RESPONDENT

The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar

Thus, the general language of article 14, as of its American counterpart, has been greatly
qualified by the recognition of the State's regulative power to make laws operating differently
on different classes of persons in the governance of its subjects, with the result that the
principle of equality of civil rights and of equal protection of the laws is only given effect to as a
safeguard against arbitrary State action. It follows that in adjudging a given laws as
discriminatory and unconstitutional two aspects have to be considered. First, it has to be seen
whether it observes equality between all the persons on whom it is to operate. An affirmative
finding on the point may not, however, be decisive of the issue. If the impugned legislation is a
special law applicable only to a certain class of persons, the court must further enquire whether
the classification is founded on a reasonable basis having regard to the object to be attained, or
is arbitrary. Thus, the reasonableness of classification comes into question only in those cases
where special legislation affecting a class of person is challenged as discriminatory.

State Of Kerala & Anr vs N. M. Thomas

This Court in the State of Gujarat and Anr. etc. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad etc.(1) said
"The equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. But laws
may classify. And the very idea of classification is that of inequality. In tackling this paradox the
Court has neither abandoned the demand for equality nor denied the legislative right
to classify. It has taken a middle course. It has resolved the contradictory demands of legislative
specialization and constitutional generality by a doctrine of reasonable classification.

Pathumma And Others vs State Of Kerala; Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice
S. R. Tendolkar
It is now well settled that what Article 14 forbids is hostile discrimination and not
reasonable classification. Equality before 'law does not mean that the same set of law should
apply to all persons under every circumstance ignoring differences and. disparties between
men and things. A reasonable classification is inherent in the very concept of equality, because
all persons living on this earth are not alike and have different problems. Some may be wealthy;
some may be poor; some may be educated; some I may be uneducated some may be highly
advanced and others may be economically backward. It is for the State to make
a reasonable classification which must fulfil two conditions: (1) The classification must he
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
together from others left out of the group. (2) The differentia must have a reasonable nexus to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute.

Kewal Singh vs Lajwanti

Discrimination may take place in many ways, and what Article 14 requires is that equals must
be treated alike. If equals and unequals are also treated alike then also Article 14 is clearly
attracted and discrimination results. A reasonable classification based on grounds having a
clear nexus with the objective to be achieved and grouping certain persons in a separate
category in view of their special peculiarities is undoubtedly permissible. Of
course, classification should not be purely a class legislation.

The State Of Gujarat And Another vs Shri Ambica Mills Ltd; Missouri, R & T Rly., v.
May (1904) 194 US 267, 269. (2) 300 U.S. 379, 400.
It may be remembered that article 14 does not require that every regulatory statute apply to all
in the same business : where size is an index to the evil at which the law is directed,
discriminations between the large and small are permissible, and it is also permissible for
reform to take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems
most acute to the legislative mind.

Other Relevant cases-

Parvez Akhtar v UOI
Sk Chakroborty v UOI
Dharam Dutt v UOI
Kumari Chitra Ghosh v UOI
Dhirendra Pandua v State of Orissa
Vk subramamanium v Rajesh Raghuvendra Rao
National Council For teacher association v shri shyam shiksha prashikshan
John Vallamattom v UOI
Rajbala v State of Haryana (panchayat educational qualification case)

RATIONALE RELATION TO OBJECT TO BE ACHIEVED

Chattisgarh Rural Agriculture officers
Aurr bhi hein yr. sb nhi copy paste honge. I am sending you that scc link. Uspr
hoga.