Article 14 Argument Against | Essays (university) Law

It is most humbly submitted that the respondents acknowledge that the supremacy of the

constitution mandates all constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the constitution.

Part III of the constitution contains the fundamental rights and thus protects substansive as well

as procedural rights. PRATAP SINGH v State of Jharkhand(2005) 3 SCC 551.

Its is humbly submitted that any law made by the parliament must be consistent with the

fundamental rights in order to be constitutional. Article 13(2) constitution of india. It is also

submitted that the fundamental rights mentioned in part III are a part of the basic structure of the

constitution of republic of mosis. I.R. Coehlo v state of tamil nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1. Therfore any

law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be held as violative of the doctrine of basic

structure. State of west Bengal v committee for preotection of democratic rights, (2010) 3 SCC

571.

Thus it is modt humbly submitted that, in the instant case, the citizenship amendment act,2019

whifh follows article 14, and 21 of the constitution of republic of mosis is constitutionally valid

and abides by the basic structure of the constitution.

Article 14 prescribes equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal by

nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore a mechanical equality before the law may

result in injustice. Thus’ the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does not

mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in spite of

differences in circumstances or conditions. Chiranjeet lal v UOI AIR 1951 SC 41

The varying needs of different classes or sections of people require differential and separate

treatment. The legislature is required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite

variety of human relations. It must, therefore, necessarily have the power of making laws to

attain particular objects and, for that purpose, of distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons

and things upon which it’s laws are to operate.

Attention is drawn to the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279,

wherein the true meaning and scopeof Article 14 was reiterated as follows; "It is now well

established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable

classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible

classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded

Partial preview of the text

Download Article 14 Argument Against and more Essays (university) Law in PDF only on Docsity!

It is most humbly submitted that the respondents acknowledge that the supremacy of the constitution mandates all constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the constitution. Part III of the constitution contains the fundamental rights and thus protects substansive as well as procedural rights. PRATAP SINGH v State of Jharkhand(2005) 3 SCC 551. Its is humbly submitted that any law made by the parliament must be consistent with the fundamental rights in order to be constitutional. Article 13(2) constitution of india. It is also submitted that the fundamental rights mentioned in part III are a part of the basic structure of the constitution of republic of mosis. I.R. Coehlo v state of tamil nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1. Therfore any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be held as violative of the doctrine of basic structure. State of west Bengal v committee for preotection of democratic rights, (2010) 3 SCC

Thus it is modt humbly submitted that, in the instant case, the citizenship amendment act, whifh follows article 14, and 21 of the constitution of republic of mosis is constitutionally valid and abides by the basic structure of the constitution. Article 14 prescribes equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore a mechanical equality before the law may result in injustice. Thus’ the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does not mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in circumstances or conditions. Chiranjeet lal v UOI AIR 1951 SC 41 The varying needs of different classes or sections of people require differential and separate treatment. The legislature is required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations. It must, therefore, necessarily have the power of making laws to attain particular objects and, for that purpose, of distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and things upon which it’s laws are to operate. Attention is drawn to the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279, wherein the true meaning and scopeof Article 14 was reiterated as follows; "It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, 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, and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. It is also well established by the decision of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure. It is not necessary that for a classification to be valid its basis must always appear on the face of the law. To find out the reasons and justification for the classification the court may refer to relevant material e.g. objects and reasons appended to the bill parliamentary debates affidavits of the parties matters of common knowledge the background circumstances leading to the passage of the act – jagdish pandey v chancellor Bihar university 1968 AIR 353, 1968 SCR (1) 231 The Bill appears to have the object of facilitating all such minority communities without any discrimination, though, the same is not clearly specified in its Statement of Object and Reasons appended to the Bill but was specifically mentioned in the Cabinet Note seeking approval of the Cabinet for introduction of the Bill. According to the joint committee report, The purpose of the Amendment is to enable acquisition of Indian Citizenship by members of minority communities namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who were forced or compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution in their countries. And it most humbly submitted that there is sufficient nexus between the intelligible differentia for a reasonable classification and the object sought to be achieved by the statute, thereof. In further support of such differentia and nexus, the judgement in the case Clarence Pais v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 325, Court would be reasonable to refer. considered challenge to provisions of Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 1962, including Section 213(2) providing for requirement of probate of wills, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for being applicable only to Christians and not to any other religion. Negating the contention, it was held that the differences were held to be based not on any religion but for historical reasons that in the British Empire in India, probate was required

blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary GOVT of AP v N Subbarayudu (2008) 14 scc 702 (703) According to the joint committee report, A cut off date of 31 December, 2014 has been decided for determination of eligibility and to preven the possibilities of vested interests in the neighbouring countries taking advantages of this provision for further influx into india. CSIR v RAmesh Chandra aggarwal (2009) 3 scc 35 (52) State is entitled to fix a cut off date. Such a decision may only be struck down upon the question as to wether it has a rational nexus with the object osought to be achieved. This creates a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, with the national security being the pitch and substance thereof.

Article 14 Argument Against, Essays (university) of Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Article 14 Argument Against and more Essays (university) Law in PDF only on Docsity!