In family planning and sterilization, it is necessary that the policies and incentive schemes are made gender neutral and the necessary focus on female sterilization is discontinued.
'U' and 'A' category films - In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, the validity of Cinematograph Act, 1952 was challenged on the gound that it made unreasonable classification. Under the Act, cinema films were classified into two categories, viz. "U" films and "A" films according to their suitability for adults or young people. 'U' films were meant for unrestricted exhibition while 'A' films could only be exhibited to adults. It was argued that motion picture as a form of expression was, entitled to equal treatment with other forms of expression. The Court held - The treatment of motion picture must be different from that of other forms of art and expression due to, its veratility, realism and its co-ordination of the visual and real senses. The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. Its effect paticularly on children and adolescent is very great since their immaturity makes them more willingly suspend their disbelief than mature men and women. They also remember the action in the picture and try to imitate what they have seen. Therefore, the classification of films into two categories of 'U' films and 'A' films is a reasonable classification. It is also for this reason that motion picture must be regarded differently from other forms of speech and expression. A person reading a book or other writing or hearing a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stired as by seeing a motion picture. The treatment of motion picture on a different footing is a reasonable classification.
Restricting entry for awards to films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification - In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, the Court held that restricting entry to only films certified by Central Board of Film Certification is not unreasonable restriction on right of Film makers. The Government policy for National Film Awards is to restrict entry of those films which have been certified by the Board for exhibition that film intended for public exhibition is to select best film from among those which the public can see and enjoy or gain knowledge.
Age of retirement and pregnancy bar of air - hostess - In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, the Regulation 46 of the Air India Regulation provided that an air hostess would retire from the service of the corporation upon attaining the age of 35 years, or on marriage, if it took place within four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurred earlier. Under Regulation 47 the Managing Director had the discretion to extend the age of retirement by one year at a time beyond the age of retirement upto the age of 45 years if an air hostess was found medically fit. The regulation did not prohibit marriage after four years and if an Air Hostess after having fulfilled the first condition became pregnant, there was no reason why pregnancy should stand in the way of her continuing in service. The SC struck down the Air India and Indian Airlines Regulations on the age of retirement and pregnancy bar on the services of air hostesses as unconstitutional on the ground that the conditions laid down therein were manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary and clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Having taken in service and after having utilised her services for four years to terminate her service if she becames pregnant amounted to compelling the poor Air Hostess not to have any children and thus interfered with and divert the ordinary course of human nature. The termination of services of Air Hostesses in such circumstances was not only a callous and cruel act but an open insult to Indian womanhood - the most sacrosanct and cherished institution. The provision for extension of service of Air Hostess "at the option" of the Managing Director conferred a discretionary power without laying down any guidelines or principles and liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. Under the Air India Regulations the extension of the retirement of an Air Hostess was discriminatory entirely at the mercy and the sweetwill of the Managing Director and the conferment of such a wide and uncontrolled power on the Managing Director suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of powers.
Fixation of DA and Bonus - New Rules - In A.V. Nachane v. Union of India (Popularly Known as L.I.C. Bonus case), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of L.I.C. Amendment Act, 1981 and the ordinance preceding it and the rules framed thereunder relating to bonus payable to Class III and IV employees. The Act and the rules framed thereunder were challenged by the employees of the corporation on the ground that they were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as they suffered from excessive delegation of legislative functions. However, the validity of the Act and Rules thereunder were upheld prospectively, that is, from February 2, 1981, the day the rules were issued in a notification, and the Court directed the L.I.C. to pay bonus to its employees up to February 2, 1981 in terms of the 1974 settlement. Under the settlement the employees were entitled to bonus at the rate of 15 percent of their annual salary. The Act and the rules had changed the basis for fixation of dearness allowance and bonus and took it out of the purview of the Induatrial Disputes Act. The Rules had stated that the new basis would apply retrospecitvely, i.e., from July 1, 1979. The Court held that is could not be done. The new basis for fixation of D.A. and bonus would apply prospectively, i.e., from February 2, 1981. There was no material to show that the rules were violative of Article 14. The 1974 settlement on bonus could only be supereseded by a fresh settlement, an industrial award or relevant legislation. But any such supersession could only have future effect and not retrospective effect.
Reduction of age of retirement of Government employee - In K.Nagaraj v. State of A.P., the validity of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Conditions of Service) Ordinance was challeged on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. By this Ordinance, the Government reduced the age of retirement of all Government employees from 58 to 55 years. It was urged that there was no basis for reducing the age of retirement. The Court held that the reduction of age of retirement was not arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 as it was taken by the Government after due consideration and with a view to providing employment opportunities to younger sections of society. The balancing of the claims of different segments of society involves a question of policy which must be left to the judgment of the executive and the legislature. The fact that the decision to reduce the age of retirement from 58 to 55 was taken by the Telugu Desam Government within one month of the assumption of office by it could not justify the conclusion that the decision was arbitrary on ground of being unscientific in the sense that it was not backed by due investigation. The reasonableness of a decision does not depend upon the time which it takes.
Restriction on admission in evening classes of LL.B. on the basis of Government employees and employees in private sector - In Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, the appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the admission rule in the evening classes of the three year LLB course of the Punjab University on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. By the rule, admission to evening classes was restricted only to regular employees of Government/Semi- Government institutions etc. and not employees in general including private sector employees. The appellants were employees in the private sector and hence they were denied admission. It was held that there was no reasonable basis for classification of employees between government and semi-government employees and private sector employees for the purpose of admission to LL.B course. Both of them stand on the same footing and there is no difference between the two. It is true that the service conditions of employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc., are different and they may have greater security of service, but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes. The possibility of production by employees of private establishments of bogus certificates and insecutiry of their service are not such circumstances as will justify the exclusion of such employees from the evening classes. It was held that the classification between the Government/Semi-Governemtn employees for the purpose of admission to evening classes to the exclusion of the other employees was unreasonable and unjust and therefore the rule was struck down as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Admission to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S - In Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana, the reservation of 25 seats for admission to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. course for students who were eucated from classes I to VIII in common rural schools was held to be violative of Article 14 and invalid as the classification between the rural educated and urban educated students for this purpose was wholly arbitrary and irrational having no necus to the object sought to be achieved of providing extra facilities to students coming from rurla schools to enter medical college. The same Government prescribes standard of education, equipment, grants and facilities including the qualification of the staff for being emplouyed in urban and rural schoools imparting instructions from first to eight standard. Thus, all students of classes IX to XII, those coming from rural schools and those from urban are similarly place yet they are artificially divided by a reference to a part even wholly unrelated to the object sought to be achieved and hence the reservation based on such classification was held to be constitutionally invalid.
No relaxation in qualifying examination by rounding off marks - Where no provision of any statute or any rules framed there under has been shown permitting rounding off eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examinaion for admission to a course, any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. Therefore, rounding off of 54.71 %, to 55 % so as to make the respondent eligible for admission to P.G. course in M.Sc. (Nursing) was impermissible.
Nomination for medical seats by the Government - In Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme court quashed the nomination of candidates by the Bihar Government for admission to medical colleges in the State of J. and K., as violative of Article 14 on the ground that no basis of selection was indicated for nominating candidates. The Court directed the Government to adopt a definite criteria and follow pre defined norm in such matter. Until such criterion is adopted the nomination s must be made on the basis of merit, viz. the candidates nominated being those in order of merit who are selected for admission to the Medical College of the Home State.
Reducation of minimum qualifying marks to fulfil reserved quota - In Arti Gupta v. State of Punjab, it has been held that reduction of minimum qualifying marks from 35% to 25% in order to accommodate more SCs. and STs. candidates to fulfil the reserved quota is not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the above cases highlight the nuanced application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination. These decisions underscore that classifications must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and justifiable in relation to the objective they seek to achieve.
Key Takeaways:
- Gender Neutrality in Policies: The emphasis on discontinuing gender-biased approaches, such as in family planning schemes, aligns with the constitutional mandate of equality.
- Reasonable Classification: In cases like K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, classifications such as 'U' and 'A' films were upheld as reasonable, recognizing the unique impact of motion pictures compared to other art forms.
- Fair Employment Practices: Decisions such as Air India v. Nargesh Meerza rejected arbitrary service conditions, affirming the dignity and rights of employees, particularly women.
- Educational Admission and Reservations: Arbitrary classifications in education admissions, as seen in cases like Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana and Arti Gupta v. State of Punjab, were scrutinized, with the Court striking down irrational quotas while supporting rational accommodations for reserved categories.
- Administrative Policies and Governance: Cases like K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. demonstrate judicial deference to policy decisions when they are backed by reasonable justification, such as reducing the retirement age to promote youth employment.
The judiciary’s role in ensuring that policies and actions withstand the test of constitutional equality reflects the importance of balancing individual rights with societal objectives. These rulings reinforce the principle that laws and administrative decisions must promote equity, fairness, and reasonableness to uphold the ethos of the Constitution.
0 Comments