Case laws Concerned articles

University of madras v. shanta bai 1954 Article 12

madrasHC
Rajasthan electricity board v. mohanlal and ors Article12
1967 SC
RD Shetty v. international airport authority 1979 Article 12
SC
keshavan madhawan menon vs. State of bombay prospective nature of
1951 SC article 13(1) and not
retrospective
Doctrine of eclipse
Case- Bikaji Narain v. the state of MP 1955 SC - 13(1)
Case- Saghir Ahmed v. state of UP 1954 SC- 13(2)no
Case- state of Gujarat and ors v. Shri Ambika 13(2)yes
mills ltd 1974 SC
Doctrine of severability- 13
Case - R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla(RMDC) v. the intention of the
union of india 1957 SC Legislature not merely
from the literal meaning
of the words
Case- State of Bombay v. F N Balsara 1951 SC Since the inconsistent part
of the subjected law could
be separated from the
rest, only that inconsistent
part was held void.
Case- Romesh Thapper vs state of Madras 1950 language
SC
Proportionality principle
Case- Anuradha basin vs. Union of India 2020 SC the 5 point rule:-
Case- KS Puttuswamy vs. Union of India 2017 SC legitimate state aim
Fundamental rights -part 3

Article 12- definition of state

 Only for this part
 Unless the context otherwise requires
 The state includes-
1. The centre government and the parliament.- the government is not a
permanent body, it is the majority party but the parliament is which includes the
rajya sabha, lok sabha and the president.
2. The state government and the legislature of each of the states.-
3. All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of
government of India(central)

There could be two understandings of other authorities, through 2 modes- 1. by

saying that all the other authorities are state; 2. by setting criteria for what could be
considered as state.
Case- University of madras vs. Shanta Bai1 1954
The case basically discusses whether a university can be considered as a part of
government or not, which is described under article 12 of the Indian constitution.
Facts- the university of madras issued an instruction to the affiliated colleges +
female students only on permission of the university syndicate.
Shata bai applied but her application was rejected on the basis on these instructions,
so she filed a writ of mandamus against the instructions of the university of madras.
Issue- does the university of madras fall into the category of state, if yes then the
relief would be granted.
Decision- the court held that the term other authority in article 12 of the Indian
constitution should be “Ejusdem Generis” which basically stands for “of the same
kind” with govt. And legislature.
So, court basically meant that the first three terms coming before the local
authorities in article 12 must be governmental and sovereign in nature,hence
universities cannot be held as state.
University cannot be held as state.

Case- rajasthan electricity board v. mohanlal and ors. 1967 SC

Mohanlal had some issues regarding his employment,. HC also ruled in his favor btw.
In the case of Rajasthan electricity board v. mohanlal, the supreme court Admits that
the term other authorities as mentioned in article 12 is quite broad. But the court
adds that what is the need to limit the definition given under article 12 of the Indian
constitution regarding the other authorities but it has to be a sovereign body like the
government, parliament, etc. and based on what assumptions are you making those
limitations, it was with regards to the previous judgment of Santa bai. The broad
reasoning of Supreme Court in this case was that we are not supposed to assume on
our own as to what could be included in the definition of the states under article 12.
That will depend upon the subjective case and the court will decide on the basis of
article 12 and what article 12 does not permit to be under the definition of the state.
1
1954 Madras HC
This is how the Supreme Court nullifies the argument of Rajasthan electricity board
being a commercial body, the article 12 does not bar a commercial body from
coming under the definition of the state.
In this decision, Supreme Court first of all, declared or decided that the electricity
board of Rajasthan comes under the definition of state and there on the court has
given reasoning behind such decision, the Supreme Court said that Rajasthan
electricity board has been formulated by a government act,and it even has the
authority to punish on criminal lines.
But it has to be taken into account that this was a sharp attempt from Supreme
Court side because this case does not provide conditions on what would be
considered as “other authorities”, it simply says that whenever the question of such
kind comes before our court it is upon the court to decide based on the scenarios of
the respective case. And the court are supposed to base their analysis upon the
article 12.

Case- RD Shetty v. international airport authority 1979 SC

Facts- in this case the international airport authority of Bombay issued a notice on 3 rd
January 1977 for inviting tenders for putting up a restaurant at the airport. But only
one notice was chosen due to its due complaince with the requirement with the
terms. The others moved to the court.
Issue- whether the airport authority of Bombay comes under the definition of state
under article 12?
Decision- the court gives 5 factor criteria -
1. Financial assistance given by the state- then its magnitude.
2. Any other form of assistance, whether of the usual kind or of the extraordinary
kind.(special rights or governmental land given, etc).
3. Control of management and policies of corporation by the state- then the nature
and the extend
4. State conferred or state protected monopoly status.
5. Functions carried out by the public corporation, - can they be called public
functions or functions closely related to governmental functions.

The above would be the criteria available for the court every time it has to decide
the matter regarding whether an authority in question falls under the definition of
the state or not.

Article 13 - laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the

fundamental rights.
(1)
 All laws in force
 In the territory of India
 Immediately before the commencement of the indian constitution
 In so far as
 They are inconsistent
 With the provisions of this part
 Shall
 To the extent of such inconsistency
 Be void

(2)
 The state
 Shall not
 Make any law
 Which
1. Takes away or
2. Abridges
 The rights conferred by this part and
 Any law made in contravention of this clause
 Shall
 To the extend of the contravention
 Be void

(3)
a) Law includes any-
1. Ordinance
2. order
3. Bye-laws
4. Rule
5. Regulation
6. Notification
7. Custom/Usages
 In the territory of India
 Having Force of law- which is an obligation, non-following which you will be said
to be violating the law or committing something illegal.

b) Laws in force includes-

 Laws passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority
 In the territory of India
 Before the commencement of this constitution and not previously repealed.
 Notwithstanding that
 Any such law or any part thereof
 May not be then in operation
 Either at all or in particular areas

Case- keshavan madhawan menon vs. State of bombay 1951 SC

prospective nature of article 13(1) and not retrospective
Facts- The appellant is the secretary of People’s publishing house ltd., a registered
company under the companies act.
 In september 1949, a pamphlet was published under the title ‘Railway
Majdooron ke Khilaaf nayi shajish’ in Bombay.
 It was contended that the appellant has committed an offence under the indian
press (emergency power) act, 1931.
 during the pendency of the case proceedings, the constitution was enacted and
came into force on 1950, jan. 26.
 The petitioner filed a written statement that s. 2(6) of the indian press act,1931
and section 15 and 18 thereof were ultravires.
 Void in the view of article 19(1)(a) and article 13.
Issue-
 whether section 15(1) and 18(1) of indian press (emergency powers) act, 1931
were inconsistent with article 19(1)(a) read with 19(2)?
 Will article 13 apply to such a situation where proceedings were initiated before
the adoption of indian constitution?
Analysis-
 Article 13(1) of the Indian constitution doesn't completely nullify the old laws
(doesn't declare them void-ab-initio) but only those parts or whole of such laws
would be void which are unconstitutional.
 A simple, straightforward thing was said , it is that article 13 understands and
acknowledges that a certain law was prevalent before the commencement of
the part 3 of Indian constitution, therefore the proceedings initiated by such a
law would still continue, although, of course, the law would be deemed void
once the part 3 comes into effect. Thus, the old inconsistent laws are void with
respect to their future application only and not their past
application(prospective and not retrospective).
 For instance - the rights under rights under article 19 are only guaranteed to the
citizens of india, so suppose if a person just lives in india but isn’t the citizen of
india, then the old law will work on him still given that he had committed an act
which was an offence as per the old laws.
Decision- the prosecution justified

Doctrine of eclipse
Case- Bikaji Narain v. the state of MP 1955 SC - 13(1)
Facts-
 Each of the petitioners has been carrying on business as a stage carrier operator
for a considerable number of years under permits granted under section 58 of
the motor vehicles act 1939
 Very far-reaching amendments were introduced by motor vehicles amendment
act 1947 into the motor vehicles act 1939.
 Extensive powers were conferred on the provincial government and latter were
authorised, in exercise of those powers, not only to regulate or control the fares
or freights but also to take up the entire motor transport business in the
province and run it in competition with and even to the exclusion of all transport
operators. - meaning that it could take over the whole business and not let
anyone else do it
 Then came the Indian constitution on the 26th January 1950.
 The right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business is conferred by article 19 (1)(g)
 Article 19(6) provides for certain restrictions- this gives the power to the state to
impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by the said
sub clause.
 The new provisions under which the government was excluding all the others
from the business in that particular section, does it come under the reasonable
restrictions. No it doesn't seem to be a reasonable restriction, its more of a
prohibition.
 Prima facie therefore, it was infraction of article 19(g) and therefore would be
void under 13(1)
Amendment in 19(6)- now the state can completely prohibit as well.
Argument of state- the act which became unconstitutional on 26th January 1950=
void; now after the amendments to 19(6), they have become applicable again.
The opposing claim- the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that this is bizarre,
and that once a law is declared void, due to inconsistency, it is finished/dead and
therefore there is nothing that would cause its applicability again just because there
has been some change in part three and there is no inconsistency anymore.
Decision-
 the true position of an impugned law is that it becomes as though it was eclipsed
for the time being by the fundamental rights.
 The effect of the 1st amendment,1955 of the Indian constitution was therefore
to remove the shadow and to make the impugned law free from all its blemishes
and infirmity.
 Because such laws are not dead for all purposes. They existed for the purposes
of pre-constitutional liabilities, operative for non- citizens too. But it became
dormant for citizens.

Case- Saghir Ahmed v. state of UP 1954 SC- 13(2)

Facts-
 The appellants have been carrying out the business of plying motor vehicles, as,
stage carriages on hire, on the Bulandshahar Delhi route from a number of
years.
 The UP Government conceived the idea of running their own buses on the public
through fares, they first started running buses only as competition with the
private operators, but later on they decided to exclude private bus owners from
the field and establish a complete state Monopoly in respect to Road Transport
businesses.
 The transport authorities, in furtherance of this state policy , begun cancelling
the permits already issued to private operators and refusing permits to people
who would otherwise have been entitled to them
Allahabad High Court- all judges conquered in holding the nationalisation of an
industry was not possible by a mere executive order without appropriate legislation
and such legislation would probably have to be justified under article 19 clause 6 of
the constitution.
Reaction of government- in view of the pronouncement of law, the state
government, which wanted to have the exclusive right to operate road transport
services within its territory, sort the assistance of the Legislature and the up road
transport act (Act II of 1951) was passed and became law on and from 10th of
February 1951.
issue-
It is an infraction of article 19(1)(g) provided that it is not covered by 19 clause 6 as
reasonable restriction
decision-
 The restrictions introduced in Article 19 clause 6 were introduced somewhere in
july of the same year which is 1951 but these law regarding the taking over of
the buses business by the government of the state with somewhere passed in
February, thus the amendment to the restrictions was not present when the
impugned act was passed.
 the government claimed that because of the new amendment now their law is
very well justified and the state government can bring about prohibition as well,
thus, the court should rule in the favor of the state.
 the problem with this act was that this act was passed after the application or
commencement of the Indian Constitution thus falling under the category of
13(2) but it was passed before the amendments made to article 19(6).
 there are two distinct ways in which we can infer this-
1. The contention presented by the government that accepts the unconstitutional
nature of the act brought by them which later on became constitutional by the
amendment to 19(6).
2. Supreme Court says that in this case this cannot be contended that the law made
originally was void and now after the amendment to 19(6) it is valid. Since a law
made after the commencement of the Indian Constitution that is after 26th January
1950, as per article 13 clause 2 cannot be inconsistent with the Indian Constitution
and if it is so, that is, if a law made after the constitution has come into force which is
unconstitutional, such a law or that part of that law is void ab initio. And a law that is
void ab initio is a law whose status was never recognised, such a law cannot be held
valid now just because due to certain changes it no longer stands inconsistent with
the part 3.
The laws aren't valid because the doctrine of eclipse only applies to the laws that
were once valid.
In post constitutional laws the doctrine of eclipse doesn't apply.

Case- state of Gujarat and ors v. Shri Ambika mills ltd 1974 SC
Facts-
 In 1953 state of Bombay in acted act for the purpose of welfare of employees
for the formation of labour welfare fund.
 Shri Ambika mills a company registered under Companies Act filed the petition
for high court to declare section 3, 6a and 7 of Bombay labour welfare fund act
1953 to be unconstitutional.
issue- whether the act violates the fundamental rights of citizens employers and
employees under article 19 which is right to property and their four the provisions
void under article 13 clause to of the Indian Constitution?
Decision-
 Supreme Court said that the article 13 clause 1 and 13 clause 2 differentiate
between on the basis of post-constitutional and pre-constitutional making but it
 is needed to highlight the distinction between as to whom they are applicable
on the citizens and the non citizens.

 there are two questions that are to be asked whenever it comes to judge that a
law is void due to 13(2) or not:-
1. Is the law impugned applicable on both citizens and non citizens? - extend of law
2. The fundamental right that the impugned law violets, is it available for citizens or
non citizens as well? (19 only for citizens)- extend of the fundamental right
 Now if a law was made to be applicable on both citizens and non citizens but the
fundamental right that it violates or is inconsistent with are only available to the
citizens, this situation clearly states that the law in question is still applicable to
the non citizens.

 a law can be ‘still-born’ so far as the persons, entities, or denominations whose

fundamental rights are taken away or abridged, but there is no reason why the
laws should be void or still-born as against those who have no fundamental right
in the first place.

The doctrine of eclipse is applicable for the post constitutional laws as well.

Doctrine of severability
In this Doctrine it is not the whole act which is held invalid for being inconsistent
with the part 3 of the Indian constitution which is given to citizens of India. It is only
those parts which are inconsistent, which to the extent of inconsistency are held
void. Now this kind of separation is possible in the acts wherein the part or parts
which are inconsistent with the fundamental rights could be separated from the rest,
that is the scenario in which inconsistent part is not Central to the whole act
otherwise if they are inextricably mixed then the whole act is deemed void.

Case - R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla(RMDC) v. the union of india 1957 SC

Facts-
 The petitioners who were promoting and conducting prize competitions in the
different states of India challenged the constitutionality of Section 4 and Section
5 of price competitions at 1955
 Argument of petitioner- Their contention was that 'price competition' as defined
in section 2(d) of the act included not only the competitions that were of
gambling nature, but also those in which success depends to a substantial
degree on skill. The sections and the rules violated their fundamental rights to
carry on business(19-1-g) and were unsupportable under article 19 clause 6 of
the constitution.
 Arguments of the union- on behalf of the Union of India this was controverted
and it was contended that the definition properly search competitions as being
of gambling nature and even if that was not so the impugned provisions being
sever-able were still applicable to the gambling competitions.
Issue - Was the act void in toto or only to the extent of repugnancy?
Decision-
 In interpreting an enactment, the court should ascertain the intention of the
Legislature not merely from the literal meaning of the words used, but also from
such matters as the history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it
seeks to suppress.
 In determining whether the valid parts of the statute are separable from the
invalid parts thereof, it is the intention of the Legislature that is determining
factor.||The test to be applied is whether the legislature would have enacted the
valid part if it had known the rest of the statute was invalid.||
 Besides, the typical doctrine trick would be applied.
 Since here the government itself was accepting their intention was to suppress
the mischief of the gambling competition and not otherwise then therefore the
parts that are inconsistent with the constitution’s part 3 would be held void.

Case- State of Bombay v. F N Balsara 1951 SC

facts -
 The constitutional validity of the Bombay prohibition act 1949 in so far as it
restricted the possession and sale of foreign liquor was impugned on the ground
that it was an encroachment on the fundamental right guaranteed by article
19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India "to acquire, Hold and dispose of property"
 Arguments- the restrictions imposed by section 12 and section 13 of the act on
the possession sale use and consumption of liquor are not reasonable
restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19(1)(f) " to acquire
Hold and dispose of property " so far as medicinal and toilet preparations
containing alcohol are concerned.
Issue- whether the Bombay prohibition act is void in totality or to the extend of its
repugnance?
Decision- The problem in the questioned law was that one statement with said that
anything made with liquor also is not to be possessed... thus, the dilemma that
whether or not the inconsistent part can be separated from the rest was sorted.
Since the inconsistent part of the subjected law could be separated from the rest,
only that inconsistent part was held void.

Case- Romesh Thapper vs state of Madras 1950 SC

Facts-
 the petitioner is the printer, publisher and editor of the weekly general the cross
roads which is printed and published in Bombay.
 The govt of Madras passed an order under section 9-1A of the Madras
maintenance public order act on 1st March 1955, they banned this magazine.
 The petitioner claims that the said order contravenes the fundamental rights 19
1 a. on this ground he contended that this power of the government to impose
complete ban on a magazine contravenes the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression, thus should be held void.
Issue- whether to declare the whole act or only its part void?
Decision-
 When through a law the govt is given the power to restrict a certain
fundamental right …this is very valid due to the clause of art. 19(2)
 But if the language used is such that it covers the scope beyond the clauses of
imposing just reasonable restrictions, then it goes inconsistent with the freedom
of speech.
 The court says that if there is even a little possibility that the broad language
used in the act could be used to impose such restrictions which are not covered
under 19(2) grounds, then such act/law must be held wholly unconstitutional
and void. Section 9 (1-A) of the act concerned was therefore held
unconstitutional and void.

Proportionality principle
Meaning- the principle of proportionality says that every law in a certain way does
regulate the liberty and rights of people to a certain extent. This principle envisages
that the law making body is ought to maintain the balance between the purpose/
objective of the law that they are making and the rights and liberties of the people
that would be taken away or affected. Because, of course, every law in one or the
other way is going to affect the liberties of the people, but this regulation or
restriction ought to extent till its proportional and must not be excessive. Thus, a law
is supposed to put as many restrictions on the liberty of the people as necessary.
This is the principle that guides the law-making authorities during the making of the
law.

Case- Anuradha basin vs. Union of India 2020 SC

facts-
 On 5th August 2019, the constitutional order 272 was issued by the president,
applying all provisions of the constitution of India to the state of Jammu and
Kashmir.
 In the light of the prevailing circumstances on the same day, the district
magistrates, apprehending breach of peace and tranquility, imposed restrictions
on the movement and the public gathering by virtue of the powers vested under
section 144 of CrPc.
 Two people- ms. Anuradha bhasin and mr. Gulaam nabi azad approached the
supreme court of india under article 32 for quashing the gathering orders
because the authorities have takeen away the liberties of the people of J&k
since they have gone as far as suspending and shutting down all modes of
communication including internet, mobile and fixed line telecommunication
services. Thus, violating the fundamental rights of the people living therein.
 Arguments of petitioners- the proportionality of the measures taken must be
determined while looking at the restrictions being imposed at the state. They
said it is not only the physical and legal restrictions that are to be looked at but
also the fear that these sorts of restrictions engender in the minds of the
population.
Analysis- the 5 point rule:-
1. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed.
2. The underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed.
3. The extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby.
4. The disproportion of the imposition
5. The prevailing conditions at the time. (practicality)
~ This should all enter into the judicial verdict.

Decision- We direct the respondent state/ competent authorities to review all orders
suspending internet services forthwith. Orders not in accordance with the
proportionality principle, must be revoked.

Case- KS Puttuswamy vs. Union of India 2017 SC

Facts-
 in the writ petition the Aadhar scheme has primarily been challenge on the
ground that it violets fundamental rights of innumerable citizens of India
namely, right to privacy falling under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
 Arguments of the petitioner- the petitioner says that as a citizen of Democratic
Nation we have right to identify ourselves through any means there is available
to us like ration card pan card etc or voter ID card as well. In this condition is the
government brings about this rule that we have to compulsorily use a certain
card or means in order to establish are identity then it's clear violation of article
14, article 19 and article 21.
 Roughly, because it is like obtaining data from the citizens forcefully, because a
certain thing is made compulsory, but how do we know it is necessary.
Analysis-
 right to privacy cannot be impinged without a just, fair and reasonable law: It
has to fulfill the test of proportionality that is i) existence of a law; ii) must serve
a legitimate state aim; iii) proportionality
 So we just have to know that whether the limitations put on constitutional rights
is for the purpose of reasonable and necessary aim and it has been decided so
after weighing up all the ways possible and ultimately and assessment based on
proportionality that is balancing of different interest
Decision- the provisions of Aadhar act required in demographic and biometric
information from the resident aadhar number pass proportionality test, hence
cannot be said to be and constitutional.

Article 14 - Equality Before Law

 The state shall not deny to any person- # the term is person and not citizen, so
available to all!
1. Equality before law or
2. Equal protection of laws
 Within the territory of India.

Case- Chiranjit Lal Chawdhari v. Union of India 1951 SC

Facts :-
 Governor general+ Sholapur spinning and weaving Company Act for Solapur
spinning and weaving Company Limited+ mismanagement+ company producing
essential commodities does in the control of the government(d/s)
 The management was removed and the government appointed their own
managers to control the management of the company.
 The argument of the managers- the law is only for their company but of course
other companies must also be having miss management as well. thus, due to
difference of treatment- violation of article 14

Can a law be made for specific company?

 The court specified that the law can be made for one person or the whole
country as well.
 The only thing that matters is that the person/ authority which made the law
was capable.
Issue:- does this violet Article 14?
Decision:-
 The language of article 14 is not supposed to be taken literally. It is there for the
guidelines and not for boundation for the government.
 Thus, it is not to be seen whether different treatment is given to a particular
company or an entity, but whether the basis of treating differently is reasonable
or not.
Reasonable classification
The basis on which the two are treated differently must have a reasonable
Foundation.

Case:- state of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952SC

Facts:-
 The West Bengal special courts act- to provides speedy trial for certain offences.
 Section 3 and Section 5 of the act- section 3 gives power to the state
government to formulate special courts through official gazatte notification in
certain cases.
 Section 5 states that codes in section 3 would deal with those cases which the
state government may deduct by General written order on that discretion of the
state government
 Different procedure- the special quotes under it would follow a different
procedure than CrPC and CPC.
 Anwar Ali says that his equality right was violated since he was right differently
than convicts.

Decision:-
 Reasonable differentia has to be there
 In this case/ law there has not been any reason/ basis for judging that different
treatment.
 While it is here dependent or based on state governments discretion
 The rule of intelligible differentia-
i) such classification is based on reasonable or intelligible differentia - treating one
person differently from other
ii) this differentiation which is reasonable has to be in relation with the object of law-
the reasonable Nexus.
 thus, differentiation+ intelligible differentia+ in relation with the object of law;
or else void as per 13 clause 2.

Case:- RK Garg vs Union of India 1981 Supreme Court

Facts:-
 12th January 1981- the parliament wasn't in session. The president passed and
ordnance.
 Later when the parliament came into the session the special bearer
bonds(immunities and exceptions) act, 1981 was passed. based on the
ordinance.
Issue:- does it violet Article 14?
Provisions for issue-
 Section 3 clause 1 of the act states that people will black money can buy these
government special bearer bonds with their black money.
 Also the government stated that they will make sure to not conduct any enquiry
about it and people won't be subjected to tax for that amount.
 Purpose of the Act was to convert the black money into white money that is
after the government really kneels down.
Analysis:-
 The differentiation between people with black money and people with white
money.
 The object and reason of differentiation is also established.
The question- the reasonable less of the said differentia?
 Arguments of the petitioner- differentiation cannot be intelligible because the
discrimination is in favour of the dishonest people and it is against the on his
population, so how can that be morally intelligible?
Decision:-
 The differentia is intelligible or not is not based upon what the society things
about it or whether it is moral or not.
 The only basis to judge whether the differentiation is intelligible or reasonable or
not is only based on if it is achieving the object it was made for.
 Thus, it is reasonable or is presumed to be reasonable if there is clear relation to
the objective of law.
Why presume the intelligibility?
 Because how else would be determine it if not through making sure the
differentia relates to the objective of the act. Since if we base it on public
opinion or just opinion of the deciding people that judges those too would be
subjective. Example- if we take up the demonetization or farmers bill then some
people would think that it was a nice attempt by others would simply say that it
was useless.
 the court said that we cannot put our opinions on/against the laws made by the
parliament/ legislature unless some credible evidence is brought up.
Case:- EP Royappa versus state of Tamilnadu 1974 SC
Facts:-
 Petitioner is an ias of TN cadre. In November 1969, chief secretary to state, he
was made.
 He was transferred quite a few times - at first he was made deputy chairman of
the state planning commission, and then he was made the officer on special
duty.
 He is filing the writ petition under 32.
 He is saying that the secretary to the state government is a much higher post
than being a deputy chairman to the state planning commission or being an
officer on special duty.
 He claims that the state is deliberately taking these steps because they dislike
him.
 This as per him was violating his articles 14 and 16.
Abuse of administration discretion - the court accepts the importance of
administrative discretion in the hands of the government because laws cannot be
made for the governance of everything, some situations are to be left for the
appropriate govt. To deal with, when needed.
But this discretion shall not be misused by the said government.

Arbitariness verses reasonableness(-for discretion)

 Here it is very difficult to adjudicate, how to judge Whether the differentia is
reasonable or not since how would you really find the objective of the order
given by the government and then we will have to established the Nexus which
is in itself quite difficult.
New method was devised for the same
 The courts States that the concept of equality is a dynamic concept and cannot
be 'cabined Cribbed and confined' within the traditional and doctrinaire limits.
 The court did used that allow that is arbitrary in nature will for sure violate the
article 14 of Indian Constitution.
 The codes for the state that equality and arbitrariness cannot live with each
other.
 The both are antithetical of each other.
 Therefore, wherever it is difficult to apply the previous rule of establishing
Nexus, we will work on the simple formula of judging whether a certain law is
arbitrary or not. if it is arbitrary then we will know that it violates Article 14.
Now what would be arbitrary?
if an order or a law has no reasonable reason behind its making or reasonable basis
for its making then its arbitrary in nature.
Decision- the petition was dismissed.

Ar