Page 3958 – 3964 DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.

111836

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW

MANAGEMENT & HUMANITIES
[ISSN 2581-5369]
Volume 4 | Issue 4
2021
© 2021 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ijlmh.com/

Under the aegis of VidhiAagaz – Inking Your Brain (https://www.vidhiaagaz.com/)

This Article is brought to you for “free” and “open access” by the International Journal of Law
Management & Humanities at VidhiAagaz. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of
Law Management & Humanities after due review.

In case of any suggestion or complaint, please contact [email protected].

To submit your Manuscript for Publication at International Journal of Law Management &
Humanities, kindly email your Manuscript at [email protected].
3958 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

Doctrine of Reasonable Classification

SIMRAN VISHAL BAFNA1

ABSTRACT
This article discusses in detail Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to
equality to all persons. The diverse needs of different classes of people require different
kinds of treatment and hence we must reasonably differentiate between those who are equal
and those who are different. It is this principle that has eventually led to the evolution of
the doctrine of reasonable classification.
Article 14 declares that ‘the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
equal protection of law within the territory of India.’. Thus the article 14 uses the two
expressions “equality before law” and “equal protection of law”.
No absolute equality before law exists in practical scenario, for this purposes there is a
need to reasonably classify individuals or groups of individuals based on reasonable,
justified grounds. Thus this doctrine is relevant. It is needed for the progress of the society
as a whole.

I. INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India is the lengthiest constitution in the world and it came into force on
26th January, 1950.

For the purpose of regulating and managing the affairs of the country all the provisions of the
Constitution are equally important, but there are certain provisions that are considered as heart
and soul of the Constitution.

Part III, IV, and IV-A of the Constitution together constitute goals of justice, liberty, equality,
fraternity and the dignity of the individual set out in the Preamble.2

Fundamental rights are guaranteed by Part III of the, some only to the citizens while others to
citizens as well as persons. This article discusses in detail Article 14 of the Constitution that
guarantees the right to equality to all persons. The principle behind the right to equality is that
the equals must be treated equally while unequals must be treated differently. The diverse needs
of different classes of people require different kinds of treatment and hence we must reasonably
differentiate between those who are equal and those who are different. It is this principle that

1
Author is a student at MIT WPU Faculty of Law, India.
2
. SATHYA NARAYAN, LIBERTY, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE 45-48 (Eastern Book Company 2003)

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3959 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

has eventually led to the evolution of the doctrine of reasonable classification.

II. BACKGROUND
The framers of the Indian Constitution adopted the first part of Article 14 of the Constitution
i.e., “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law” after being inspired from
the Irish Constitution. This is declaration of equality of the civil rights of all persons within the
territory of India. In the case of Ward vs Flood, the American Judges regarded this clause as
the “basic principle of republicanism”.3

The second part of Article 14 i.e., “the equal protection of laws within the territory of India” is
a correlated to the first part and is based on the last clause of the first section of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the American Constitution, which states that equal protection, without any
discrimination shall be given to all persons in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties. This
clause of the right to equality has been interpreted as “a pledge of the protection of equal laws”
in Yick Wo v. Hopkins4 by the American Judges, in layman terms it means that the laws operate
alike on all persons under similar circumstances. However, this does not mean that all laws
must be of the same in character and should be universal in their application. It the case of
Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. Union of India5 as well as in many American cases, it has been held
that the Government can make laws which has different applications on different groups or
classes of persons for some specific need and purpose, provided the classification has been
made reasonably and free is from arbitrariness.

III. GENESIS
(A) Article 14

As already discussed above article 14 declares that ‘the State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India.’. Thus the article
14 uses the two expressions “equality before law” and “equal protection of law”.

1. Equality Before Law

It has its origin from America. It is sometimes interpreted as a negative concept. It implies the
absence of any special privilege by reason of birth, religion, sex etc to the individuals and the
aims for the equal subject treatment of all the classes of the society to the ordinary law.

2. Equal Protection Of Law

3
. Supreme Court of California in January 1874
4
. 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
5
. 1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3960 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

It has its origin from British. Contrary to the previous concept, this is interpreted as a positive
concept. It means equality of treatment in similar circumstances. For example, whether the
person is P.M. or President he or she should be dealt with same law as normal being would
have dealt with in similar circumstances.

IV. RULE OF LAW

The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect which Professor Dicey calls the Rule of
Law in England. It means that no man is above the law and that every person whatever his rank
or condition may be is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

Rule of law means that no person shall be subjected to harsh, uncivilized or discriminatory
treatment even when the aim is to secure paramount importance of law and order.

(A) Professor Dicey gave three meanings for this purpose

1. Supremacy of the law

It means the complete and independent supremacy of law as opposed to the autocratic power
of the Government. In layman terms, a man may be punished for a breach of law, but he cannot
be punished for anything else.

It means that no person is punishable or held responsible or can be legally made to suffer. This
is except for a distinct infringement of law established in an ordinary legal manner before the
land’s ordinary courts. For this purpose an alleged offense needs to be proved in the court of
law.

2. Equality before law

(Already discussed above)

3. Absence of individual liberty

Article 216 provides for the protection of life and personal liberty while Article 19 provides
right to freedom which mentions individual liberty like a fundamental right. The first and
second rules seen above apply to the Indian context, but not the third rule. This reason for this
being that since the Constitution of India is the source of the right of individuals and thus the
supreme law of the land, whatever laws are passed by the legislature must be in accordance to
the provisions of the Constitution. Article 14 embodies a basic feature of the rule of law.

6
. Constitution of India 1950

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3961 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

V. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF LAW

The above mentioned rule of equality is not an absolute rule and has some exceptions to it-

1. The meaning of equality of law does not mean that the power which is available to
private citizens is the same as that of the public officials. For this purpose the powers
of the public officials must be clearly defined. The abuse of such power or authority
provided to the officials must be punishable. For Example- A private citizen cannot
arrest another person whereas a police officer has the power to do so. This is not a
violation of the rule of law.
2. A certain class of people who are being subject to some special rules are not prevented
by the rule of law. Example- Armed forces members are controlled by their military
rules; the Bar council of India regulates the legal practitioners etc.
3. Special rules in the professions govern those professionals of society. These people are
treated differently from other citizens. Example- Doctors, nurses, police, lawyers,
members of the armed forces, etc.

VI. WHAT IS REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION?

If the classification is made on a reasonable basis, it must be based on smart differences for the
legislature to deal with two sets of individuals or group of individuals. This means that these
individuals or group of individuals make a properly defined, distinct class and may be
exceptional from those left out of the group. Furthermore, this classification basis must have a
rational reasonable connection to the object that the legislation in question seeks to achieve.

Illustration- The law on maternity benefits applies to women working on the way to maternity,
not to others. The reason being that the purpose of it is to grant privileges only to women who
turn out to be mothers. Thus, the category of men and women is based totally on an intelligible
differentia.

Another illustration is of tax laws. Charities, libraries are exempted from sure tax whereas other
residences are not.

VII. TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 of the Indian
constitution forbids class legislation7 but it does not prohibit the reasonable classification of

7
. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘Class legislation’ is a term applied to statutory enactments which divide the
people or subjects of legislation into classes, with reference either to the grant of privileges or the imposition of
burdens, upon an arbitrary, unjust, or invidious principle of division, or which, though the principle of division
may be sound and justifiable, make arbitrary discrimination between those persons or things coming within the

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

3962 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

objects, persons, and transactions for the purpose to achieve specific needs by the parliament.
Such classification should not be artificial, arbitrary or evasive and it must rest on notable
distinction which is real. It must be reasonable and just enough in relation to what is to be
achieved by the legislation. A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single
individual if on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to only to him and
are not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by itself.

Reasonable Classification as in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India8, the Supreme
Court of India laid down two conditions, they are-

a) The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia, distinguishing grouped

together persons or goods from the left out ones of the group.
b) The differential must be in a rational relation with the sought object that is to be
achieved by the act. The object of the act and differential on the basis of classification
are two separate things. It is essential that there must be the presence of nexus between
the object of the act and the basis of classification. When the classification is not based
on reasonability and is not justified, then such a classification made by the legislature
must be declared discriminatory.
The age at which a person would be deemed competent between themselves can be
fixed by the legislature but competency cannot be claimed. A contract made dependent
on the color of hair cannot be made, and such a classification would be arbitrary.
The classification may be made on different bases, for example it can be geographical
or according to object or occupation or the like.
The classification which is made by the legislature need not necessarily be scientifically
perfect or logically complete. Mathematical details and perfect equality are not
required.
Equality before the law does not require mathematical equality of all persons in all
circumstances. Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment. There can be
discrimination in both substantive as well as the procedural law. Article 14 applies to
both.
If the classification satisfies the test specified before, the law will be declared
constitutional. The question whether a classification is reasonable and proper and not
must however, be judged more on commonsense than on legal subtitles.

same class.
8
. AIR 2004 SC 2212

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3963 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

VIII. CASE LAWS

(A) Madhu Limaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi9

There were Indian and European Prisoners, both were treated differently. Europeans received
better diets. The Court in this case held that difference between Indian and European prisoners
in the matter of treatment and diet violates their right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. They all must be treated equally.

(B) Sanaboina Satyanarayana vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh10

In Andhra Pradesh, there was a scheme formulated for prevention of crime against women. In
prisons, prisoners were classified into two categories, the first being the prisoners guilty of
crime against women and second were the prisoners who are not guilty of crime against women.
Prisoners who are guilty of crime against women challenged the court saying that their right to
equality has been deprived. The Court held that there is reasonable classification for the
purpose to achieve some objective.

(C) D.S. Nakara v. Union Of India11

The Government issued an office memorandum announcing a liberalized pension scheme for
retired government servants, but it was made applicable to only those who had retired after 31
March 1979. The Supreme Court held that the fixing of the cut off date to be discriminatory
and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The basis of the date of retirement was not based on
any rational principle because a difference of two days in the matter of retirement could have
a traumatic effect on the pensioner. Such a classification was held to be arbitrary and
unprincipled as there was no acceptable or persuasive reason in its favour. The said
classification had no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

IX. RELEVANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

The equal protection of laws which is guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws
must be general in character. The diverse needs of different classes of people often require
different and separate treatment. From the vary nature of society there should be different laws
in different places and the laws should be enacted in the best interest of the safety and security
of the state. In fact similar treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality.

For example denial of grant to a private college teaching management while giving grant to

9
. 1975 AIR 1505, 1975 SCR (3) 582
10
. Appeal (crl.) 1227 of 2002
11
. 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3964 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 4; 3958]

other private colleges teaching some different subjects is not permissible. However, reduction
of age from 58 years to 55 years is permissible.

So a reasonable classification is only not permitted but is necessary if the society needs to
progress. As specified earlier, its relevance can more be determined based on common sense,
rather than it being discussed based on legal subtitles.

X. PERSONAL OPINION
The article 14 aims to establish the “Equality of Status and Opportunity” as it forms the core
of the Constitution and is specified in the Preamble of the Constitution. It is important for the
equal protection of law, and sometimes classification brings out inequality. In my opinion this
creates a paradox. For this purpose a middle course should be adopted, taking into
consideration a more realistic approach. It should ensure that the persons or things which are
similarly situated must be similarly treated.

The equal protection clause of the Article 14, gives us a hint at the varying needs of different
sections of the society. This is the reason why there cannot be universal application of laws or
general character of laws. This “abstract uniformity” of the people of the society is an
impossible concept, and thus there is need of classification based on reasonable and justified
grounds. The doctrine is not violative or an exception to the right of equality, instead it protects
it.

XI. CONCLUSION
Article 14 guarantees the fundamental right to equality to every citizen in the country. It is one
of the most important provisions of the Constitution. It provides equality to all the people
irrespective of their caste, religion, race, sex, place of birth. Earlier, there was a test to test the
constitutionality known as the reasonable classification test under which it was tested whether
there is reasonable classification in the legislation. Later, a whole new test was announced to
test whether it was violating Article 14 and it was known as the arbitrariness test. There was
much criticism on this new doctrine and many legal pieces of literature did not agree with the
new doctrine. Though the reasonable classification test is still rejected today in some cases but
on the other hand it is still being used some cases.

*****

© 2021. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]