Exception to Rule of Law Article 14

ExceptionToRuleOFLaw The above rule of comparison is however not an absolute rule and at that place atomic takings 18 follow exception to it v par of Law does not mean the ability of the private citizens are the same as the power of the public officials. hence a police officer has the power to arrest you while no other private person has this power. This is not violation of rule of constabulary. still rule of law does require that these powers should be clearly defined by law and that abuse of authority by public officers essential(prenominal) be punished by ordinary coquettes.The rule of law does not hold open certain class of persons being subject to finicky rules. Thus members of build up forces are controlled by military rules. Similarly medical practiti whizrs are controlled by medicalcouncilofIndia Certain members of constituenty are governed by special rules in their occupation i. e. lawyers, doctors, nurses, members of armed forces and police. such(prenomin al) classes of plurality are do by differentlyfromordinarycitizens. condition 14 Permits Classification But Prohibits Class Legislation The equal protection of laws guaranteed by word 14 does not mean that each(prenominal) laws must be general in character.It does not mean that the same laws should apply to wholly persons. It does not attainment or circumstances in the same position. The variable needs of different classes of persons often requires separate treatment. From the vary nature of society on that point should be different laws in different places and the legitimate controls the indemnity and enacts laws in the best interest of the safety and security of the state. In concomitant selfsame(a) treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. So a intelligent variety is sole(prenominal) not permitted but is requirement if society is to progress.Thus what Article 14 forbids is class-legislation but it does not forbid healthy sorting. The classifi cation however must not be arbitrary ,artificial or evasive but must be based on more(prenominal) or less real and substantial bearing a just and reasonable relation back to the endeavor want to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular fringe benefits upon a lass of persons arbitrarily selected from a tumescent number of persons in all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted that amidst whom and the persons not so favored no reasonable tubercle or substantial difference of opinion coffin nail be put together 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 classificatio n of persons, tendencys, and transactions by the legislative body for the purpose of achieving specific ends.But classification must not be arbitrary ,artificial or evasive. It must evermore rest upon more or less real upon whatsoever 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 achieve the following dickens conditions Firstly the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or thing that are sorted together from others left over(p) out of the group Secondly the differentia must have a apt 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 on that point must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act which makes the classification. It is only wh en there is no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory. Thus the legislature may fix the age at which persons shall be deemed competent to contract between themselves but no one will claim that competency.No contract can be made to seem upon the stature or colour of the hair. Such a classificationwillbearbitrary. The true signification and scope of Article 14 have been explained in a number of casesby the supreme court. In view of this the propositions laid down in Damia case still hold good governing a valid classificationandareasfollows. 1. A law may be original even though it relates to a single individual if on account of some special circumstances or reasons relevant to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class y itself 2. in that location is always premiss in favour of the constitutionality of a rule and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that th ere has been a clear transgression of constitutional principles. 3. The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases by masking 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 particular individual or class 4.It must be assumed that Legislature correctly understand and appreciates the need of its own people that its law are directed to problem made manifest by experience and that its discrimination are based on adequategrounds 5. In recite to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration maters of customary knowledge, matters of report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of the legislation. 6. Thus the legislation is forgo to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to those cases where the need is deemed to be th e clearest. . While good faith and knowledge of the existing 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 extent always that there must be some undisclosed and unknown 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 occupation or the like. 9. The classification made by the legislature need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required. Equality ahead 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 enoug h. 10. There can be discrimination both in the substantive as advantageously 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 commonsense than on legal subtitles. Cases D. S. Nakarav. UnionOfIndia The Government issued an office record announcing a liberalized support schema 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 write up off date to be discriminatory as violating Article 14. The devision 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 age in the matter of retiremnt could hav a traumatic effect on the pensioner. Such a classification held to be arbitrary and unprin cipled as there was no acceptable or persuasive reason in its favour. The utter classification had no rational nexus with the object sought to achieved.MadhuLimayev. Supdt. TiharJailDelhi There were Indian and Europian Prisoners. Both 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 produceulate a connive for bar of aversion against women.In prisons also prisoners were classify in to two category startle 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 resoanble classification to achieve some objective. TamilNa duElectricityBoardv. Veeraswamy The employee were governed by the contributory long 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 pecuniary 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 sanctimoniousness be treated alike as they do not start 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 t heir 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 likewise 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 ascend out of an infinite variety of human relations cannot but break down on some sort of selection or classification of persons upon whom the legislationistooperate.Its is closely 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 o n intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped 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 executive 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.