Answer – 4

Article 14 says that State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Equality before law
as provided in the Article 14 of our constitution provides that no one is above
the law of the land. It aims to establish the “Equality of Status and Opportunity”
as embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. However, Article 14 does not
mean that all laws must be general in character or that the same laws should
apply to all persons or that every law must have universal application. This is
because all persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same
positions. Thus, the State can treat different persons in differently if
circumstances justify such treatment. Further, the identical treatment in unequal
circumstances would amount to inequality.
Thus, there is a necessity of the “reasonable classification” for the society to
progress. The Supreme Court has maintained that Article 14 permits reasonable
classification of persons, objects, transactions by the State for the purpose of
achieving specific ends that help in the development of the society. However,
Article 14 forbids “class legislation”. Class legislation makes an improper
discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons.
The Test of Reasonable Classification says that the classification must be based
upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
from others that are left out of the group. This differentia must have a rational
relation to the object of classification. There should be a relation between the
differentiations to the object of the classification. If there are no such relations,
the reasonable classification would fail. For example, denial of grant to a private
college teaching law while giving grant to other private colleges teaching other
subjects is not permissible. However, reduction of age from 58 years to 55 years
is permissible.
In the case of Sanaboina Satyanarayana vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,
prisoners guilty 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 reasonable classification to achieve some objective.

In the case of D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union of India, The Government issued
an office memorandum announcing a liberalized pension scheme 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 division of pensioners 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 retirement could
have a traumatic effect on the pensioner. Such a classification held to be
arbitrary and unprincipled as there was no acceptable or persuasive reason in its
favour. The said classification had no rational nexus with the object sought to
achieved.