Hellow guys, Welcome to my website, and you are watching Adopt reasonable classification Avoid arbitrariness in Article 14 - Right to Equality (2020). and this vIdeo is uploaded by LEGAL OUTLOOK... By Dilip Singh at 2020-05-09T20:30:02-07:00. We are pramote this video only for entertainment and educational perpose only. So, I hop you like our website.
| Name | Adopt reasonable classification Avoid arbitrariness in Article 14 - Right to Equality (2020) |
| Video Uploader | Video From LEGAL OUTLOOK... By Dilip Singh |
| Upload Date | This Video Uploaded At 10-05-2020 03:30:02 |
| Video Discription | #Reasonableclassification #Article14 #RightToEquality #IntelligibleDifferentia #NonarbitrarinessDoctrine #NonDiscrimination #RationalNexus Welcome back to the Part-3 of Article14: Right to Equality Series in my channel "Journey of Constitution of India." • It was year 1958, very important year in history of Supreme Court as it has got its permanent place. SC moved from Parliament house to present building. Now with name of SC, this imposing building flashes in mind. "Ram Krishan Dalmia Vs. Justice Tendolkar" AIR 1958 SC 538. "R.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu " (AIR 1974 SC 555), a new Doctrin of Non-arbitrariness was propounded. In 1958, a constitution bench of 5 judges headed by CJI S. R. DASS completed the journey of evolution of Right of Equality. This case was "Ram Krishan Dalmia Vs. Justice Tendolkar" AIR 1958 SC 538. Justice Dass was in all the three benches of earlier decisions. Petitioner had challenged Section 3 of "Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952" as well as the Notification under which an enquiry commission was set up by central government under Justice Tendeolkar, a judge of Bombay High Court against the companies related to petitioner. • SC held that Sec 3 of the Act as well as notification is valid as the Act only requires Enquiry and the notification is only for enquiry. The Act does not delegate arbitrary power to government and petitioner could not show discrimination. An important addition made to reasonable classification concept that while deciding the intelligible differentia, it is not only the facts appearing in the statue or notification but also facts brought before court upon affidavit and common knowledge will also be considered. And even one particular person or thing can be a class. • To judge constitutional validity on intelligible differentia and rational nexus, categories were created as guidelines to court considering the contents of statute and surrounding circumstances: • In this case the statute and the action of executive was under challenge. So it was held that not only a law has to be reasonable but its application must also provide equal protection of laws. • FAMOUS LINE OF JUSTICE BHAGWATI: 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 the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. • Yes, the next turning point in this journey came on 23rd Nov,1973 in R.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555), when a new Doctrin of Non-arbitrariness was propounded. • In Royappa case, Justice Ray headed the constitution Bench of 5 judges. • Relevant Fact is that the petitioner was an IAS of Tamil Nadu cadre. On vacancy of post of chief secretary, he was promoted to act as acting Chief Secretary. But later he was transferred to a non cadre post and again transferred to a created non cadre post. Later an officer junior to petitioner was made Chief Secretary. Petitioner challnged under Article 32 of Constitution his transfer on the ground that the created non cadre post was lower in resposibility and status to Chief Secretary, so it is in vioation of Article 14 &16. He alleged vioation of IAS (Cadre)Rules, 1954 and also challnged on the ground of malafide on the part of Chief Minister. • The petition was dismissed unanimously but for different reasons. The majority consisted Justice Chandrachud, Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice Iyer and the author was Justice Bhagwati. The minority was of Chief Justice Ray and Justice Palekar and Justice Ray authored. • Majority held: The promotion to Chief Secretary was only in officiating capacity not in substantive capacity. State of Tamil Nadu could not add the non-cadre post under Rule as these post did not exist in Central Cadre. But mere violation of rule is not violation of fundamental right. • The transfer of petitioner to an inferior post is violation of Article 14 but from the materials on record, petitioner could not establish that the non-cadre post was inferior. State must have declared the non cadre post equivalent to Chief Secretary before transfer. The petitioner had accepted the transfer. There is no proof of arbitrariness, so no violation of right of equality. All judges agreed that in case of malafide, the onus to establish is heavy on petitioner and could should be slow in interfering the order of executive on the ground of mala fide. • We can sum up: There is no absolute equality and classification is permissible in law but must be based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Rebuttable presumption in favour of a law. The action of executive must be reasonable and non-arbitrary. |
| Category | Education |
| Tags | Education Download MP4 | Education Download MP3 | Education Download MP4 360p | Education Download MP4 480p | Education Download MP4 720p | Education Download MP4 1080p |
