GROUP 6: MINUTES OF THE CLASS
For
Tuesday, 27th February, 2018.
Article 14: Reasonable Classification Test
Article
14 states that no person shall be denied equality before the law or equal
protection of laws within the Indian Territory.
In
India, widespread economic and social inequalities exist that are supported by
religious social norms and practices. So right to equality is not only a
negative right of not to be discriminated against, but is also a positive right
of being treated as equals. This means that though everyone is equal in the
eyes of law but a positive discrimination scheme is allowed. For example,
Article 15 (4) allows the scheme of reservation to continue on the basis of
backward classes, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes etc. Article 18 abolishes
titles as it was abused in earlier times in favour of colonial state.
The
word ‘equality’ is used both in descriptive and prescriptive sense. In the
descriptive sense, common standard used is descriptive in itself and in the
prescriptive standard, a norm or rule is applied. The concept of equality can
be looked through economic and sociological analysts lens who focuse on
determining and measuring inequalities and the causes and effect of the same.
In contrast, political and social philosophers are concerned with the three
following major questions:
· Equality
of WHAT?
· Equality
WHAT FOR, TO WHOM and WHEN?
· Equality
AGAINST WHOM?
The
group thinks that we have been homo unequals for a very long period of time (looking
at human history, consider the examples of race, caste, aristocracy, citizen,
non-citizen etc.).
Some
issues raised in the discussion that make us think deeper into the concept of
equality are:
· How
citizenship gives different rights to different people and one is deprived of
gaining access to many job opportunities, higher educational institutions etc.
because of it though right to equality is a fundamental right under Article 14.
· How
the concept of modern liberal constitutionalism is very close to capitalism.
PRINCIPLE OF BALANCING:
Used for two colliding principles to determine the limitations of what is
possible legally. The vision of equality under Article 17 (abolition of
untouchability) and vision of equality under Article 25 (freedom of conscience
and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) reflects how
constitutional rights are subjected to the principle of balancing.
MINUTES OF THE PRESENTATION:
REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION: Article 14
Reasonable
classification as a legal test is used by the court for deciding whether a classification
as per a policy or a statute is ultra vires of classification permitted by
Article 14. It is a two-stage test involving:
· Intelligible
Differentia: The class is required
to be clearly distinct from other
general citizens and this distinction cannot be ambiguous or artificial. Example,
SC/ST community from other communities that come under the general category.
· Reasonable
Nexus: This mandates further that
the criteria on which the classification or distinction is based has to be
linked reasonably with the object of
the law. Example, the object of ensuring a level-playing field for the SC/ST
communities who are from underprivileged sections of the society by making
reservation policies.
Sabarimala temple case
(2016) decides on the question of reasonable nexus. A five-judge constitutional
bench scrutinised the age old practice in Kerala’s famous Sabarimala temple
that restricted menstruating women from entering the temple, i.e. women aged
between 10 and 50.
Men
from several Ayyappa groups and Pandala royal family objected that that the
deity was not interested in women devotees falling within the restricted age
bracket.
Justice
Misra held that such arguments do not have any constitutional basis and are
merely based on conjecture. Therefore, the court decided that Rule 3(b) is
ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry)
Act, 1965 and violates the Fundamental Rights.
In
E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu
case (1973), Supreme Court involved the
test of arbitrariness and reasonable classification is considered a subset
of arbitrariness. This case is a classic example of new kinds of judges coming
up and marks a shift from formalistic to substantive law. This seems to be
non-arbitrary in the sense of prioritising a substantive understanding of
fairness.
Some
questions that were raised in the debate about this reasonableness test are as
follows:
Q
- As is seen in common practice, can the term reasonable classification be
substituted with rational classification?
· A
distinction may arguably be drawn between rationality and reasonableness on the
basis that not every rational decision is reasonable.[1]
Virtually all administrative decisions are rational in the sense that they are
made for intelligible reasons, but the question is whether they measure up to
the legal standard of reasonableness.[2]
‘Irrational’ most naturally means ‘devoid of reasons’ whereas ‘unreasonable’
means ‘devoid of satisfactory reasons’.[3]
Q
- How the judges have expanded the scope of equality over the years?
· Affirmative
action or positive equality are the new developments in ensuring equality. The
court in several decisions emphasised that the state is required to minimise
the existing inequalities to treat unequals with special care as is envisaged by
the makers of the Constitution.
Q
- What are the other alternatives to reasonable classification?
· Wednesbury
Test: Used to assess the standard of unreasonableness of an application for
judicial review of public authority’s decision. If no reasonable person acting
reasonably could have made that decision, then it is Wednesbury unreasonable.
Please
refer to the slides sent by Group 5 and other uploaded materials by Professor
Fischer (Shukla on Article 14, Special Courts Bill of 1978) for reading case
laws on Article 14 and the reasonable classification test.
No comments:
Post a Comment