Test of Reasonable Classification and Doctrine of Arbitrariness

Vijaya Gupta | School of Law, Bennett University | 8th September 2020

“Equality is one of the magnificent corner-stones of Indian democracy”[1]

The Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to equality under Article 14.  Article 14 of the Constitution of India,  “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.” The right to equality is a basic feature of the Constitution. It means that neither any constitutional amendments nor Parliament or State legislature can transgress the fundamental right. If there is a violation of the right to equality then it will be considered a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.[2] Article 14 provides two principles: Equality before the law and equal protection of the law. It has incorporated the concept of equality before law from the English law and the equal protection of the law from the clause of the 14^th Amendment of the U.S Constitution.

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

Equality before the law is a concept from English law which is also known as Rule of Law propounded by Prof. Dicey. It is a negative concept which states that the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the like should be treated alike.[3] It ensures that all people are treated equally in ordinary law and this means that no person, whatever his rank or condition be, is above the law. It implies the absence of any privilege in favour of any individual and equal subjection of all the classes of ordinary law. There is no absolute equality in this concept and there are some exceptions for the same such as foreign diplomats are immune from the jurisdiction of courts, Presidents, and other Governors of the State. 

RULE OF LAW

It is a concept that was given by Prof Dicey in England. It guarantees equality before the law. It means that irrespective of the rank, the condition of a person would be subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts as no man is above law. It is a rule which does not allow any discrimination or do the harsh treatment on the people. Prof. Dicey has given three meanings of the Rule of Law:

1. The supremacy of the law or the absence of arbitrary power
2. Equality before law
3. Absence of individual liberty

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS

Equal protection of the law is a concept of the 14^th Amendment of the American Constitution. It is a positive concept and ensures that all the people should be treated equally in both privileges and circumstances. It implies that among equals the law should be equal and equally administered.[4] The guarantee of equal protection applies against substantive as well as procedural laws.[5] This concept is unrestricted to the natural person but it also includes juristic persons such as corporations are benefited under this concept. Under this concept, equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between the people.

TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

Society has a different class of people and nature also differs in every society. Hence, the varying needs of the classes of people require different treatments. Therefore, many laws must be applied based on reasonable classification to maintain equality without any discrimination. It is seen that under Article 14 classification is based on reasonable classification and prohibits class legislation. Under this concept, the principle of equality means that the same law will not apply to everyone but it should apply to a class of people. A legislature is entitled to make a reasonable classification for purpose of legislation and treat all in one class on an equal footing. There should be equality of treatment under equal circumstances.

This test was used by the Supreme Court from the very beginning to test the constitutionality of legislation and State actions impugned based on violating Article 14. There are two tests of classification which was stated in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar: To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled:

The differentia which is of the basis of classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them.[6] The test must be reasonable and not be arbitrary and irrational. The classification is based on geographical, time, nature of trade, or occupation. There must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. These classic tests of permissible classification were remarked as “they now sound platitudinous” in 1960.[7]

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 indifferently 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 society to progress. The Supreme Court has maintained that Article 14 permits the 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 improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons.

DOCTRINE OF ARBITARINESS: NEW DOCTRINE

As stated above there were many cases in which the reasonable classification test was used to test whether the legislation is violating Article 14. But in the case of E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the traditional concept of equality i.e. reasonable classification was challenged in the Supreme Court and a new concept was laid down in the judgment. Bhagwati J. delivered the judgment on behalf of himself, Chandrachud and Krishna Iyer J.J introduced a new concept of equality. It was stated that Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined, and confined with traditional doctrinaire limits.

Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn, enemies. It is implicit in that it is unequal both according to political, logic, and Constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.[8] The same judgment was used in another landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Also, in the case of R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority, Bhagwati J. reiterated the same principle stating that Article 14 at strikes arbitrariness because any arbitrary actions must necessarily involve negation of equality.

The doctrine of classification which is involved by the Court is not a paraphrase of Article 14 nor is the objective and end of that Article. It is legislative or executive action in question which is arbitrary and therefore constituting the denial of equity.[9] Therefore, where an act is arbitrary, it is considered as unequal and hence, a violation of Article 14. Article 14 strikes arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

After the new doctrine was announced in the E.P Royappa case, there were many lawyers, legal authors who criticized the new doctrine. H.M Seervai was strongly against the new doctrine and stated that a) the rejection of traditional doctrine is wrong, b) the ‘new doctrine’ hangs in the air c) whatever violates equality is not necessarily arbitrary although arbitrary actions ordinarily violate equality.[10] It was also seen in the case of Malpe Vishwanath v. the State of Maharashtra, all the precedents were used of the old doctrine but gave the judgment based on arbitrariness.[11]  

CONCLUSION

Article 14 guarantees the fundamental right to equality to every citizen in the country. It is one of the most important provisions of the Constitution. It provides equality to all the people irrespective of their caste, religion, race, sex, place of birth. There are two aspects under the Article i.e. equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Earlier, there was a test to test the constitutionality know as the reasonable classification test under which it was tested whether there is reasonable classification in the legislation. Later, a whole new test was announced to test whether it was violating Article 14 and it was known as the arbitrariness test. There was much criticism on this new doctrine and many legal pieces of literature did not agree with the new doctrine. Though the reasonable classification test was rejected today also in some cases it is being used.

---

[1] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.

[2] M.G Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260.

[3] Venkataramaiya’s Law Lexicon Volume 1- Human Rights

[4] MP JAIN, Constitutional Law

[5] Lachmandas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 239

[6] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

[7] In Re Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380, 423. 

[8] E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

[9] R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628

[10] H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4^th Ed, Vol 1.

[11] The doctrine of Arbitrariness And Legislative Action: A Misconceived Application, Deepika Sharma and Radhika Gupta, NSLR Vol 5 No. 2, 22-34.