Judicial Activism In Expanding The Horizon Of Article 14

Abstract

Fundamental rights, or commonly known as Human rights, were inculcated in the Constitution of India with the objective of imposing a restraint upon the State to not encroach upon the freedom and liberty of the Individual. Due to the aforementioned objective Fundamental rights are considered as negative in nature.

Fundamental rights are enshrined under part III of the Indian constitution, and it was inserted to fulfil the objective stipulated under the preamble of India, which is an integral part of the Indian constitution.[1] The concept of fundamental rights is borrowed from the constitution of America and the Universal declaration of Human rights, 1948, commonly known as UDHR. Though, UDHR is not obligatory but, India was a signatory of it.

Since the enactment of the Indian constitution in 1950, fundamental rights had played a pivotal role in protecting the people from unreasonable and arbitrary State action. while giving the protection to the liberty and freedoms of the people of India Supreme court expanded the horizon of fundamental rights. The primary nature of fundamental rights was considered to be negative but due to the prerogative available before the judiciary of India some of the provisions were interpreted in such a way that the nature of the provision changed from negative to positive.[2]

Introduction

Since the Indian constitution came into existence, the scope of fundamental rights was continuously expanded, through different rules and interpretations formed by the judiciary. Earlier, it was believed that Fundamental rights are exhaustive in nature and cannot be comprehended further, but this incongruous prejudice about fundamental rights was changed.  

Equality before law which is enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian constitution is a part of the basic structure doctrine and Golden triangle[3], this shows how much importance and interpretation Article 14 was provided by the Judiciary. Now, the question that usually comes into everyone’s mind, does such pivotal Importance was given to Article 14 while the Indian constitution was drafted? No, Judiciary by various dictums expanded its horizon and interpreted it in such a way that it was provided such pivotal importance.

Article 14 states-

“The state shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”

Article 14 uses two expressions they are-

a)- Equality before law and,

b)- Equal protection of laws

These principles very meticulously interpreted by the judiciary, these expressions do not provide same treatment to everyone rather to provide equal treatment in those situations in which they are similar and different treatment in those aspects in which they are different. This classification is according to the law considered as reasonable classification. In only one aspect everyone is treated equally in every circumstance and that is the aspect of being a Human. So, the state is obliged to remove any shackle that treat human beings less than human being.

Test for valid classification under Article 14

To enforce Article 14 legislature is empowered to make laws that are prolific in nature. It is not necessary that every law made by the legislature have a universal characteristic, different classes of persons have different requisites, and the state is required to fulfil those requisites without discriminating anyone that is being subjected to same circumstance.

The legislature is empowered to classify, but the prerequisite of such classification is, the object should be lawful. Whether an object of a legislation is lawful or not should be decided by the judicial scrutiny. A legislative classification to be held as constitutional need to satisfy two conditions-

a)- The classification must be based upon Intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group.

b)- The differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved.

The apex court have been provided with the onus and responsibility of scrutinising such laws passed by the legislature that conflict with the principle of classification. The Supreme court, through several cases, devised various important principles that are used to interpret the classification made by the state is justiciable or not, these are-

1.     A law even made for a single individual will be held constitutional if the state will be able to justify the circumstances under which the individual is considered as a class himself. [4] 

2.     Any law made by the legislature is presumed to be constitutional, and if anyone attacks or repudiates the law must show that the law is violating the constitutional principles enshrined under the Indian constitution. This mean the person who attacks the law need to prove that the enacted law treats him differently from others who are subjected to same circumstance, without any valid classification. [5]

3.     The legislature has the onus to legislate such laws that are directed towards the solution of unequal discrimination prevailing in the society.

4.     To declare the law made by the legislature as constitutional, the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, history and every other fact that was considered while enacting the law.

5.     The overall effect of the legislation should be scrutinised, and exceptional cases may not be entertained. [7]

6.     There is no right to equality for illegal acts. Discrimination cannot be entertained on the ground that someone has gained an illegal benefit. [8]

These are some of the principles laid down by the Supreme court to check the validity of classification made under Article 14. These principles may be valid in the contemporary period, but as the law is dynamic, therefore they may become invalid in near future.

Judicial interpretation of the applicability of Article 14

It has now been elucidated that, the meaning and scope of Article 14 is very large. Judiciary in number of cases has interpreted and determined the applicability of Article 14. In one of the interpretations, the apex court held the principle of equal protection of laws as corollary of equality before law. Now, through various cases and interpretations the Apex court had widened the horizon of Article 14 and applied the self-made principles to interpret that whether the laws that are made to distinguish a certain class of people is valid or not these interpretations we will discuss below-

A)- Judicial scrutiny of laws made under Article 14 for a single person

If someone was told that the legislature has legislated a law that distinguishes a single person from other persons that are even subjected to the same condition, one would say that such law is prima facie unconstitutional and should be quashed. This is not the case, the legislature is empowered to enact such laws that even applies to a single individual, but the law should satisfy the principles laid down by the Apex court in several cases.

In the case of Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India[9], the petitioner approached the apex court to invalidate an ordinance passed by the legislature namely, Sholapur spinning and weaving Co. (Emergency provisions) Act, 1950 that replaced the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. which was active till 1949. The company was active before 1949 and working perfectly but, due to abysmal corruption, mismanagement, and neglect of the affairs of the company led to the closure of it, the company was responsible for producing an essential commodity and the closure led to a large-scale unemployment and effected the production of the commodity. The directors were held responsible for the mismanagement and the government through the act placed the management and administration of the company into the hands of government appointed directors and the old directors were dislodged. The shareholders were barred from appointing a new director and from winding up the company.

The petitioner contended that the act violates Article 14 as it arbitrarily subjects a single company to restrictions vis a vis other companies and its shareholders. The apex court quashed this contention and held that, a law can be held constitutional even if it distinguishes a single person from other person of the same characteristics, if it will be able to prove that the single individual itself can be treated as a class. The Sholapur company formed a class as the mismanagement of it led to various problems that affected a section of the community.

B)- Judicial scrutiny of cases where the classification was made without any difference

A legislation is always based upon a classification, but many a times laws were held unconstitutional where laws have been made violative of Article 14 because either the classification was made without any difference, or the basis of classification is totally irrelevant to the objective.

In Ram Dial v. State of Punjab, the petitioners, who were elected to the municipal committee in 1961, received a notification from the Governor of Punjab to vacate the position and were disqualified from election for a year. This notification was issued by invoking section 14 of Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911, which empowered the State Government to issue such notice without issuing a show-cause notice. The court held Section 14 of the act violative of Article 14 of the Indian constitution as there was no relevant basis of classification, as people under similar circumstances were not discriminated.

C)- Judicial scrutiny of Special courts and procedural inequality

The number of cases pending for the interpretation of Judiciary is more than one can expect, due to which judiciary take years to impart justice. The delay in providing justice violate the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. To impart justice rapidly and succinctly the executive is allowed to make special courts to mitigate a class of cases pending before judiciary.

Sometimes, the state or central executive form special courts to fulfil their personal propaganda due to which the constitutionality of the legislation challenged before the court.

In the case of state of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar(11), section 5(1) of the West Bengal special courts act, 1950, was impugned because it vested arbitrary power on the State Government to classify offences or classes of offences or classes of cases on its own discretion, the act did not devised any policy for the division of cases and the State Government was left with the arbitrary power of referring and classifying cases to the special court. The supreme court declared Section 5(1) violative of Article 14, as the act was devised with objective of “speedier trial of offences” but the rational of dividing cases that is “intelligible differentia” was absent, therefore, Supreme court invalidated section 5(1) as the object itself could not be considered as a basis for classification. Through this judgement the Supreme court expanded the horizon of Article 14 and declared, the object of an act alone cannot be made a basis for distinguishing a certain class of cases or offences.  

In the same year the Anwar Ali Sarkar case was again impugned in the case of Kathi Rawat v. State of Saurashtra(12), under this, the petitioner alleged that Section 11, of Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (3rd Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, which was germane to section 5(1) of the West Bengal special courts act, 1950, is violating Article 14 of the Indian constitution. Section 11 of the aforementioned act empowered the State Government to classify cases under categories, namely, offences, classes of offences, cases and classes of cases and formulate special courts to deal with such category of cases. The said act was instilled because the State Government filed an affidavit to the centre that, there is a need to formulate special courts to deal with the situation of public safety, maintenance of public order and the preservation of peace and tranquility in the state of Saurashtra. Since, the State was provided with sufficient guidance by the ordinance to set-up Special Courts, therefore the present case can be distinguished from the earlier one since it was clear that the state Government has sufficient ground to classify cases and offences. By the majority the impugned section 11 of the act was held not in violation of Article 14 of the Indian constitution.

D)- Judicial adjudication on the impugned basis of classification under Article 14

Whenever, there is a need of a certain section of society, to be provided with certain privileges, so that they will be in par with other sections of society, the executive has the role to play in it. The executive is empowered to make classification on any legal and reasonable basis. A classification can be made due to geographical or territorial reasons, or between a commercial and residential place if that is germane to the purpose of enactment. However, if the intelligible differentia is absent there, the law will be struck down as unconstitutional.

In the case of Purshottam Govind Halai v. B.M. Desai[13], the validity of Income tax act, 1922 was impugned. Section 46(2) of the said act authorised the collector of different states to resort upon different mechanisms, procedure, and penalties to collect the land revenue and arrears of tax. The petitioner contended that the act is in violation of Article 14 as it subjects different individuals of different states to different amounts of tax and the defaulters are not treated equally. The court held two principles to justify the actions of the act-

• Every state has the right to devise its own machinery for the recovery of tax according to the public demand.

• No person of one state can complain that the law of one state for the collection of land revenue and taxes is more stringent and rigorous than that of neighbouring state.

The reason behind enshrining such principles is clear that the people of one state do not share similar characteristics with people of another state, their needs and demands are different. Therefore, Supreme court upheld section 46(2) as constitutional. The same principle was upheld in the case of M.P. v. G.C. Mandawar[14], where the Supreme Court held that no rule can be struck down on the basis that the said law is different from law of another state.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Manohar Singhji[15], certain jagirdars of a part of the state was allowed to collect taxes while other jagirdars were deprived of such right. The court found no nexus between the differentiation that was made by the State Government. Therefore, the law was struck down by the Apex court. Supreme court in its various judgments upheld the classification based upon different categories such as;

• A classification based on nature of business is constitutional.

• A classification can be made upon the nature and position of persons.

• A classification can be made, where the state is treated differently from private persons.

• A classification can be made by considering the history of that area.

Negation of old principle

Earlier, we have seen that the Supreme court has devised certain principles and tests to determine, whether a legislative action is in violation of Article 14 or not. The test that was devised emphatically by the judiciary did not stand the test of time. As it was earlier stated in various judgements that Article 14 is dynamic and not exhaustive in nature, therefore no definitive principle or test can be made to limit the scope and ambit of it.

In early 1970s, the Supreme court enunciate a principle that if any impugned legislation will be able to satisfy the reasonable classification test, then it will not be declared in violation of Article 14. But, Justice Bhagwati in many judgements[16] emphatically gave a concurring opinion and propounded a new approach to Article 14 in the following words:

“Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to a rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14”.

Later, in many other judgements(17), justice Bhagwati emphasised upon the principle of unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Finally, in a unanimous opinion of 5 judge bench Justice Bhagwati stamped that the doctrine of Reasonable classification, which was made to check whether a statute made by the executive is in violation of Article 14 or not, is not exhaustive and Article 14 should strike at any arbitrary or unreasonable action taken by the state. The judiciary therefore by expanding the horizon of Article 14 devised a new principle that is, if any classification made does not satisfy the two conditions that are-

a)- Intelligible differentia and,

b)- Rational germane between the differentiation and the object that sought to be achieved.

Then the concerned legislation shall be considered as arbitrary and will be struck down. However, it is interesting to note that, in the cases where the test of arbitrariness was discussed and propounded, the judgement of such cases was completely based upon the reasonable classification test. Even though such test was propounded, the validity of the principle of arbitrariness to declare a legislative action violative of Article 14 is still being scrutinised and pending before judiciary.[18]

Even though the validity of the test was under question. Without referring to the pending matter, the court in some cases negated this principle. In Natural resource allocation, re, Special reference No.1 of 2012,[19] the court held “No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable”

There were also instances where the new test was applied, and many legislative actions were invalidated under it. In Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. V. Brojo Nath Ganguly,[20] Rule 9(i) of the Corporation Rules which provided that, the service of an employee can be terminated by providing a 3 months’ notice or 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice was impugned. The case was considered as in violation of the maxim of ‘audi alteram partem’ as there was no mechanism to hear the side of employee and it vested arbitrary power to the corporation. While holding the corporation “state” and dragging it under the meaning of Article 12, the court declared the corporate actions as state actions, and struck down rule 9(i) as being both unreasonable and arbitrary. It, therefore, violates Article 14 of the constitution.

In another case of Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana,[21] where a lease was granted to a person who made a higher offer through private negotiations with Chief Minister, then the actual highest bid made by the appellant in the public bidding was held both unreasonable and arbitrary. The court invalidated the offer and declared the action violative of Article 14.

In another landmark judgement of, common cause v. Union of India,[22] the Supreme court strike at the allotment of petrol pump by the petroleum ministry at their own discretion. The court invalidated such actions of allotment of petrol pump as being both unfair and arbitrary. In a similar case the court negated the allotment of land and houses by the government.[23]

The onus of proving that the state action is arbitrary or unreasonable is upon the person who alleges it, once it was made certain that the legislation is inconsistent with the principles laid down by the judiciary, it becomes the responsibility of the state to invalidate the allegations by, disclosing the materials and reasons that led to the enforcement of such legislation, and the action is reasonable.[24]

Conclusion

Through various cases, judgements, statutes, legislations etc. the application of Article 14 has enormously widened. The judiciary has been proactive in interpreting Article 14, so that every form of discrimination can be prohibited through these provisions. Interestingly, allegations of discrimination vis-a-vis others shall not be entertained unless the legislative actions are not alleged to be arbitrary or unreasonable(25). The principle that was laid down in 70s, to decide whether a state action is violative of Article 14 or not had gone through many interpretations and eventually the test of reasonable classification had to inculcate the principle of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. However, it is still pending before the court that what actions are unreasonable and arbitrary and what shall be the standard in classifying an action to be unreasonable or arbitrary. No one is certain of what the court will eventually decide but one thing is sure, that more tests will be begotten to invalidate actions which are not in par with the principles enshrined under Article 14.

 References:

1-    Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

2-     St. Stephen’s college v. Union of India, AIR 1956 SC 479, 484ff

3-     Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

4-     Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538

5-     Ramchand Jagdishchand v. Union of India, Air 1963 SC 563

6-     Supt and remembrancer of Legal affairs v. Girish Kumar Navalakha, (1975) 4 SCC 754

7-     Mohd. Usman v. State of A.P., (1971) 2 SCC 188

8-     Chandigarh Admn. V. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745.

9-     AIR 1951 SC 41.

10- AIR 1965 SC 1518.

11- AIR 1952 SC 75: 1952 SCR 284.

12- AIR 1952 SC 123: 1952 SCR 435.

13- AIR 1956 SC 20.

14- AIR 1954 SC 493.

15- AIR 1954 SC 297.

16- E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3.

17- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. Also see, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489. Also see, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722.

18- Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2005) 2 SCC 317.

19- AIR 2012 10 SCC 1.

20- (1986) 3 SCC 156.

21- (1985) 3 SCC 267

22- (1996) 6 SCC 530

23- Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558

24- State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1995) 5 SCC 730

25-  A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation, (1984) 3 SCC 316, 328