1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

CONSTITUTIONALLAW
TheOldandNewDoctrinesofEquality Emailthis SearchOnPage:
:ACriticalStudyofNexusTestsand Comments GO
DoctrineofNonArbitrariness PrintArticle
byV.K.Sircar*
EnterSearchWord:
Citeas:(1991)3SCC(Jour)1
GO
SearchArchives
SearchCaseLaw
Article14"combinestheEnglishdoctrineoftheruleoflaw
withequalprotectionofclauseofthe14thAmendment"
SearchBookstore
SearchAll
DasC.J.inBashesharNathv.CIT,(1959)Supp1SCR528,
551.

Article14mandatesthattheStateshallnotdenyequality
beforelawandequalprotectionoflawstoanypersonwithin
theterritoryofIndia.ByincorporatinginArticle14theBritish SubjectwiseListingofArticles
doctrineofruleoflawaspropoundedbyProf.Diceyandthe ChronologicalListingofArticles
"equalprotectionoflaw"clauseof14thAmendmentofthe ArticlesExclusivelyonthe
U.S.Constitution,theframersofourConstitutionhadintheir Internet
zealinfusedextravigourandvitalityintherighttoequality. MoreArticles...
Home However,Parliamenthasrepeatedlytriedtocurtailthescope
BrowseSubjectwise
NewReleases andvigourofArticle14inordertocarryoutthewelfare
programmes.1 Apartfromit,theSupremeCourthadsapped Hart'sConceptofLaw
someofthevigourofArticle14byshowing"fanatical andtheIndianConstitution

reverence"tothetheoryofclassificationorthenexustests". TheAmericanBar
Association
Finallyin1974theSupremeCourtevolvedthenewdoctrine ThePatents(Second
thatArticle14isaguaranteeagainstarbitrariness2 Thusthe Amendment)Bill,1999An
SupremeCourthasevolvedtwodifferentanddistinctdoctrines Analysis

fortacklingattackonStateactiononthegroundofviolationof EffectsofAdoption
SomeUnsolvedIssues
Article14.Anattemptisbeingmadeinthispapertoanalyse DrAmbedkarandArticle
objectivelythemeritsanddemeritsoftheoldandnew 356oftheConstitution
doctrines. DecisionoftheSupreme
CourtinS.R.Bommaiv.
UnionOfIndia:ACritique
ItisonlyunderstandablethatourSupremeCourtshouldhave
appliedthetheoryofclassification,evolvedbytheAmerican
SupremeCourtforgivingcontentandtruemeaningtorightto
equality.Accordingtothisdoctrine"equalprotectionoflaws"
prohibitsclasslegislationbutpermitsreasonableclassification
ofpersonsorthings.3 Byexpresslyincorporatinginthesecond
partofArticle14thelanguageofthe14thAmendmentofthe
U.S.Constitution,theConstituentAssemblyimpliedlyhad
approvedtheinterpretationofthatclausebytheU.S.Supreme
Court.Hence,fromtheverybeginningtheIndianSupreme
Courthashadnohesitationinapplyingthetheoryof
classificationwhiletestingtheConstitutionalviresof
legislationsandStateactionsimpugnedonthebasisoftheir
beingviolativeofArticle14.Theclassicnexustestwas
enunciatedbyS.R.Das,J.intheAnwarAliSarkarcase4 ,thus:

"Inordertopassthetestofpermissibleclassificationtwo
conditionsmustbefulfilledviz.(i)thattheclassificationmust
http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 1/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

befoundedonanintelligibledifferentiawhichdistinguishes
RegulationofDefamation
thosethataregroupedtogetherfromothersleftoutofthe overtheInternet:
group,and(ii)thatthedifferentiamusthavearationalrelation JurisdictionalIssues
totheobjectssoughttobeachievedbytheAct.Thedifferentia ThirdPartyInterventionin
CriminalLitigation
whichisthebasisoftheclassificationandtheobjectoftheAct
AppointmentofNon
aredistinctandwhatisnecessaryisthattheremustbenexus MemberofParliamentor
betweenthem." StateLegislatureasMinister
Scope
ChildrenSupreme
Onthebasisofthesetests,betterknownasnexustests, AssetoftheNation
innumerablecaseshavebeendecidedbytheSupremeCourt
andvariousStateHighCourts.SupremeCourthasfromtimeto
timetriedtosummarisetheprinciplesenunciatedbyitinits
previousdecisionsunderArticle14.5

Theseclassictestsofpermissibleclassificationhavebeen
repeatedsomanytimesthattheSupremeCourtin1960
remarkedthat"theynowsoundplatitudinous".6 Apartfrom
stalenessofrepetition,itwasfearedthatthefanaticalreverence
showntothesetestsmightultimatelyreplacethedoctrineof
equalityandrobArticle14ofits"gloriouscontent".7

Someacademicliteratureregardingtherighttoequalityalso
appearedpointingouttheshortcomingsofthenexustests.
However,onlytwoofsuchstudiesmaybenotedinthisbrief
paper.

K.K.Mathew,J.highlightedthenegativeconceptofthe
doctrineof"equalitybeforethelaw",astraditionally
understoodandposedthequestionwhetherthecommandof
Article14ismerelytobancreationofequalityortoeliminate
inequalities?Accordingtohim"Formalequalitybeforethe
lawhasbeenfoundtobeashaminmanyareas".8 Thus,legal
thinkinginthecountrywasslowlymovingtowardsgivinga
positivisticoractivisttwisttotherighttoequality.

Prof.P.K.TripathiinhisTelanglectureson"RighttoEquality"
attemptedamorecomprehensivestudyoftherighttoequality.
AftercarefulanalysisofseveraldecisionsoftheSupreme
Courtapplyingnexustestsheconcludedthatthesetestswere
inappropriateincertainfields.Hepointedoutthatthetheoryof
classificationhasthreeaspectswhichhechosetocall"'Why',
'What'and'Whom'elementsrespectively."Healsoobserved
that,thenexustestsnoticeonlytheobjectandcriterionof
classificationandtheirmutualrelationbutignorethe"what"
elementandtherelationshipofthiselementwiththeothertwo,
resultinginthe"what"elementbeingconfusedwiththeother
"why"or"whom"elements,speciallywhenthe"object"or
"why"elementisnotexpresslyandclearlyindicatedinthe
statuteitself.Hefurtherconcludedthatnexustestsarenot
suitableatallfortacklingcertainsituations.Theseare:(i)
wherethestatuteindicatesthepolicyorpurposetobefulfilled
andalsothespecialtreatmenttobegiventoselectedpersonsor
thingsbutleavesittotheexecutivetomakeactualselectionof
thepersonsorthingsinfulfillmentofthelegislativepolicy(ii)
to"oneperson"statutes(iii)wherelegislaturegivesbroad
indicationofthekindofcasestobesubjectedtodifferential
treatmentand(iv)tostatuteswhichleavetheexecutivefreeto
pickandchooseindividualstowardsthefulfillmentofstatutory
http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 2/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

policy.Inshortitmaybestatedthatnexustestswerefound
inadequatetomeetthesituationwhereverywideorunbridled
discretionwasgiventotheauthoritiestopickandchoose
personsforgivingdifferenttreatmentthroughindicating
clearlythelegislativepolicyforachievingotherobjectsof
legislationinthestatuteitself.Nodoubtinthisspherethe
SupremeCourthasnotshownconsistencyevenaccordingto
H.M.Seervai.9

Prof.Tripathiintheendexpressedhishopethat"theSupreme
Courtwillsoonerratherthanlaterfreeitselffromtheshackles
ofthisdogma".10

Asaresultoftheaforesaid,wellinformedcriticismofthe
nexustests,theSupremeCourtfreeditselffromtheshacklesof
thisdogma.However,atfirstinMaganlalChaganlalv.
MunicipalCorpn.,GreaterBombay11 ,theSupremeCourt
overruleditspreviousdecisioninNorthernIndiaCaterersLtd.
v.StateofPunjab12 withoutapplyingnexustests.Finallythe
SupremeCourtadoptedthepositivisticoractiviststanceinE.P.
Royappav.StateofTamilNadu.13 Bhagwati,J.stated:

"Equalityisadynamicconceptwithmanyaspectsandit
cannotbe'cribbed,cabinedandconfined'withinthetraditional
anddoctrinairelimits.Fromthepositivisticpointofview
equalityisantithetictoarbitrariness.Infactequalityand
arbitrarinessareswornenemies....Whereanactisarbitrary,it
isimplicitinitthatitisunequalbothaccordingtopolitical
logicandconstitutionallawandisthereforeviolativeofArticle
14...."

Onthebasisofthisnewactivisttheoryofequalityafew
decisions14 weremadebytheSupremeCourtandultimatelyit
wasunanimouslyapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinAjai
Hasiav.KhalidMujib.15 Afterreiteratingthatequalityisa
dynamicconceptwithmanyaspectswhichcouldnotbe
confinedtotraditionalanddoctrinairelimits,Bhagwati,J.had
inManekaGandhiproceededtoexaminethe'contentand
reach'ofthe'greatequalisingprinciple'enshrinedinArticle14.
Heobservedthat:

"Itisindeedthepillaronwhichrestssecurelythefoundationof
ourdemocraticrepublic.Andtherefore,itmustnotbesubject
toanarrow,pedanticorlexicographicapproach.Noattempt
shouldbemadetotruncateitsallembracingscopeand
meaning,for,#todosowouldbetoviolateitsactivistic
magnitude....Equalityisadynamicconceptwithmanyaspects
anddimensionsanditcannotbeimprisonedwithintraditional
anddoctrinairelimits....Article14strikesatarbitrarinessin
Stateactionandensuresfairnessandequalityoftreatment.The
principleofreasonableness,whichlegallyandphilosophically,
isanessentialelementofequalityornonarbitrarinesspervades
Article14likeabroodingomnipresence.''

ThiswasagainreiteratedbytheSupremeCourtinthe
InternationalAirportAuthoritycase.16

http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 3/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

Thusthenewdoctrineofequalitythat"Article14embodiesa
guaranteeagainstarbitrariness"hasbecomeestablished.
However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthenexustestshavebeen
abandonedbytheSupremeCourtaltogether.

However,thenewdoctrineofequalityhasitsowncritics.17
SeervaihastakenexceptiontoBhagwati,J.'sdescriptionofthe
classificationtheoryas"doctrinaire"becauseaccordingtohim
"thereisnothingunpracticalaboutadoctrinewhicheffectively
securesequalprotectionoflawtopersonsbydeclaringthelaw
basedonimpermissibleclassificationtobevoidwhileleaving
totheStateawidefieldformakinglawsbasedonpermissible
classification".Hedoesnotstopherebutgoesontochallenge
theveryvalidityofthenewdoctrineinthefollowingterms:
"Thenewdoctrinehangsinthatairbecauseitpropoundsa
theoryofequalitywithoutreferencetothetermsinwhich
Article14confersrightstoequality."Afterpointingoutthat
Article14hastwolimbs,heobservesthat:"Equalitybefore
law,broadlyspeaking,meansthatexceptinaverylimitedclass
ofcasesacourtadministeringjusticeisnotconcernedwiththe
statusorpositionofthepartiesappearingbeforeit.Thelawis
norespecterofpersons."Asregardsthesecondlimbhe
observesthat"theU.S.SupremeCourthadevolvedthe
doctrineofclassificationtoexplainandgiveacontenttoequal
protectionoflaws."18 Hehasfurtherstatedthatthenew
doctrinesuffersfrom"fallacyofundistributedmiddle".19
JagdishSwaroophasalsofound"itdifficulttoagree"withthe
observationsofBhagwati,J.intheAjayHasiacasethatitwas
forthefirsttimeinRoyappacasethattheSupremeCourtlaid
bareanewdimensiontoArticle14andthatitwasaguarantee
againstarbitrariness.Hehaspointedoutthat:"Fromthevery
beginningtheSupremeCourtheldthatwhileArticle14forbids
classlegislation,itdoesnotforbidreasonableclassification."If
anystatuteisfoundnottocomplywiththetwoimportant
requirementsofArticle14,itwillbestruckdownasvoidand
noactofthelegislaturecouldbetermed"arbitrary".Hefurther
pointsoutthat:"Anyorderpassedindependentofaruleor
withoutadequatedeterminingprinciplewouldbearbitrary.
Herethevaliddeterminingprincipleisvalidclassification.
Article14isnotreallyaguaranteeagainstarbitrariness...
classificationwouldbearbitraryifitdoesnotfollowandis
contrarytothenormslaiddownbytheSupremeCourtin
regardtoclassification."20 Thusinsubstancetheobjectionof
JagdishSwarooptothenewdoctrineisthatitfailstolaydown
any"determiningprincipleforfindingoutwhetherornota
particularstateactionisarbitrary".Insubstanceheagreeswith
H.M.Seervaithat"thenewdoctrinehangsintheair".

Itishumblysubmittedthat,byandlargetheolddoctrineof
classificationornexustestsismoresatisfactoryandmustbe
retainedbecause,onthebasisoftheolddoctrinechallengeto
StateactionasbeingviolativeofArticle14canbesuccessfully
tackledbythecourtsinalargemajorityofcases.Itisonlyin
thelimitedsphereofconfermentofunbridledortoowidea
discretiononexecutiveauthoritiestopickandchoosepersons
orthingsforgivingdifferenttreatmentthat,thedoctrineof
classificationhasnotyieldedsatisfactoryresultsandresultedin
inconsistencyinSupremeCourtdecisions.Thenewdoctrineof
http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 4/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

equality,therefore,canbeusefullyemployedinpluggingthis
loophole.Onthecontrary,ifthetheoryofclassificationis
replacedbythenewdoctrineofequalityviz.nonarbitrariness,
itwouldleadtohighlyunsatisfactoryresultsbecauseshornof
itsrhetoric21 thenewdoctrineisvagueanduncertain.Patanjali
Sastri,C.J.'swarningmaybeusefullyrecalledhere,that
"dangerouslywideandvaguelanguageofequalityclausetothe
concretefactsoflife,adoctrinaireapproachshouldbe
avoided22 ".Thechiefmeritofthenewdoctrineis,thatithas
freedtheSupremeCourtofthe"shacklesofthedogmaof
classification"inthelimitedsensethattheJudgesshouldnot
makesustainedeffortstofindsomebasisofclassification
wherenoneisperceptiblefromthelanguageoftheAct.
However,thenewdoctrineortestofnonarbitrarinessdoesnot
evolveamoresatisfactorytestthanthenexustests.EvenProf.
P.K.Tripathi,acriticofnexustestshasexpressedhisconcern
regardingthenewdevelopment.Hehasobservedthat
"arbitrarinessbyArticle14isthearbitrarinessor
unreasonablenessindiscriminatingbetweenonepersonand
anotherandifthereisnodiscrimination,thereisno
arbitrarinessinthesenseofArticle14".23

Tosumup,itissubmittedthattheapproachofthecourts
shouldnotbedoctrinairetowardseitherofthedoctrinesof
equality.WhereaStateactionappearsexfaciearbitraryas
foundinarecentcase24 ,itshouldbedecidedonthebasisofthe
newdoctrine.Againcasespertainingtoconfermentof
unbridledortoowidediscretiononexecutiveauthorities
shouldalsobetackledonthebasisofthedoctrineofnon
arbitrarinessbutotherchallengestoStateactionshouldstillbe
tackledbyapplyingtheoldnexustests.Itishearteningtonote
thatSupremeCourthasnottotallyabandonedthenexustests25
thoughthenewtheoryofnonarbitrarinesshasalsobeen
appliedwherestateactionhasbeenfoundtobe"patently"
arbitrary.26

* LL.M. A Member of U.P. Higher Judicial Service. At

present posted as District Judge at Barabanki. Return to
Text

1.Constitution(FirstAmendment)Act,1951bluntedthe
attackonthegroundofviolationofArticle14for
allowingsmoothpassageofZamindariAbolitionActsof
variousStates.Constitution(25thAmendment)Act
introducedArticle31Cforgivingoverridingeffectto
Articles39(a)and(b)overfundamentalrightsenshrined
inArticles14,19and31.Lateronthisoverridingeffect
wasgivenby42ndAmendmenttoalltheDirective
Principlesoverthesearticles.ReturntoText
2.E.P.Royappav.StateofTamilNadu,(l974)4SCC3.
ReturntoText
3.Cf.Prof.Willis,'CONSTITUTIONALLIMITATIONS'(Ist
edn.)p.579."Theguaranteeofequalprotectionoflaws
meansprotectionofequallaws.Itforbidsclass
legislationbutdoesnotforbidclassificationwhichrests
uponreasonablegroundsofdistinction.Itdoesnot
prohibitlegislationwhichislimitedeitherintheobjects

http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 5/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

towhichitisdirectedorbytheterritorywithinwhichit
istobeoperated.Itmerelyrequiresthatallpersons
subjecttosuchlegislationshallbetreatedalike,under
likecircumstancesandconditionsbothinprivileges
conferredandintheliability.Similarityandnotidentity
oftreatmentisenough."ReturntoText
4.StateofW.B.v.AnwarAliSarkar,AIR1952SC75.
ReturntoText
5.(a)StateofBombayv.F.N.Balsara,AIR1951SC318.
(b)R.K.Dalmiav.JusticeTendolkar,AIR1958SC538.
(c)InreSpecialCourtsBill,1978,(1979)1SCC380.
ReturntoText
6.Chandrachud.C.J.inSpecialCourtsBill,1978,Re,
(1979)1SCC380,423:"Asfarbackas1960itwassaid
bythisCourtinKangsariHaldarthattheproposition
applicabletocasesarisingunderArticle14havebeen
repeatedsomany#timesthattheynowsound
platitudinous.Ifitwassoin1960,itwouldbeevenmore
truein1979."ReturntoText
7.LachmanDasv.StateofPunjab,AIR1963SC222.
SubbaRaoJ.,:"Thedoctrineofclassificationisonlya
subsidiaryruleevolvedbycourtstogivecontenttothe
saiddoctrine(equalitybeforelaw).Overemphasison
thedoctrineofclassificationorananxiousandsustained
attempttodiscoversomebasisforclassificationmay
graduallyandimperceptiblydeprivethearticleofits
gloriouscontent.Thatprocesswouldinevitablyendin
substitutingthedoctrineofclassificationforthedoctrine
ofequality:thefundamentalrighttoequalitybeforethe
lawandequalprotectionofthelawsmaybereplacedby
thedoctrineofclassification."ReturntoText
8.K.K.Mathew:Democracy,EqualityandFreedom,p.
63.ReturntoText
9.H.M.Seervai,ConstitutionLawofIndia,3rdEdn.Vol.I,
p.382,9.114(Commentingwithreferencetothepower
ofexemptionconferredbymostofthestatutesonthe
executivehehassaid"onthisquestiontheattitudeofthe
SupremeCourtisnotconsistent".ReturntoText
10.CitedinMahendraP.Singh(Ed.):Comparative
ConstitutionalLaw,p.485.ReturntoText
11.(1974)2SCC402.ReturntoText
12.AIR1967SC1581.ReturntoText
13.(1974)4SCC3,38.ReturntoText
14.ManekaGandhiv.UnionofIndia,(1978)1SCC248
RamanaDayaramShettyv.AirportAuthority,(1979)3
SCC489.ReturntoText
15.(1981)1SCC722.ReturntoText
16.(1979)3SCC489at511.ReturntoText
17.H.M.Seervai,formerAdvocateGeneralofMaharashtra
(19571974)andJagdishSwaroop,formerSolicitor
GeneralofIndia,intheircommentariesonthe
ConstitutionofIndia.ReturntoText
18.H.M.Seervai:ConstitutionalLawofIndia,3rdEdn.,vol.
I,p.275ReturntoText
19.Ibid.,atp.277.Hehasdemonstratedthefallacythus:All
arbitraryactionsareviolativeofequality.Somelaws
violateequality,Middleterm"equality"remains

http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 6/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

undistributedinboththe#aforesaidmajorandminor
premises.Therefore,accordingtohim,"ifaconclusion
weredrawnnamely,thereforesomelawsarearbitrary
actions''itwouldbeaninaccurateconclusion.Returnto
Text
20.JagdishSwaroop:ConstitutionofIndiavol.Ipara10.6.
ReturntoText
21.H.M.Seervaiin'CONSTITUTIONALLAWOFINDIA'at
p.274,vol.I,3rdEdn."However,strippedofrhetoric,
andtheuseoffashionablephraseslike'dynamicaspects'
and'activistmagnitude'(whoseappropriatenessweneed
notstoptoexamine),itisclaimedforthenewdoctrine
thatitexplains,asthedoctrinairetheoryofclassification
doesnot,thescopeoftherighttoequality.Oneofthe
riskswhichjudgesrunbybeing'dynamic'or'active'is
thatattimestheiractivitymaycarrythemawayfromthe
truthandrealityandthisispreciselywhathashappened
toBhagwati,J.andhisbrotherJudgesinpropounding
thenewtheory.Itissubmittedthattheoldtheoryisthe
onlydoctrinewhichbringsoutthefullscopeof"the
equalprotectionoflaw"guaranteedtoeverypersonby
Article14....newdoctrineisuntenable...."ReturntoText
22.LachmanDasv.StateofBombay,AIR1952SC239.
ReturntoText
23.P.K.Tripathi,TheFiascoofOverruling,A.K.Gopalan
andworse.CitedbyMahendraP.SinghinComparative
ConstitutionalLawatp.480.ReturntoText
24.Km.ShrilekhaVidyarathiv.StateofU.P.,(1991)1SCC
212."However,wherenoplausiblereasonorprincipleis
indicatednorisitdiscernibleandtheimpugnedState
action,therefore,appearsexfacie,#arbitrary,theinitial
burdentoprovethearbitrarinessisdischargedby
shiftingonusontheStatetojustifyitsactionasfairand
reasonable.IfStateisunabletoproducematerialto
justifyitsactionasfairandreasonable,theburdenonthe
personallegingarbitrarinessmustbeheldtobe
discharged."RemovalenblocofallDistrictGovernment
CounselbyStateGovernmentwasheldtobearbitraryas
nocommonreasonapplicabletoallofthemjustifying
theirterminationinonestrokeonareasonableground
wasshown.ReturntoText
25.SupremeCourtEmployeesWelfareAssociationv.Union
ofIndia,(1989)4SCC187KeralaHoteland
RestaurantAssn.v.StateofKerala,(1990)2SCC502.
(Thescopeforclassificationpermittedintaxationis
greaterandunlesstheclassificationmadecanbetermed
tobepalpablyarbitrary,itmustbelefttothelegislative
wisdomtochoosetheyardstickforclassification,inthe
backgroundofthefiscalpolicyoftheStatetopromote
economicequalityaswell.)ReturntoText
26.SushmaGosainv.UnionofIndia,(1989)4SCC468.
Thewidowofastorekeeperinthedepartmentof
DirectorGeneralBorderRoad(DGBR)hadappliedafter
thedeathofherhusbandin1982foremploymenton
compassionateground,onthepostofL.D.C.Shehad
alsopassedthetradetestbutshewasnotgiven
appointmentandwastoldthathercasewasunder

http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 7/8
1/17/2017 EasternBookCompanyPracticalLawyer

consideration.Herapplicationwas,however,rejectedin
1985whenabanonappointmentofladieswasimposed.
TheSupremeCourtheldthatdenialofappointmentto
herwas'patently'arbitraryandhadtobesetaside.Return
toText

19982005CopyrightEasternBookCompany,Lucknow.Allrightsreserved.

Legaldisclaimer|PrivacyPolicy|Terms&conditions

http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm#Note24 8/8