Exception to Rule of Law Article 14

ExceptionToRuleOFLaw The above rule of comparability is yet non an absolute rule and there atomic number 18 number exception to it vEquality of Law does non mean the power of the toffee-nosed citizens atomic number 18 the same as the power of the public officials. therefore a patrol officer has the power to arrest you while no early(a) private person has this power. This is not violation of rule of jurisprudence. except rule of natural truth does require that these powers should be clearly defined by justness and that shout out of authority by public officers mustiness be punished by ordinary courts.The rule of police does not prevent certain branch of persons being subject to special rules. Thus members of armed forces are controlled by military rules. Similarly medical pr proceedingiti binglers are controlled by medicalcouncilofIndia Certain members of federation are governed by special rules in their profession i. e. lawyers, doctors, nurses, members of armed fo rces and police. such sievees of people are treated incompatiblelyfromordinarycitizens. oblige 14 Permits Classification But Prohibits Class Legislation The equal protection of laws guaranteed by term 14 does not mean that on the whole laws must be general in character.It does not mean that the same laws should apply to exclusively persons. It does not achievement or circumstances in the same position. The varying needs of different classes of persons often requires give way give-and-take. From the vary nature of society there should be different laws in different places and the legitimate controls the policy and enacts laws in the topper interest of the safety and security of the state. In concomitant identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. So a reasonable potpourri is save not permitted nevertheless is necessary if society is to progress.Thus what member 14 forbids is class- man determine but it does not forbid sane categorizati on. The classification however must not be arbitrary ,artificial or evasive but must be based on roughly real and substantive bearing a just and reasonable relation to the aim want to be achieved by the legislation. phrase 14 applies where equals are treated other than without every reasonable creation. But where equals and unequals are treated differently, bind 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper unlikeness by conferring accompaniment privileges upon a lass of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted that betwixt whom and the persons not so favored no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege. TestOfReasonableClassification While Article 14 frobids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects, and transactions by the l egislative body for the purpose of achieving specific ends.But classification must not be arbitrary ,artificial or evasive. It must eternally rest upon both(prenominal) real upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following ii conditions Firstly the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or thing that are assorted together from others left out of the group Secondly the differentia must stupefy a intellectual relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act.The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act which makes the classification. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification that legisl ation making such classification may be declared discriminatory. Thus the legislative assembly may fix the age at which persons shall be deemed competent to contract between themselves but no one will call that competency.No contract can be made to depend upon the stature or colour of the hair. Such a classificationwillbearbitrary. The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been explained in a number of casesby the lordly court. In view of this the propositions laid down in Damia case legato hold wide governing a valid classificationandareasfollows. 1. A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a adept 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 y itself 2. There is always impudence in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to depict that there has been a clear transgression of constitutional pri nciples. 3. The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases by showing that on the fact of the statue, there is no classification and no difference peculiar to any individual or class and not applicable to any other individual or class, and yet the law hits only a feature individual or class 4.It must be assumed that law-makers correctly understand and appreciates the need of its own people that its law are directed to problem made manifest by experience and that its discrepancy are based on adequategrounds 5. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration maters of common knowledge, emergences of report, the history of the quantify and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived actual at the time of the legislation. 6. Thus the legislation is free to recognize degrees of ill-use and may confine its restriction to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. . While good faith and knowledge of the existi ng conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, 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 reasonable be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to conclusion always that there must be some undisclosed and mysterious reason for subjecting certain individuals or corporation to be hostile or discriminating legislation 8. The classification may be made on different bases e. . geographical or according to object or line of credit or the like. 9. The classification made by the legislature need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. Mathematical cultivation and perfect equality are not required. Equality before the law does not require mathematical equality of all persons in all circumstances. Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment. Similarly not identity of treatment is enough. 10. There can be discrimination bo th(prenominal) in the substantive as well as the procedural law.Article 14 applies to both. If the classification satisfies the test laid down in the above propositions, the law will be declared constitutional. The question whether a classification is reasonable and proper and not must however, be judged more on sensible than on legal subtitles. Cases D. S. Nakarav. UnionOfIndia The Government issued an office memorandum announcing a liberalized grant plot for retired government servants but made it applicable to those who had retired after 31 March 1979.The supreme court held that the fixing of the cut off date to be discriminatory as violating Article 14. The devision of bonusers into two classes on the basis of the date of retirement was not based on any rational principle because a difference of two days in the matter of retiremnt could hav a traumatic effect on the aider. Such a classification held to be arbitrary and unprincipled as there was no grateful or persuasive re ason in its favour. The said classification had no rational nexus with the object sought to achieved.MadhuLimayev. Supdt. TiharJailDelhi There were Indian and Europian Prisoners. two were treated differently. Europian gets better diet. Court held that difference between Indian and Europian prisoners in the matter of treatment and diet violates right to equality under Article 14 of Indian prisoners. They all are prisoners they must treat equally. SanaboinaSatyanarayanv. Govt. ofA. P In Andra Pradesh. They formulate a scheme for prevention of wickedness against women.In prisons alike prisoners were classify in to two category first Prisoners hangdog of crime against women and second prisoners who are not guilty of crime against women. Prisoners who are guilty of crime against women challenge the court saying that there right to equality is deprived. Court held that there is resoanble classification to achieve some objective. TamilNaduElectricityBoardv. Veeraswamy The employee were governed by the conducive provident fund scheme. With effect from 1-7-1986 a scheme was introduced.The question was whether the pension scheme ought to be applied to those who had already retired before the introduction of the pension scheme the supreme court rejected the claim. As per the rules prevalent at the time the retirees had received all their retiral benefits. If the pension scheme was made applicable to all past retirees, the resulting financial burden would be Rs200 crore which would be beyond the capacity of employer. The reason given for introducing the scheme was financial constraint- a valid ground.The court held that retired employees and those who were in employment on 1-7-1986 cant be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. Te workmen who had retired and received all the benefits under the contributory provident fund scheme cease to be employees of the applellant board w. e. f. the date of their retirement. They form a separate class. Thus there was no illegality in introducing the pension scheme and not making it applicable retrospectively to those who hadretiredbeforethedate. ConclusionWhat article 14 forbids is discrimination by law that is treating persons similarly circumstanced differently and treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same way or as has been pithily put treating equals as unequals and unequals as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law and isdirectedagainstdiscriminatoryclasslegislation. A legislature for the purpose of dealing with the complex problem that arise out of an unbounded variety of human relations cannot but proceed on some sort of selection or classification of persons upon whom the legislationistooperate.Its is well settled that Article 14 frobid classification for the purpose of legislation. Its is equally well settled that in order to meet the test of Article 14 (i)classification must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that a re classify together from those that are left out of group and(ii)the differentia must have a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the decision maker or legislative action under challenge. Article 14 contains a guarantee of equality before law to all persons and protection to them against discrimination by law. It forbids class legislation.