement is prescribed at the time of recruitment. If such a distinction is drawn no complaint can be made that it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution
Union of India v. Prabhakaran
Article 15(3) and 15(4) create certain exceptions to the right guaranteed by Article 15(1) and 15(2). Under Article 15(3) the State can make special provision for women and children. It is under this provision that courts have upheld the validity of legislation or executive orders discriminating in favour of women
Balaji Case (1963)
and
CAG of India v Mohanlal Mehrotra 1991
Determination of backwardness is not a subjective exercise. Objective tests must be applied and certain objective social criteria should be satisfied to avail of benefits.
Secy. of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006)
Adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution
Balaji v State of Mysore (1963)
Reservation would be given where the following two criteria under S.16(4) are met:-
- The person availing reservation must be both socially and educationally backward , and that
- Such class does not have adequate representation in the State services.
No further classification or special treatment is permissible under Art.16(4), other than what has been provided.
