1.

ACTION OF THE STATE VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO

EQUALITY AND IS ARBITARY IN NATURE
Though a particular right is itself not violated by a State Act,it may be denied to an individual
if he is denied equal enjoyment of the right on account of any distinction1 which is not
otherwise justifiable. That would be a violation of the Right to Equality before the law2. Thus,
it is humbly submitted by the Petitioner that the ambit of Article 14 covers all citizens of
Indica, the law providing 33% reservation is therefore discriminatory, arbitrary and
unreasonable.
1.1 The reservation law is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Right to equality not only means right to be not discriminated but also protection against
arbitrary or irrational act of the State3. Art. 14 lays down that no person shall be denied, by
the state, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within its territory. Article
14 strikes at arbitrariness and unreasonable actions of the State, which are “antithetical” to
the rule of equality4.Arbitrary action is described as one that is irrational and not based on
sound reason or as one that is unreasonable.5 Wherever we find arbitrariness or
unreasonableness there is a denial of rule of law.56 Rule of law requires that no person shall
be subjected to harsh, uncivilized or discriminatory treatment even when the object is the
securing of paramount exigencies of law and order6.
Right to equality denies the making any special privilege in favour of any individual
The Petitioner submits that the 33% reservation law,that was passed, is arbitrary since it
classifies people into groups and denies others an equal opportunity. The Petitioner submits
that the special priviledge being made in favour of women as a class, violates the concept of
equality
It is submitted that for upholding the classification under Article 14 twin test must be
satisfied, (a) every classification must be founded on intelligible differentia (b) such
classification or differentia must have a relation or nexus to the object sought to be achieved
thereby7.

1 Belgian Linguistic case, (1968) 11 Y.B.E.C.H.R 832 (N.33-34).

2 Mohini v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858.
3 Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.
4 Bachan Singh, Sher Singh And Anr. v. State Of Punjab And Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
5 Om kumar v. Union Of India , AIR 2000 SC 3689.
6 Rubinder Singh v.Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 65
7 Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
a) Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia.
Intelligible Differentia means a factor that distinguishes a class from another which is capable
of being understood8.It is submitted that Section 377 IPC creates classification between
persons indulged in proactive and non-proactive sexual acts which are unintelligible as it
creates a class of vulnerable people continually victimized and directly affected by the
provision.
The Petitioner humbly submits that the classification enabled by the Act is based upon no
reasonable ground since it creates a class for women merely on the differentiation of sex
which is not capable of being understood. Such class legislation is hostile, discriminatory and
contra Article 14 of the Constitution.
Classification should not amount to a class legislation. Class legislation means a law that is
applicable only to certain persons or class of persons. For example, if a law makes the
classification based only on a class of persons who belong to a particular religion or race or
gender will be unreasonable and violate the right to equality.9
In the present case, a class is being formed by providing reservations only to women thereby
reducing the choice of voters. The basic principle of democracy is being affected by
encroachment on the rights of the citizens by making them vote only for the women. The
reservation of constituencies for women is violation of Article 14 and the democratic
framework of the nation.

8 Ramanatha Aiyer , Advanced law Lexicon, 2391 (3rd Edn. 2005).

9 https://www.lawtutor.in/tag/reasonable-classification/
b) Classification or differentia must have reasonable nexus to the object sought to be
achieved
In considering reasonableness from the point of view of Article 14, the Court has also to
consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust,
necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable.10
There should be a relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. In the
present case, inference can be drawn from the facts, that the prime objective of providing
reservation was upliftment of the women and to empower them. But this object cannot be
possible and reasonably achieved by providing a reservation to women, the main argument
from side petitioner being that this law will empower only elite class women whom they
referred to as "Parkati Mahilayen" (by which they mean – “woman belonging to rich and
aristocratic class who are the faces of already established politicians of the country”) who
are modern in nature and wanted to establish their dominance in Indica, and ultimately by
such reservation only such kind of women shall be benefited, because, Indica is basically a
rural country where majority of women belong to rural class where they are unaware even
about their basic rights. 11
The petitioner humbly submits that the objective of empowering women as a whole, has no
rational nexus to the classification created. As held in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of
India12 if a law discriminates on any of the prohibited grounds, it needs to be tested not
merely against "reasonableness" under Article 14 but be subject to "strict scrutiny".

It may be also be noted that the right to equality has been declared by the Supreme Court as
the basic feature of the Constitution. Preamble to the Constitution of Indica emphasises
principle of equality as the basic to the Constitution. Even constitutional amendments which
offend basic structure of the Constitution are invalid. In the landmark case of Indira Gandhi
v. Raj Narain13, the Court said that“Parliament and State Legislature cannot transgress the
principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution which is the basic
feature of the Constitution.”

10 Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, AIR1989 SC 903.

11 Fact sheet,para 10
12 AIR 2008 SC 663
13 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 2299
 1.2 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 19(2) ARE ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF
THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY?

In 2015, the women-laden Parliament, by a constitutional amendment, to empower the

women to express themselves and their opinions freely with very few limitations, inserted a
proviso to Article 19(2) of the Constitution which reads “Provided that in case of women,
reasonable restrictions can only be imposed on the grounds of immorality, public order and
friendly relations with foreign states.”
It is relevant to understand the need for the inclusion of this proviso when Art.19 was
already in existence. “Nothing shall prevent the State from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”- art 19
The petitioner humbly submits that it fails to understand the rationale and need behind the
inclusion of 19(2).the petitioner question the exclusion of ‘defamation, incitement to an
offence and interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India’as grounds of imposing
restriction on women. The petitioner doubts the intent of the legislature and submits that there
is definitely a malafide intent and therefore,to benefit their personal party interest they have
misused the law. It is therefore arbitrary and cannot be justified on any ground.