Equality: Philosophical Foundations — AM 4- Constitutional Law | © Prepared by Ahmed Ali = Symbiosis Law School, NoidaReasonable Classification Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides for the equal protection of Laws The Supreme Court of India Jnspireg by the American Supreme Court’ interpretive explorations under the 14% Amendment to the American Constitution, devised the doctrine of reasonable classification as a test to determine whether or nat legislative acts tan afoul of Acticle 14 [At the outiet one must understand that 4 “demand for equal protection czazot be & demand that laws apply universally to all persons The legislature, if it is to act at all, must impose special burdens upon or grant special benefits to special groups or classes of individuals. We thus arrive at a point at which the demand for equality _ Sonioats the ight to clasif. For itis the classification which determines the range of pectons affected by the special burden or henefit of a law which does not apply to "all pectons” "It is of the estence of classification” said Me Justice Brewer in 1898, "that upoa the class ace cast. busdens diffeceat fom thove vesting upon the general public .. Indeed, the very idea of classification is that of inequality...” Here, thea, is the patadox: The equal protection of the lews is a "pledge of the protection of equal lat" But laws may clamsify And "the very ides of classification is that of inequality” In tackling this paradox the Court has neither abandoned the demand for equality ‘0: denied the lepislatve sight to classify It has taken 2 middle course It has resolved the contradictory demands of legislative specialization and constitutional generality by a doctine of reasonable classification”Reasonable Classification ‘To define 4 cass is simply to designate a quality o¢ chanctesstc of tait o¢ rehtion, of any combination of these, the potsession of which, by an individual, determines his membership in of inclusion within the class A legislate defines 2 lat, o¢ “slazsfen” when st enacts & lew applrig to tay "all abent ineligible for citizenship,” of "al persons conmicted of ‘duee felonies” or all ciizens berween the ages of 19 and 25" o¢ "foreign cocporations doing business within the state" It is ho elementary that membership én a clss is deveined by the posession of the tits which define that class Inderal X sa member of ciats Af, snd only if, X potteres the tite which define class A. Whatever the defining /cuscacesstics of 2 clais may be, every member of that class wil poriess thove chussctecitict Toming now to-the reatonableness of legislative clansifcations, the cue isto be taken fiom our easier eefecence to the cequizement that those sicilarly situated be similaly tated. A reasonable clasifiation is one which includes al who ate similarly situated and none ‘sho are not The question it, haveres, what does that ambiguous and crucial phrase "sisal situated” mean? Where are wwe to ook for the tert of smianty of sterton which determines the eatonablenest of a clatiSeaton? The inescapable snsver is that we mutt look beyond the classifcation to the purpose of the lax: A reasonable clasifiation is one which ‘chides al pensons who are sally situated with rexpect tothe purpose ofthe lx The purpose of a law may be either the ‘imination ofa public "mischiet" or the achievement of some positive pubic good To simplify the discussion we shall efer to the purpote ofa law in term of the elimination of mischief, ince the same agement bokis in either case We shall speak of the defining character or churactecsbet of the legislative classification asthe tet, We can thus speak of the relation of the classification tothe purpose ofthe ln as the relation of the Tait to the Mischief.Reasonable Classification [A problem anes a al ecru the cascaion in sw tually dows not hace a ts defining Tit the posession of involtement seth the Misc atch th lw sms Given, what we have diseased 0 fx it should be clear shat we ae desing wih the elon of tu laste to each other The fst lass consists ofall eda possenng the defirng Tea, the uecond class const of all adidsal ponening or rather, tated by, ‘he Mischief at which the lay amu The fozmer isthe lealatve casscaton, she ltr the elas of those imal stunted wich rapt to the purpose of the ew: We sll fer wo thete two caver ax T and M cespectvels Now ince the eescesblants of say clas T depends ently upon itt elation to dss Mf, tie obesous tht iis impo to pass ‘on the eatonahlenet of a canifiestion without king to considerton, oe entifing, the parpove of the nw ‘Thece a fie ponibeseltionships between the cams defined by the Trait and the clans defined by the Michiel These selatonshipe cam be indicate bythe following propositions iReasonable Classification @) ANT a adanatian Ts I @ NoTeawate @) AUT aces butsomeMs ace not Ts (f) AUMease Ts bac some Ts ae aot Ms ©) Sele Te ae A; some Ts ae tA; and some Mace oot Te of thete Sve relationships holds in any case of lopalutiveclusienton, and we wil eomsider exch fom the point of wie of itNon-Arbitrariness Te Doctine of “ace-adtrcinen" came to infoems Acticle M4 smc Intex any aco, 1974. Iwas pehaps the Coucts Judgment EP Revs » Su of TN (1974) 4 SCCS, tht Gest established i as past ofthe sigh to equality. Unlletheseatonable dasaeation ‘which makes texte of equliy a: pecessaly a comparative sight, the doctine of soerasbarainessackoowledges aight to equals cs of state that ase not necesuny ditsbstive. As wo how equals muy be conceived odber than in a compusative senve is uel problema les said about eight tot Theceloze she doctine has heen subject to some strident exci and yet thas managed cetsench elf at par and pace of Acie 14 ‘Comet thnk of whe italy twas thought of as being applicable to exacotive cts on, mote secerly the Supeemse Court hat ith application to leiltive sets a8 we. While « conceptoal oatienton has hardly been forthcoming fim the Supreme ‘oe cannot deey i intitie appeal Foc wn shoud the State be peemited abitasinen in any Acton, lepiative ce othervne