State of Bombay vs. F. N. Balsara, 1949[1]

Article 14 of the constitution states that “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.”[2] Thus the Article uses 2 approaches: - Equality before Law[3] i.e. negative approach which prohibits unequal treatment and second is Equal protection of Laws[4] i.e. positive approach which demands equal treatment of law.

Application of the provisions of Article 14 consistently for all will, in this way, be inconsistent with the principle of equality. To avoid that circumstance law must recognize the difference between those who are equals and to whom they must apply and those who are different and to whom they should not apply. Hence Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation but doesn’t forbid reasonable classification.

Therefore, in the light of the above proposition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court propounded the concept of Intelligible Differentia in this case.. This concept is also known as the Old Doctrine of Equality. In this case it has been considered as to whether under the Bombay Prohibition Act the keeping of alcohol mixed medicines and toilet goods, their selling and buying and using can be prohibited or not.

F.N.Balsara showing himself as the citizen of India presented a petition in the Bombay High Court requesting for passing an order forbidding the Sate and prohibition commissioner from enforcing the provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 against him also from passing orders to the effect that Balsara should be given assent to use his right to keep whisky brandy wine beer wine mixed with medicines U.D. Colon etc. and to use them and also to import and export them within the custom limits.

The High Court agreeing with some of the petitioner’s allegations and not agreeing with some others declared some provisions of the act as legal while some others as illegal. The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.

It was observed by the Supreme Court that state legislature has the power to completely prohibit the keeping, selling and using intoxicating wine under Entry 31 in the list (II)[5]. There is, therefore, no dispute between the jurisdiction of the state and the state.

The Supreme Court held that if any act passed by the state legislature prohibits or control the export of the things mentioned in entry27 or 29(1) (a)[6] therefore does not apply to it. The exemption allowed to the soldiers of the army, messes of the land forces and water ships can, therefore, not be declared illegal under section 37. 

The Supreme Court therefore declared as illegal those provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act which were regarding keeping alcohol mixed medicines and toilets goods selling and buying them also using them etc., and rest of the provisions were declared as legal. It was also decided that an act by declaring certain provision thereof, as illegal cannot be wholly declared as illegal. So the appeal no. 182 was sufficiently admitted while appeal no. 183 was rejected.

“Equality before law does not require mathematical equality of all persons in all circumstances. Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment. Similarity, not identified, of treatment is enough.”[7]

In this case, the Court uses the concept of intelligent differentia in regard to justify the provisions of article 14 and to distinguish the circumstances which later prove legal and illegal.

The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar Habib Mohamed, 1952[8]

The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar Habib Mohamed case is one of the landmark judgments in the field of Article 14 of the Indian constitution. This case describes the judicial scenario of India and specifically dealt with West Bengal Special Court Act, Article 14 of Constitution of India, Reference to Preamble test of equality before law, concept of Rational Nexus & necessity of speedier trial. In this case, The West Bengal Special Courts Act (X of 1950)[9] was enacted to provide speedy trial of certain offences. Section 3[10] of the Act empowered the State Government to constitute Special Courts, and Sec. 5 provided that "A Special Court shall try such offences or classes of offences or cases or classes of cases, as the State Government may by general or special order in writing, direct."[11] The Act laid down a procedure for trial before Special Courts which was different in various respects from that laid down by the Criminal Procedure Code for trial of offences.

The special court under section 5 of the said Act tried Anwar Ali and 49 others for various offences. The accused applied in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the writ of certiorari to quash the conviction on the ground that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the case under section 5 of the impugned Act. It was alleged that the Act was unconstitutional and void as it denied equal protection of laws under Article 14[12] of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the conviction and directed the trial of the respondent. The case was further taken to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that Section 5(1) contravened Article 14 as it conferred arbitrary powers on the Government to classify offences. Moreover the Act did not lay down any guidelines to classify cases.

In this case the Test of reasonable classification was setup which state that: -

1.     The classification must be founded on an intelligent differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group

2.     The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act i.e. rational nexus.

The test of reasonable classification was applied. It was observed that the principle of classification was completely ignored. The Supreme Court decided the case in favor of Anwar Ali Sarkar and declared the Act violative of Article 14[13] as it gave uncontrolled, unguided, arbitrary powers to the state Government which could be used unreasonably and denied equal protection of laws.

E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974[14]

 

The Supreme Court took a shift from the earlier concept of equality that was determined on the basis of reasonable classification and propounded a new concept of equality. This case is also known for the new doctrine of equality.  It was the first time in  this case that the Supreme Court laid down a basic, new dimension to Article 14 and it was a guarantee against arbitrariness. Justice Bhagwati, delivering the judgement on behalf of himself, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Krishna Iyer, propounded the new concept of equality in the following words- “equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within traditional and doctrinaire limits.”[15] From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithesis to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are the sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in the republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of the absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of article 14”.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary, on the following grounds:

●       It was contrary to the proviso of Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Services Pay Rules, 1954.

●       It was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the posts of Deputy Chairman, Special Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty were inferior in rank and status to that of Chief Secretary.

●       It was made in mala fide exercise of power.

He was a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the State of Tamil Nadu. When the post of Chief Secretary to the state fell vacant he was selected for the post and was accordingly promoted. A representation was made that the continuance of the post of Deputy Chairman in the rank of Chief Secretary for a period of more than one year would be invalid under the Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The post of Deputy Chairman was abolished and a First Member of the Board of Revenue was appointed to that post.

The concept of protection against arbitrariness was propounded to determine the validity of the Act. If an Act stands violative of article 14 it can be termed as arbitrary. The apex court hasn’t really expressed any equitable reasoning for the same. The fresh test has been criticised by the jurists as it is asserted to be nothing new but one that merely reasserts reasonable classification and nexus test. Khaitan on the other hand argues otherwise, “what the new doctrine has done is elevated an administrative law reasonableness standard into a self-standing constitutional ground for review, without the need for any crutches in the form of other rights or values.”

Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, 1975[16]

In 1971, Raj Narain was contesting Lok Sabha elections against Indira Gandhi in the constituency of Rai Bareily, Indira Gandhi won the elections in that constituency. Raj Narain accused her of electoral malpractices like bribery, exceeding the acceptable budget, usage of government machinery etc. He moved to Allahabad High Court and filed a petition to conduct an investigation. Raj Narain also called for the ‘Blue Book’ to prove the mentioned allegations.

The High Court ruled in favor of Raj Narain, as the disclosure of the Blue Book could only be restricted if it was against the public policy. Indira Gandhi was held guilty of electoral malpractices under section 123(7) of Representatives of People’s Act.[17]

Indira Gandhi further appealed the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court was on a vacation at that time, she was granted a conditional stay. Thereafter, an emergency was declared on account of internal disturbances. In the meantime, Indira Gandhi’s Government passed the 39th constitutional amendment, which brought Article 392A to the Constitution of India. Article 392-A [18] stated that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker could not be questioned in any court of law and could only be challenged before a committee constituted by the Parliament itself. The constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment was challenged.

The amendment destroyed judicial review and separation of powers which are a part of the basic structure. Article 368 does not empower the Parliament to take decisions in any dispute by making constitutional amendments. The amendment destroyed the notion of equality.

The Hon'ble Court applied the basic structure doctrine laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It observed that Clause (4) of Article 329-A is liable to be struck down on the ground that it violates the principle of free and fair elections which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The apex court upheld the contention of the petitioner and declared the impugned Clause 4 of Article 329A  unconstitutional.

Justice Chandrachud J. found that the said amendment was violative of Article 14 as it created an unequal position for specific members against others. Ray C.J. found another basic feature violated by the said amendment i.e. rule of law whereas Justice Khanna found the violation of norms of free & fair elections.

In respect to the elections held the Supreme Court defined word “candidate” in Section 123(7) of The People’s Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975[19], as a person who filed the nomination papers. It was then held that Indira Gandhi filed her nomination papers on 1st February 1971 and therefore any help that she took from Government officers before that date could not be held to be a corrupt practice. Moreover, voluntary expenditure by friends, relations, or sympathizers and expenditure incurred by a candidate’s party without any request or authorization by the candidate has never been deemed to be expenditure by the candidate himself. Hence, Election of Indira Gandhi, from Rae Bareli, was considered to be valid. The Hon'ble Court set aside the judgment given by the Allahabad High Court and acquitted Indira Gandhi.

Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab, 1980[20]

The concept of death penalty also known as capital punishment in terms of law is always remain in debatable matter. In this landmark case the new dimensions of Article 14 was explained, Justice PN Bhagwati had observed that Rule of law permeated the entire fabric of the Indian Constitution and it excludes arbitrariness. According to him whenever there is arbitrariness, there is a denial of Rule of Law. So, every action of the State should be free from arbitrariness otherwise the Court will strike the act as unconstitutional.

The scope of the new concept of Article 14 is far greater than just being equated with the principle of reasonable classification. It guarantees against any arbitrariness which may exist in the actions of the State and the doctrine of classification is merely a subsidiary to this Article.

In this case, Bachan Singh was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal. Bachan Singh then appealed to the SC by Special Leave, which came up for hearing before a Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The question raised in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the courts below would be "special reasons “for awarding, the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The majority view was given keeping in mind and the hon’ble Supreme Court was upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder[21] and procedure in 354(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.[22]

Under Article 14 the concept of Rule of law has been adopted under which no person can be said to be above the law and every person has to abide by the provisions of law. But the equality which has been provided under Article 14 is not universal and the principle of equality among the equals is followed.

The new dimensions of Article 14 have been developed by the judiciary and the main purpose of Article 14 is to remove any arbitrariness which may exist in the actions of the State and therefore, this Article has a much wider scope in the present time as compared to its scope at the time of enactment of the Constitution.

Taking into consideration the above major case laws on Article 14,  one can say that the scope of this article has been enlarged enormously and these elaborations along with several others have made the very existence of the Article as monumental as it can be. .


[1] AIR1951SC318, 1951(53)BOMLR982, (1951)IIMLJ141, [1951]2SCR682

[2] The constitution of India, 1950, art. 14

[3] The constitution of India, 1950, art. 14(1)

[4] The constitution of India, 1950, art. 14(2)

[5] The constitution of India, 1950, schedule VII, List II

[6] Ibid.

[7] Supra 1 at pg. 2.

[8] 1952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284

[9] The West Bengal Special Courts Act (X of 1950), available at https://sarthac.gov.in/view-act-file?file_id=102. Last visited on June 5th, 2020.

[10] The West Bengal Special Courts Act (X of 1950), s.3.

[11] The West Bengal Special Courts Act (X of 1950), s. 5.

[12] Supra 2 at pg. 2.

[13] Ibid.

[14]1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR(2) 348

[15] Ibid.

[16] AIR 1975 SC 2299

[17] The People’s Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975; ss.7, s. 123

[18] The constitution of india, 1950; article 392- A

[19] The People’s Representative (Amendment) Act, 1975; ss.3, s. 123

[20] AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980 CriLJ 636, 1982 (1) SCALE 713, (1980) 2 SCC 684, 1983 1 SCR 145

[21] Indian Penal Code, 1860; s. 302

[22] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; ss. 3. s. 354.

About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Anubha Mathur, law student at Amity University, Noida and was an intern at MyLawman. She can be reached at anubha602@gmail.com. 

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.

 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here