Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TIRUCHHIRAPALLI
2015-2016
Final Draft
of
CONSTITUTION
Submitted by:
MOHIT AGARWAL
PROFFESSOR CONSTITUUTION
BC0140037
1 john vallamattam v union of india (2003) 6 SCC 611 : AIR 2003 SC 2562
2
The underlying object of article 14 is to secure to all persons, citizen or non-citizen, the
equality of status and opportunity referred to in Preamble to our constitution . Article 14
outlaws discrimination in a general way and guarantee equality before law to all persons
Ambedkar view on reservation and its need in India :
1) He believes that caste system is but another name of division of labour and if division of
labour is a necessary feature of every civilised society then it is argued that there is nothing
wrong in the caste system . He believed that caste system is not the division of labourers . It
is also a division of labourers. No civilised society is division of labour accompanied by the
unnatural division of labourers into waterlight compartments. in no other country is the
division of labour accompanied by this gradation of labourers.
2)This principle is violated in the caste system in so far as it involves an attempt to appoint
tasks to individuals in advance, selected not on the basis of trained original capacities but on
that of the social status of parents. Individual sentiments, individual preference has no place
in it. It is based on the dogma of predestination
3)He believed that caste does not result in economy efficiency . caste cannot has not
improved the race. caste however done one thing. it completely disorganised and demoralized
the Hindus.
It is clearly stated that article 14 provide positive and not negative equality2.It implies that
among equals the law should be equals the law should be equal and equally administered, that
the like should be treated alike without distinction of race ,religion, wealth, social status or
political influence.3 Article 14 prescribes equality before law but the facts remain that all the
person are not equal by nature, attain mentor circumstances and therefore, a mechanical
equality before the law may result injustice .Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal
protection of the law doesn't mean that identically the same rule of law should be made
applicable to all the person inspite of difference in circumstances or conditions.
The varying needs of different classes or section of people require differential classes or
section of people require differential And separate treatment . The legislature is required to
deal with diverse problem arising out of an infinite variety of human relation. Therefore
necessarily have the power of making laws to attain particular objects, for the purpose, of
distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and things upon which its law are to operate
Thus, Principal of equality law that means not the same law should apply to everyone but that
a law should deal alike with all in one class : there should be an equality of treatment under
equal circumstances.4
2 j.srinivas Raju v stae of orrisa 113(2012) Cut LT 13(22) (Ori)
3 Jagnnath prasad v. state of uttar pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1245
4 Chiranjeet lal v. UOI , AIR 1951 SC 41
3
That the Two expression ' equality before law ' and equal protection of law' do not mean the
same thing even if there may be much in common between them. " equality before law " is a
dynamic concept having many facets. One facets is that there shall be no privileged person or
class and none shall be above law. Another facet is "the oblivion upon the state to bring
about, through the machinery of law , amore equal society .... For, equality before law can be
predicated meaningfully only in an equal society .........."5.That equal should be treated unlike
and unlikes shouldn't be treated alike . like should treated alike6. In Laxmi Khandsari's case
SC gives classification test
i)It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive . it should be based on an intelligible
differentia, some real and substantial distinction which distinguishes persons or things
grouped together in the class from other left out of it
ii)the differentia adopted as the basis of evaluation must have a rational or reasonable nexus
with the object sought to be achieved by statute in question.7
Differential treatment doesn't per se amount to violation of article 14 and it violates article 14
only when there is no reasonable basis and there are several test to decide whether a
classification is reasonable basis and there are test decide whether a classification is
reasonable or not and one of the test will be as to whether it conductive to the functioning of
modern society 8
When a law is challenged to be discriminatory essentially on the ground off that it dines equal
treatment or protection , the question for determination by the court is not whether it has
resulted in equality but whether there is some difference which bears a just and reasonable
relation to the object of legislation .Mere differentiation does not per se amount to
discrimination within the habitation of equal protection clause. To attract the operation of the
clause it is necessary to show that the selection or discrimination is unreasonable or
arbitrary , that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the object which the
legislature has in view .9The SC has observed it is settled law that differentiation is not
5 IN GAURISHANKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1992 SCC 999: (1992) 2 SCC 643
always discriminatory. if there is a rational nexus on the basis of which differentiation has
been made with the object sought to be achieved by the particulars of article 14 of the
Constitution.10
The supreme court held that the candidates of reserved category admitted to medical colleges
on the basis of merit should be treated as open category candidate for the purpose of
computing the percentage of reservation but they should be given option for admission to
graduate or post graduate course in the colleges where seats are kept reserved for reserved
category and thereafter less meritorious reserved category candidates should be consider for
admission in whichever colleges reserved seats are available and be entitled to all benefits,
concession or scholarships under the rule.11
The special provisions permissible under Art. 15 (4) are not confined to positive action
programmes for the advancement of backward classes but would include ' reservation ' in
educational institutions and other walks of life (para 116)12.Art. 15 (4)envisages the policy of
compensatory or protective discrimination but it should be reasonably and consistent with
ultimate public interest i.e. national interest and interest of community or society as a whole13.
Therefore , the government reserves a percentage of seats for members of backward classes,
such reservation will not be applicable if such members already secure the reserved numbers
by competition on their merit; it will be called in aid only to the extent of their deficiency on
the merit list. 14
Where there North Eastern Council recommended reservation of two seats each in the degree
and diploma post graduated courses in Assam medical college for which the candidates of
five states which don't have any medical colleges, it was held the candidates belonging to
these five states constituted a separate class and hence reservation is valid 15 .
Reservation is guided by consideration of ensuring allotment of a privilege or quota to, or
conferral of state largesse on, a defined class or category of limited persons or remaining
persons. beneficiary of reservation is necessarily a minor or smaller group of persons which
deservedly stand in need of protection or push up because of historical, geographical,
11 Ritesh R. shah v Y.L. Yamul (dr.) (1996) 3 SCC 253 (para 17 ) : AIR 1996 SC
1378 FOLLOWED IN yoganand vishwasaroo Patil V. state of maharashtra (2005)
12 SCC 311.
12 cf. indira V. uoi AIR 1993 SC 477: 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 - 9 judges ; Ajay
kumar singh V. state of bihar (1994) 4 SCC401 (para 4 ): 1994 (2) JT 662- 3
judges
13 Preet Srivastav (Dr.) v State of M.P. (1999) 7 scc 120 ( para 134, 15, and 62 ) :
air 1999 sc 2894
14 Anil v. dean Govt. Medical college, Nagpurr AIR 1985 bom. 153 (para 6);Partha
S.A. v. stae of mysore AIR 1961 Mys. 220
15 Naryan Sharma ( dr. ) V. pankaj kumar lekhare ( dr. ) ( 2000 ) 1 scc 44 ( paras
26 and 27 ); air 2000 SC 72
6
16AIIMS student's Union V. AIIMS ( 2002) 1 scc 428 , 448 (para 32) : AIR 2001 SC
3262
17 Rajendran p. V state of madras AIR 1968 SC 1012
18 state of A.P. V. balaram U.S.V., AIR 1972 Sc 1375 (1395, 1399 ); ( 1972 ) 1
SSC 660
19 state of M.P. V. Nivedita Jain AIR 1981 SC (para 25) ; (1981) 4 SCC 296
20 state of kerela v thomas N.M . , AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976 ) 2 SCC 310 ; Sharma
S.S. V. UOI , AIR 1981 SC 588 ( paras 9,11,12) : 1981 1 SCC397
21 state of kerela v thomas n.m . , AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976 ) 2 SCC 310 ;
Sharma S.S. V. UOI , SAIR 1981 SC 588 ( paras 9,11,12) : 1981 1 SCC 397
22 Sharma S.S V. UOI , AIR 1981 SC 588 ( Para's 9,11,12) : 1981 1 SCC 397
23 partap singh v. Hardam singh, AIR 1 UJSC 82 ( para 3,6): AIR 1985 SC 1695:
(1985) 4 scc 197
24 Balaji M.R. V state of mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 (663): 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 439
8