WHETHER STALIN COMMITTED AND OTHERS ALSO UNPATRIOTISM BY UTTERING "ONDRIYA ARASU"? OPENING WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT INTENDED SO OTHER THAN A DEFINITION YET DRAVIDA THINKINGALL OF THEM ARE GOOD LAW DEGREE HOLDERS DISTORTED THE INDIAN IMAGE AND ITS CONSTITUTION SO THOUGHT TO PROJECT TO REVISE THE MEMORY K RAJARAM IRS 28526 *Constitution of India*
- Published in Gazette 00 on 26 January 1950 - *Assented to on 24 January 1950* - *Commenced on 26 January 1950* - *[This is the version of this document from 26 January 1950.]* Constitution Of India WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all; FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.*[In the Preamble to the Constitution; (a)for the words "SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" the words "SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" and(b)for the words "unity of the Nation", the words "unity and integrity of the Nation" shall be substituted through Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]*[ *[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976,made significant changes to the Constitution such as the description of India from a "sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation" India ]* *Part I – The Union and its Territory* *1.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1406924/>* Name and territory of the Union* (1) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1200881/>India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. {KR iNDIA IS NOT FEDERAL STATES AS USA BUT INDIA @ bHARATH IS MADE UP OF SEVERAL STATES IF SO HOW IT IS FEDERAL? STATES FREEDOM IS CONDITIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION} (2) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1629443/>The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. (3) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062009/>The territory of India shall comprise-(a) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/490632/>The territories of the States;(b) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1444445/>the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and(c) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125352/>such other territories as may be acquired. *[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, it amended Article 1 where the split of states based on Parts was eliminated as part of the revisions made. States were used in place of Parts A and B. States in Parts C and D were replaced by Union territories. There were added 14 states along with 5 union territories. ]* *2.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456610/>* Admission or establishment of new States* Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions, as it thinks fit. *2A.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/651072/>* Sikkim to be associated with the Union* *[After article 2 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted Constitution (Thirty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1974] *Sikkim, which comprises the territories specified in the Tenth Schedule, shall be associated with the Union on the terms and conditions set out in that Schedule. *[Rep. by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975 , section 5 (w.e.f . 26. 4. 1975 ).* *][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Thirty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1974, deals with the appeal raised by the Sikkim government to include them as an associate state in India. In simple words, the people of Sikkim wanted to fill the gap between them and India and thus demanded the special status of an associate state. The Amendment observed the insertion of Article 2A in the constitution. Article 2A stated that Sikkim was associated with the Union while the tenth schedule emphasizes the special conditions of association between the Union and Sikkim. It gives the Sikkim people the right to represent themselves in the Legislative Assembly and various political institutions. This amendment inculcated among the people a sense of belongingness and equal rights as any other citizen.Important Verdicts- **State of Sikkim vs Surendra Prasad Sharma* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/436092/>*Also Refer* <https://blog.examarly.com/upsc/35th-amendment-of-indian-constitution/>*][Editorial Comment- The Constitution (Thirty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975,Remove article 2A:Formation of Sikkim as a State within the Indian Union. ]* *3.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1659104/>* Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States* Parliament may by law- (a) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/531335/>Form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; (b) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45318/>increase the area of any State; (c) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1470645/>diminish the area of any State; (d) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1725440/>alter the boundaries of any State; (e) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1799986/>alter the name of any State; Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the B ill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States , the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.*[In article 3 of the Constitution, for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted through Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955]* *[Editorial Comment- The Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, which attempted to modify Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. then-President Rajendra Prasad gave his approval to the bill, which was then published in The Gazette of India on December 26, 1955. Originally, Article 3, did not prescribe a time limit for expression of views by the States on the States reorganization laws. It was feared that the States could forestall the passage of the State Reorganisation Act by not expressing their views for any length of time. The amended Article now provides a time limit within which the State has to express their views. If they do not express their views within the specified time the Bill may be passed by Parliament. * * ]*Explanation I.- In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union territory.Explanation II.- The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory. *[Editorial Comment- The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, revised Article 3 of the Constitution to give new meaning to the terms “State” and “Union territories”. The modification clarified that in Article 3, the term “State” in clauses (a) to (e) must include “Union territories”. However, this was not applicable in the proviso. It further explained that the power under clause (a) involves the authority of the Parliament for the formation of a new State or Union territory. This may be done by joining a part of any State or Union territory with some other State or Union territory ]* *4.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1015123/>* Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters* (1) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/989492/>Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary. (2) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1244046/>No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368. *Part II – Citizenship* *5.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1937835/>* Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution* At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and—(a) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/408954/>who was born in the territory of India; or (b) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/937159/>either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or (c) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/539588/>who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. *6.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19636/>* Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan* Notwithstanding anything in article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if— (a) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/313888/>he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and (b) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1227981/>(i)in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or(ii)in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefore to such officer before the commencement of this Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that Government: Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application. *7.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/735354/>* Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan* Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India: Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of article 6 be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948. *8.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/691208/>* Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India* Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefore to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India. *9.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260256/>* Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be citizens* No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State. *10.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/492977/>* Continuance of the rights of citizenship* Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen. *11.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1678224/>* Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law* Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. *Part III – Fundamental Rights* *12.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/609139/>* Definition* In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. *Editorial Comment - This article provides the definition of the “state” in India and the various organs which come under it. This definition of the State under Article 12 is applicable only for Part 3 (Fundamental Rights) and Part 4 (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution of India. The meaning of “Other Authorities” under Article 12 can be understood by looking at leading case laws such as In the case of **Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal, AIR 1967* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/459864/> *wherein it was decided that “other authorities is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions and functioning within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.” The court further laid down the guidelines for deciding ‘any authority’ as ‘Other Authority’ under Article 12, In the case of **Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1281050/> * (1979): “If the entire shares are owned by the Government, “If almost the entire expenditure is done by the Government”, “If there is a state conferred monopoly in that corporation”, “Whenever there is deep and pervasive control by the Government” and “If the functions by the corporation are of Public importance” and lastly, “If a department of the Government is transferred to a corporation.” Indian Courts have interpreted the meaning of 'State' in various contexts over time to extend the dimension of Fundamental Rights. In the case of **University of Madras v. Santa Bai* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/233848/> *, the Madras High Court evolved the principle of ejusdem generis i.e. of the “like nature”. It means that those authorities are covered under the expression 'other authorities’ which perform governmental or sovereign functions. In **Sukhdev v. Bhagatram,* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/426032/> * LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India) , ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) and IFC (International Finance Corporation) were held to be state as they perform very similar functions which seem to be governmental or sovereign functions. Another set of discussions have been around the fact of the Judiciary becoming part of the state. Eminent Jurists like H.M.Seervai, V.N.Shukla consider judiciary to be State. Their view is supported by Articles 145 and 146 of the Constitution of India. “It was held that the Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of Courts and is also empowered to make appointments of its staff and servants and decide its service conditions.” In **Prem Garg v. Excise Commissioner H.P.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1945293/> * The Supreme Court held that when rule making power of the judiciary is concerned, it is ‘state’. There have been contrary opinions on this subject too. In **Rati Lal v. State of Bombay* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12756/> *, it was held that the judiciary is not state for the purpose of Article 12. In A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353689/> and N.S.Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643138/>, it has been observed that “when rule making power of judiciary is concerned it is state but when exercise of judicial power is concerned it is not state.” Thus, the word 'state' under Article 12 jurisprudence has evolved in India through various interpretations and discussions in the High courts and the Supreme court. It has been given a wider meaning which ensures that Part-III of the constitution can be applied to a larger extent. **13.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134715/>* Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights* (1) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1010805/>All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Pan, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. (2) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/772605/>The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. (3) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/654960/>In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-(a) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15421639/>"law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;(b) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95003376/>"laws in force" includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas. (4) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/430906/>Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.*[Editorial comment - Article 13 (1) discusses the laws which were made before the commencement of the Constitution (26 *January * 1950) and Article 13 (2) delves about the laws which are made after the Constitution is in place. Article 13 (1) states that all the laws which are made before the Constitution will be void as long as they are violating the provisions of the Fundamental Rights. It further states that only that part of the law which will be void which is against the provisions of the constitution and not the whole law itself. This guarantee is against the existing laws and future laws and not to the laws which are made before the commencement of the constitution. Article 13(2) states that all the laws which are made after the commencement of the Constitution are void to the extent of the infringement of the Fundamental Rights given in part 3 of the Constitution. The ‘Doctrine of Eclipse’ asserts that all the Pre-Constitutional laws which are against the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution will become dormant and not dead. They will remain dormant as long as the state does not amend the law and its infringing nature. So this doctrine applies to only Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution. In Keshavan Madhvan Menon v. State of Bombay <https://lawtimesjournal.in/keshavan-madhavan-menon-vs-state-of-bombay/>, the court said that the law which is infringing the rights of the citizens after the commencement of the constitution is ‘void ab initio’ for the citizens of the country but it will remain enforceable for the non-citizens and companies. The doctrine of Eclipse makes the law unenforceable but it doesn’t make the law void ab initio. The ‘doctrine of Waiver’ means that a person who is receiving a right or a privilege can waive that right according to his will. Once the right is waived by the individual then they cannot claim it back. In Behram v. State of Bombay <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68666/>, it was decided by the court that the rights which are given in part 3 of the constitution cannot be waived by an individual. The ‘Doctrine of Separability’ means that if a part of a law is against the provisions of the constitution then only that offending part will be declared as void and not the whole statute. This doctrine is applied in both Article 13 (1) and Article 13 (2) of the Indian Constitution. In **R.M.D.C. v. Union of India* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/725224/> *, AIR 1957, Supreme Court has given some rules relating to this doctrine: “1. It is important to understand the intention of the legislature before using this doctrine. 2. When separation of invalid part of the statute is very difficult then the whole law will be held as invalid. 3. If after deleting the invalid part, the valid part has no value left to it then the whole act will be rejected in its entirety.” Article 13(3) (a) defines “Law”. According to this section, Law includes any ordinance, order, bye-Law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages. This definition of law is given a wide meaning so that it can be added to a wide variety of state instrumentalities. In **Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1743680/> *, AIR 1977, Supreme Court said that personal laws (Hindu Law, Muslim Law, and Christian Law) are not part of the definition of Law under Article 13. The Bye-Laws made by the Cooperative Societies are also not part of the definition of Law. There have also been other discussions on whether “Law” includes constitutional amendments. This question was first decided in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1706770/> AIR 1951. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the word law under Article 13(2) doesn’t include a constitutional amendment. This entailed that the Parliament has power to amend the Fundamental Rights according to their will. Later in the case of **Golak Nath v. State of Punjab* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/> *, AIR 1967, the Supreme Court overruled the Shankari Prasad verdict and stated that the word ‘Law’ in Article 13(2) includes the constitutional amendments. If any constitutional amendment is infringing the Fundamental rights then that amendment will be void. To nullify the Golak Nath decision the Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, wherein parliament added Clause 4 in Article 13 which stated that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368. Later in the case of the** Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala,* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/>* AIR 1973, the constitutionality of the 24th Amendment was held valid. So the present position of the word “Law” is that a Constitutional Amendment does not include the word. This gives the Parliament the power to amend the provisions of the Fundamental rights as long as they align with the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.*ReferencesIndianKanoon <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134715/>Blog Ipleaders <https://blog.ipleaders.in/fundamental-rights-article-13/> ConstitutionofIndia.net <https://constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-13-laws-inconsistent-with-or-in-derogation-of-the-fundamental-rights/>Lawctopus Academike <https://lawctopus.com/academike/article-13-analysis/>Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India>[*[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Twenty-Four Amendment) Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution.Tthe 24th Amendment was effected to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in **I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/>* The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void." The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" under the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Court also held that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying, restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III **Also Refer* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India/> * ]* *14.* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/>* Equality before law* The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.*Editorial Comment* * -Article 14 rejects any type of discrimination based on caste, race, and religion, place of birth or sex. This Article is having a wide ambit and applicability to safeguard the rights of people residing in India. This article is divided into two parts: Equality before the Law: This part of the article indicates that all are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This is a negative concept as it implies the absence of any privilege in favor of any person. This is a substantive part of the article. Equal protection of the Laws: This part means that the same law will be applied to all the people equally across the society. This is a positive concept as it expects a positive action from the state. This is a procedural part of article 14. “The dissent of Justice Subba Rao in the **State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya 1960* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/481284/> *stated that Article 14 comprises both “positive content” as well as “negative content”. Whereas, equality before the law is a negative content, equal protection of the laws exhibits a positive content of Article 14.” The doctrine of Anti Arbitrariness: The scope of article 14 was drastically increased by the Supreme Court by including the executive discretion under its ambit. In the case of **E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327287/> *, 1974, the court said that Article 14 gives a guarantee against the arbitrary actions of the State. The Right to Equality is against arbitrariness. They both are enemies to each other. So it is important to protect the laws from the arbitrary actions of the Executive. “The first landmark judgment which actually spotted the virtue of non-arbitrariness in Article 14 was **S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/627937/> * . The Court, for the first time held “absence of arbitrary power” as sine qua non to rule of law with confined and defined discretion, both of which are essential facets of Article 14.” In here Justice Subba Rao elaborating on the wide expanse of Article 14 , vide para 14 held thus: “In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits.” In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/> 1978, Justice Bhagwati said that Equality is against the arbitrariness of State action. So this doctrine ensures equality of treatment. “The seven-Judge Bench held that a trinity exists between Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21. All these articles have to be read together. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14.” Natural Justice as a part of Article 14: From the case of **A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/639803/> *, It is evident that Natural Justice (natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)) is an integral part of Article 14. The court held that “the Principle of Natural Justice helps in the prevention of miscarriage of Justice, These Principles also check the arbitrary power of the State.” Classification Test: In the case of **Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, 1958* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/685234/> * the Supreme Court describes the jurisprudence of equality before the law. It simply 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. In the case of** Indra Sawhney v UOI, 1993* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/> * which is a landmark judgment on aspects of reservation in India. “The Court interpreted the relation between Article 14 and Article 16. It was held that Article 16(1) is a facet of Article 14. Just as Article 14 permits reasonable classification, so does Article 16(1). A classification may involve reservation of seats or vacancies. The principle aims of Article 14 and 16 is equality and equality of opportunity and Clause (4) of Article 16 is a means of achieving the very same objective. Both the provisions have to be harmonized keeping in mind the fact that both are the restatements of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.” Further expansion of Article 14 was done in the case of **Visakha v State of Rajasthan, 1997* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/> * “The judgment sought to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual Harassment violates the fundamental right of the women of gender equality which is codified under Article 14 of Indian Constitution and also the fundamental right to life and to live a dignified life. The Court held that even though there is no express provision for sexual harassment at workplace under Indian Constitution, it is implicit through these fundamental rights.” (references mentioned below) Expansion of Article 14 in terms of defining Gender: In the case of**National Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI, 2014* <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193543132/> *. “This case was filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) to legally recognize persons who fall outside the male/female gender binary, including persons who identify as “third gender”. While drawing attention to the fact that transgender persons were subject to “extreme discrimination in all spheres of society”, the Court held that the right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) was framed in gender-neutral terms (“all persons”). Consequently, the right to equality would extend to transgender persons also.” Further in Shayara Bano v UOI, <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115701246/> 2016 “the 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court pronounced its decision in the Triple Talaq Case, declaring that the practice of instantaneous triple talaq [Talaq-ul-biddat] was unconstitutional. The Bench observed that the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, manifested within its fold, equality of status. Gender equality, gender equity and gender justice are values intrinsically entwined in the guarantee of equality, under Article 14.” These above discussed landmark cases and many more have contributed to expand the ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, to strive for a more equal and fair society.* *KR IRS 28526* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqQd%3Dqxh6rej0Z8pXzVaiztqyb1t4gW-jy4%2BCwww2Oj0A%40mail.gmail.com.
