Tag: #IndianConstitution

Case Analysis: Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. V. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Posted on

Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021.

Equivalent Citation

LL 2021 SC 102.

Bench

L. Nageswara Rao & Indira Banerjee.

Decided on

18 February 2021.

Relevant Act/ Section

Article 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

In 2008, the Home Department of Jharkhand govt. published an advertisement regarding Sub-Inspector’s post. After the written exam and interview were completed, the final list of selected candidates was published. But afterward, it was found that some irregularities had taken place in the selection process. So the Govt. formed a High- Level State Committee to check if the irregularities had taken place or not. The Deputy Inspector General of Police of Jharkhand submitted a report claiming that the list was wrongly prepared and the candidates who scored more were not appointed but the candidates who scored less than were appointed. Then a revised list was published in which they terminated the candidates with low marks and appointed the candidates with high marks. The candidates who were terminated challenged this list in the High Court saying that it is not their mistake rather it is the government’s mistake that they made the wrong list and so why should they bear the consequences. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed their writ petition, so the candidates (whose services were terminated) approached to Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The main issue was related to the claim of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions for an appointment.

Ratio of the Case

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that appointing candidates with lesser merit would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution of those candidates who scored more marks. 

Decision of the Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave an important judgment which said that there should be no doubt that the selections for public employments will only be made on the basis of merit. So, appointing candidates with lesser merit would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution of those candidates who scored more marks. 

This case analysis is written by Priyanka Choudhary, currently pursuing BALLB from Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

This case analysis is edited by Shreya Litoria, currently pursuing B.Com LLB from Banasthali Vidyapith University, Jaipur.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Posted on

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures equality before the law, it states that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.” 

Article 14 deals with the principles of equality before the law and equal protection of the law, both of which aim to provide equal status to all the citizens of the country. It is important to understand these two principles in order to understand Article 14. The principle of equality before the law means that everyone would be treated equally under the law and no one would be given any special privileges on the basis of their religion, caste, gender, etc. On the other hand, the principle of equal protection of law aims to provide equal treatment in all circumstances, that is, whether the person is a prime minister or ordinary man, both of them should be treated equally under the ordinary law.

The essence of the Article lies in the doctrine of Rule of Law. Rule of law guarantees the principle of equality before the law, it means that no person is above the law, what so ever his post is, he is bound to the jurisdiction of the courts and law. It also states that no person shall be harassed or discriminated against and shall be treated equally before the law. There are three meanings to rule of law:

  • Absence of supremacy of law

This is means that no absolute power is given to the law. A person can only be punished for not adhering to or violating the law but not in any other circumstances. 

  • Equality before law

Every individual is to be treated equally and protected equally under the law and is bound to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

  • Individual liberty

Even though there is mention of individual liberty in the fundamental rights, like in Article 21 which ensures personal liberty, and Article 19 which rights to freedom, this meaning of personal liberty is not applicable in the Indian context (the third meaning of rule of law given by Dicey is however applied in other countries like the United Kingdom). This is because the source to the right of individuals is the Constitution of Indian and then Constitution is the law of the land. 

But, the concept of equality under rule of law is not absolute, there are few exceptions to the principle of rule of law, 

  • The public officials and an ordinary man are not on the same level having the same power. A police officer for example, has the power to arrest an ordinary man for breach of law, whereas an ordinary man does not have the power to arrest another ordinary man or a police officer for the breach of law. 
  • Rule of law does not mean that every class of individuals would be bound to the same set of rules. There are special rules for people of a certain class. For example, the individuals in the armed forces are bound to the military rules. 

Now that we have understood the main doctrines behind Article 14, we shall now look into the underlying principle of the Article. Equality before law or equal protection under the law does not amount to equal treatment to everyone. Because no two individuals can be equal or the same in all aspects, and so treating them both equally in all aspects would not amount to a fair trial. For example, an adult and a child are two individuals in a society, but can both of them be treated equally in all aspects? In the aspect of crimes committed, is it fair that the child is given the same amount of punishment as to what would be given to any adult? No. That is why the system of punishment is different for both children and adults under the IPC. Hence, it is important to note that ‘equal treatment’ should be justifiable and fair. Therefore, the meaning of equality under the Article does not mean uniform treatment to all, it means to provide the same treatment in aspects where the individuals are similar and different treatment in the aspects where the individuals are different. In order to differentiate between the equals and the unequal’s, the doctrine of reasonable classification is applied. 

Article 14 is applicable when there are two equal individuals treated differently, then the equality before the law comes inapplicable. But, in the case where an equal and an unequal individual is treated differently, the Article is not applicable. Class legislation is that which makes improper discrimination by providing privileges for certain classes. However, Article 14 is forbidden Class legislation and promotes reasonable classification. 

The reasonable classification should be on real and substantial difference, bound to a reasonable relation. Hence, there are tests to reasonable classification, 

  • The classification should be intelligible differentia. That is, it has to be able to distinguish people from a group to those who aren’t part of the group. 
  • There should be a rational relation between the objects.

Now, we will look into the points that hold a valid classification under Article 14. In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar, the court explained the true meaning of Article 14 as follows,

  • If there are some special reasons or circumstances that apply to an individual, which is not applicable other individuals, then that person can be considered as a class.
  • There is always an assumed favour constitutionally on an individual and the burden is on the one who attacks this to show that there has been a transgression of the principles of constitution. 
  • This assumption can be taken away by showing that there is no difference or to a particular class.
  • It has to be assumed the law or the legislature will only do things for the need of the people and no discrimination to take place.
  • To keep the constitutional presumption, the court may consider the common knowledge, the history, the reports on the same, etc.
  • The legislation has the power to identify harms and also put restrictions to those case. 
  • The legislation is presumed to work on good knowledge and a good faith. 
  • The classification can be made on any basis, individual, geographic, etc.
  • The classification made does not have to be logically perfect or equality perfect.
  • Discrimination can be there in substantial and procedural law and the Article applies to both of these. 

In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi, the Indian and European prisoners were not treated equally. The court held this is to be a case of discrimination and applied the principle of Article 14 to provide equal treatment for both the prisoners. In the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, there was a memorandum given by the government, where the pension for retired officials was divided into two classes depending on their retirement date. The court held that this classification was not rational, as the classification of the retirement dates was in the difference of just two days. These cases show how the application of the principle of Article 14 and also on the legislature who analyses the application of the Article. 

Therefore, Article 14 aims to have equal treatment, that is fair and justifiable to all individuals and to remove any kind of discrimination. It gives fair treatment between the equals and unequal. 

References

  • Constitution of India, V.N Shukla
  • Indian Kanoon
  • Jstor
  • Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar.
  • Madhu Limaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi
  • D.S. Nakara v. Union of India

This article is written by Hiranmayi Rajeev, a 2nd-year law student at Alliance University Bangalore.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

Cooperative Federalism

Posted on

The name “federalism” comes from the Latin word Foedus, which means “accord” or “treaty.” As a result, a federation is a political structure created by a treaty or agreement between the various units. It is a political organization concept or ideology that combines the principles of centralization, non-centralization, and power-sharing. In a country like India, ties between the Centre and the States, as well as between the States and Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies, should be guided by the spirit of cooperative federalism. 

History 

Kingdoms or empires have dominated the Indian subcontinent by a federal policy of non-intervention in local matters from the ancient period. Because the natural diversities of the people of the subcontinent were so enormous, they could only be constituted a part of a unified empire if no or very little attempt was made to impose a common set of practices and beliefs. The centralized tendencies of rulers like Jahangir and Aurangzeb contributed to the further dissolution of the Mauryas and Mughals. Furthermore, following the Revolt of 1857, when the British opted to withdraw interventionist policies such as the Doctrine of Lapse and the ban on the use of greased cartridges of animal fat, they were only following an age-old pattern of government. The Regulating Act of 1773, which established a system in which the British Government supervised the East India Company’s activities but did not acquire authority for itself, sowed the seeds of cooperative federalism. By envisaging a dual form of governance known as “dyarchy,” the Government of India Act 1919 provided for a federal India, albeit a flimsy one. The same goal was being pursued by the Government of India Act, 1935. 

Indian Constitution

Sardar Patel, a powerful leader at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, was a strong supporter of the federal system and played a key role in the drafting of a federal constitution. The horizontal relationship between the union and the states is known as cooperative federalism, and it demonstrates that neither is above the other. The Indian constitution includes measures to ensure collaboration between the center and the states, which is vital for the country’s proper development. As a result, there are only a few provisions in the Indian constitution that portray the core relationship between state and center.  The notion of subsidiarity is used to distinguish between central, state, and concurrent lists. The center has retained residuary power. Article 249[5] empowers the parliament to make decisions on matters that fall under state jurisdiction if the resolution is approved by a two-thirds majority in the state council. 

Challenges faced by Cooperative Federalism 

The increasing issues that face federalism in the twenty-first century have increased the necessity for cooperative federalism, making its practice as a form of government even more essential. Connectivity and accessibility, both physical and electronic, have greatly improved as a result of technological advancements. Climate change, for example, is a worldwide environmental concern that transcends national borders. Pollution and conservation challenges highlight the uneasy friction that exists between the decision-making processes of governments at the national, state and local levels. Globalization has emphasized the importance of inter-and intra-state agreements on geographical, climatic, environmental, and technical diversity in order to integrate with global processes for viable and sustainable development and growth. What is happening on a global scale is also being felt on a local scale. Because the globe has become a global village, the country’s internal security and political issues are vulnerable to outside interference. Individual states can now engage in bilateral negotiations with the union, circumventing the ineffectual institutionalized structures of collective policy drafting, giving our federalism a platform for negotiation. However, this should be taken with a grain of salt, as power-sharing among states at the national level has failed to reduce regionalists’ and sub-regional parties’ localism, parochialism, and chauvinism. Increased negotiating power will only improve cooperative federalism if the alleged disadvantages of centralism are addressed. The federal structure’s political and social fabric has been vitiated by rising voices of autonomy and secession. States are increasingly feeling deprived and alienated, and they have begun to view all problems through a limited parochial lens. Furthermore, their strategy is growing more violent and confrontational. Terrorism, militancy, organized crime, the problem of internally displaced persons, and refugees are all issues that require the country as a whole to join together, and institutional structures under state governments to assist the center by pooling knowledge and resources. The need to come together now is not just a result of the new issues that the country is facing, but it will also act as an antidote to avoid similar challenges from occurring again in the future. Because of its intrinsic resilience and malleability, cooperative federalism alone strengthens the nation from within, allowing it to survive adversities and obstacles.

Conclusion

The relationship between the center, the states, and the local levels is important to India’s concept of nationhood and is a prerequisite for the country’s progress. It does, however, have a strong political undercurrent. Every center-state and inter-state conflict is, at its core, a political conflict. The difficult nature of center-state interactions stems from this. A quarrel of this nature develops into an economic one over time. Poor politics inevitably leads to poor economics. Integration and unity in the federal structure will not be full unless economic stagnation and imbalanced regional growth are addressed. The issue of safeguarding our nationhood through constructive cooperative federalism, which necessitates the participation of both the federal and state governments, must be addressed by both the federal and state governments. India is a fascinating blending pot of cultures. The same must be treasured and valued. There is no better way to do this than through cooperative federalism. People from various states sink or swim together, and that success and salvation are found in invention, not division; mutuality, not conflict; cooperation, not rivalry, in the long term.

This article is written by Vanshika Samir,  a first-year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. 

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

HC: Private Institutions/Authorities Discharging the Public Duty to be Thought of ‘State’ Underneath Article 12 of the Constitution

Posted on

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

INTRODUCTION

On 01.06.2021 the Calcutta High Court in its bench which includes Justice Shekhar B. Sharaf, withinside the case of Bineeta Patnaik Padhi Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that one Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility. It, in addition, said that if the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The gift Writ petition below Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed with the aid of using the petitioner claiming that at the same time as she turned into discharging her obligations because the Principal of Army Public School at Panagarh and at the same time as serving in her tenure as a prolonged probationer, she turned into terminated with the aid of using the chairman of the identical faculty from such published in violation of each her essential rights in addition to positive statutory rights.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ms. Sonal Sinha found out suggest performing on behalf of the petitioner argued on the subsequent grounds:

  • The suggest at the same time as concluding prayed earlier than the courtroom docket to invoke the writ of mandamus to implement provider situations of instructors serving in non-public unaided instructional establishments.
  • Reliance turned into additionally located upon the choice of the Apex Court at the same time as analyzing the problem of termination of an Assistant Teacher in a non-public unaided group, in which it turned into held that a writ utility is certainly maintainable in such instances whilst opposition to the non-public unaided instructional establishments.
  • It turned into emphasized that although the connection between the petitioner and the respondent turned into taken into consideration to have emanated out of a settlement, it’d now no longer close the doorways of this Court in invoking the writ jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution.
  • It turned into contended that primarily based totally on diverse choices of the Supreme Court the Right to Education is an essential proper below Article 21 of the charter and consequently denial of the identical might bring about the violation of one’s essential proper.
  • It turned into submitted that those non-public establishments supplying training to college students from the age of six years and onwards, along with better training carry out a public responsibility and as a consequence falls below the purview of Article 12.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, found out Additional Solicitor General, performing on behalf of the contesting Respondents argued on the subsequent grounds:

  • Mr. Dastoor additionally argued that for the reason that stated faculty turned into a non-public unaided faculty and the AWES that is dealing with it, isn’t a public body, because of the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India consequently the affairs of the stated faculty might be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
  • It turned into additionally contended that the jurisdiction below Article 226 should handiest be exercised with the aid of using a constitutional courtroom docket handiest if, an detail of public regulation is worried that is the sine qua non for the invocation of this Court’s powers below Article 226 of the Constitution and such electricity isn’t to be trifled with simple to implement non-public contracts of provider/ or provider associated contracts entered into among aware and ready parties.
  • He additionally submitted that there’s neither a contravention of any statutory proper nor any essential proper assured below Part III of the Constitution of India, as alleged with the aid of using the petitioner.
  • It turned into argued that such writ utility turned into now no longer maintainable for the cause that the stated faculty is a non-public unaided instructional group operated with the aid of using the Army Welfare Education Society.
  • It turned into in addition submitted that the reality that the petitioner turned into serving below a length of prolonged probation and it turned into legally permissible for each the AWES or the stated faculty to assess the petitioner’s overall performance with the aid of using a distinctive feature of her popularity as a probationer, making her eligible for both an affirmation or a discharge from such provider and within side the occasion of a discharge, such settlement couldn’t be enforced thru writ utility below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The following remark has been made with the aid of using the Hon’ble bench of Calcutta High Court:

  • If the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.
  • In the case of Article 226, similarly to the enforcement of an essential proper, a petitioner also can are searching for the enforcement of any felony proper.
  • The stated faculty that is run with the aid of using AWES had come to discharge a public responsibility which stands imposed in phrases of each Article 21A of the Constitution of India in addition to the RTE Act which gave impact to the essential proper in unequivocal phrases.
  • A writ of mandamus may be issued to a non-public body/authority which discharges ‘public function’ below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On thinking about the above the objection at the floor of maintainability of the petition turned into rejected. Further, the stated faculty, Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State’ below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility.

Delhi Court Dismisses Wrestler Sushil Kumar’s Request for Special Food, Dietary Supplements

Posted on

On May 23, Sushil Kumar, a renowned wrestler, and a decorated sportsman were arrested for the murder of Sagar Rana. The wrestler has been placed in judicial custody and is facing charges of murder, abduction, and criminal conspiracy.

Advocate Pradeep Rana, the counsel of the renowned wrestler, pleaded with the court seeking dietary supplements and special food for the wrestler. He further averred that the accused has won several laurels for the country and still wishes to continue his career in wrestling the alleged false accusation should not result at the end of his wrestling career.

On 9th June, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Satvir Singh Lamba observed that all the necessities of the accused were being met as per the provisions of Delhi Prison Rule, 2018 and that the supplements were only the desires of the accused and are not in any manner a necessity.

The court also stated that the desire of the accused tantamount to discrimination against other prisoners. It was further contended that allowing a plea of such kind may invite a flood of applications from more prisoners.

The court ultimately observed that “It is well-settled law that all the persons, whether natural or juristic are equal in the eyes of law irrespective of their caste, religion, sex, class, etc. The right to equality is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It implies the rule of law. It also implies an absence of any special privilege in any person due to his rank, status, whether rich or poor, etc. The law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.”

-Report by Anuj Dhar