Facts:

The case dealt with the constitutionality of the Legislation empowering the Government to
appoint a commission. Further, the legality of the notification setting up the commission and
conferring powers thereupon was also questioned. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by
Section 31 of the Commission of Inquiry Act,1952, the Central Government by a notification,
appointed a commission to inquire about certain companies and the interest which certain
persons named in the notification exercised over these companies.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Honourable Supreme Court has discussed six essential principles to be kept in mind while
deciding a matter relating to Article 14 of the Constitution.

a.An individual might be treated as a class.

b.Assumption for the constitutionality of an enactment. It is a weight upon the aggressor of
show that there is a clear deviation of Constitutional Principles.
c.Assumption that the legislature comprehends and effectively acknowledges the need of the
general public and a segregation of classes is done on satisfactory grounds.
d.Legislature is allowed to perceive level of damages and may bind its limitations to those
situations where the need is esteemed to be the most clear.
e.So as to support the assumption of constitutionality, the court may take into account the
general order of the public, history of the country and other significant elements.
f.The assumption of constitutionality can't be extended to a degree that it brings about
threatening vibe or separation by the enactment to a particular class because of a dormant and
undisclosed explanation.
g.There can be discrimination both in the substantive as well as the procedural law. Article
14 applies to both.If the classification satisfies the test laid down in the above propositions,
the law will be declared constitutional. The question whether a classification is reasonable
and proper and not must however, be judged more on common sense than on legal subtitles.

Judgement/Held:

The court laid down the principles to be borne in mind in determining the validity of a statute on
ground of violation of Art. 14 as under:

1 3: Appointment of Commission.
“It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. It condemns discrimination not only by a
substantive law but also by a law of procedure.” There can be discrimination both in the substantive
as well as the procedural law. Article 14 applies to both.

Case Comment:
1.The petitioners argued that that the Notification issued by the Government had gone beyond the
Act. They argued that the Act mentioned Public Importance as a vital factor in the setting up of
a commission which seemed to be absent in the case at hand. Apart from this, Sec. 3 itself
authorises the Government to appoint a commission of Inquiry not just for to make an inquiry
into a definite matter of public significance yet in addition to perform such functions as may be
specified in the notification. Thus, the notification is well inside the powers conferred on the
Government by Sec 3 of the Act and it cannot be questioned on the ground of its going beyond
the provisions of the Act. The Court said that the conduct of an individual (or a company or a
group of people) which may assume a dangerous proposition in order to influence the public
being is equally a matter of public importance as the ones stated above; and hence, the
notification is totally intra vires to the Act.
2.The Court to the issue “whether the actions of the commission would amount to usurpation of
judiciary” said that the that because the Commission could only make recommendations which
were not enforceable proprio vigore there can be no question of usurpation of judicial functions.
3.The major issue circled around the constitutionality of the Act and the notification passed then
and if the said notification is violative of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The court also
discussed the six essential principles as mentioned in the Ratio Decidendi. In order to pass the
test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,
i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group,
ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely,
geographical3, or according to objects4 or occupations or the like.
It was stated by Honourable court that what is necessary is that there must be a nexus
between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.
It also became well established by the decisions of the Court that Article 14 condemns
discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.

2 14. Equality before law.

3 Sarbanada Sonowal v. Union of India
4 Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, 1952CriLJ805
4.The petitioners then went on to argue on the issue that if the Commission cannot be asked to
suggest any measures.
The Court has in this regard pointed out that,

“In our view the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry are of great importance to the
Government in order to enable it to make up its mind as to what legislative or administrative
measures should be adopted.”

Issue:

The Hon’ble Court had bifurcated the issues raised into minor issues and major issues, major being
the ones related to constitutionality of the Act and Article 14, rest all being minor ones.

The minor issues were:

1.Had the notification had gone beyond the Act?

2.Would the actions of the commission amount to usurpation of judiciary?
3.Can the commission be asked to suggest any measures?

Rule:

1. According to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the

laws within the territory of India.”

2. According to Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act,1952, which reads as under:

Appointment of Commission. —
(1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a
resolution in this behalf is passed by 6 [each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the
Legislature of the State], by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry
for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing
such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the Commssion so
appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly: Provided that where any
such Commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter—
(a) by the Central Government, no State Government shall, except with the approval of the Central
Government, appoint another Commission to inquire into the same matter for so long as the
Commission appointed by the Central Government is functioning;
(b) by a State Government, the Central Government shall not appoint another Commission to
inquire into the same matter for so long as the Commission appointed by the State Government is
functioning, unless the Central Government is of opinion that the scope of the inquiry should be
extended to two or more States.

Critical Analysis:

The equivalent protection of laws ensured by Article 14 does not imply that all laws must be
general in character. It does not imply that the similar laws ought to apply to all people. It does not
mean the achievement of attainment or circumstances at the same position. The varying needs of
various classes of people often requires separate treatment. From the varying nature of the society
there ought to be different laws in different places and the legitimate controls the policy and enacts
laws in the best interest of the safety and security of the state. Truth be told, identical treatment in
unequal circumstances and conditions would amount to inequality. So a reasonable classification is
only not permitted but is also necessary if the society is to progress.

Therefore, what Article 14 forbids or restricts is class-legislation however, it does not forbid or
restrict reasonable classification. The classification however must not be “arbitrary ,artificial or
evasive” yet should be based on some genuine and substantial bearing a just and sensible relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated
differently without any reasonable basis. However, where equals and unequals are treated
differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper
discrimination by presenting specific benefits upon a class of people arbitrarily selected from a
large number of them, all of whom stand in the same relation to the benefit granted that between
whom and the people not so favoured no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be
found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.

While Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification of people,
objects, and transactions by the legislature for the purpose to accomplish specific ends. Be that as it
may, classification must not be “arbitrary ,artificial or evasive”. It ought to always rest upon some
genuine and substantial distinction bearing a fair and reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the legislation. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions

Firstly the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
or thing that are grouped together from others left out of the group
Secondly the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act.
The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the act are two distinct
things. What is  necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the
object of the act which makes the classification. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a
classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory. Thus the
legislature may fix the age at which persons shall be deemed competent to contract between
themselves but no one will claim that competency. No contract can be made to depend upon the
stature or colour of the hair. Such a classification will be arbitrary.

Conclusion:
Under Article 14 of the Constitution, the State is prohibited from denying to any person equality
before law and equal protection of the law. The Supreme Court has, over the years, evolved two
tests to determine whether particular kinds of State conduct are Constitutionally permissible under
Article 14. The first of these, referred to as the “old doctrine” or the “classification test”, was
developed by the Court via the judgements given in this landmark case.

What article 14 forbids is discrimination by law that is treating persons similarly circumstanced
differently and treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same way or as has been pithily put
treating equals as unequals  and unequals as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law
and is directed against discriminatory class legislation.

A legislature for the purpose of dealing with the complex problem that arise out of an infinite
variety of human relations cannot but proceed on some sort of selection or classification of persons
upon whom the legislation is to operate.

Simply put, it permits the State to make differential classification of subjects (which would
otherwise be prohibited by Article 14) provided that the classification is founded on intelligible
differentia (i.e. objects within the class are clearly distinguishable from those that are outside) and
has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the classification.

Article 14 contains a guarantee of equality before law to all persons and protection to them against
discrimination by law. It forbids class legislation.
Word Count: 1983