Understanding the Test of Reasonable Classification Under Article 14: Insights from Anwar Ali Sarkar and Budhan Choudhry

RAJKUMAR. R. VS UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 682

It is now well established that while Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. ... The principal ground urged in support of the contention as to the invalidity of the Act and/or the notification is founded on Art. 14 of the Constitution. In Budhan Choudhry v. ... Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 S C R 284 : (A I R 1952 S C 75) (D), Kathi Raning Rawat v. ....

RAJKUMAR. R Vs UNION OF INDIA - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48113

It is now well established that while Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. ... The principal ground urged in support of the contention as to the invalidity of the Act and/or the notification is founded on Art. 14 of the Constitution. In Budhan Choudhry v. ... Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 S C R 284 : (A I R 1952 S C 75) (D), Kathi Raning Rawat v. ....

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1040

Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. The Court held as under:- ... "16. ... This Court exposited the ambit and scope of Article 14 in Budhan Choudhry as follows: ... "5....It is now well-established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. ... Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 down to the very recent pronouncement of....

Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1039

Anwar Ali Sarkar and another reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 75. The Court held as under:- ... "16. ... These pronouncements have by now authoritatively settled that Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. Decisions starting with State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75) down to the very recent pronouncement of this Court in Dr. ... This Court exposited the ambit and scope of Article 14 in #HL....

It is now well established that while Art 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. ... This case was decided by the same seven judges who decided Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75. ... The test of constitutionality is objective, not subjective. It is whether under the imbugned law the executive could discriminate if it wanted, not whether the executive did discriminate. State of West B....

DATUK HAJI HARUN BIN HAJI IDRIS vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

It is now well established that while Art 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. ... This case was decided by the same seven judges who decided Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75. ... The test of constitutionality is objective, not subjective. It is whether under the imbugned law the executive could discriminate if it wanted, not whether the executive did discriminate. State of West B....

Kangshari Haldar VS State Of W. B. - 1959 Supreme(SC) 227

If the classification is reasonable and is founded on intelligible differentia and the said differentia have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute based on such reasonable classification the validity of the statute cannot be successfully challenged under Art. 14. ... The equality before law which is guaranteed by Art. 14 no doubt prohibits class legislation but it does not prohibit the Legislature from legislating on ....

In Anwar Ali Sarkar's case, supra Mukherjea J said at p 88 that the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. ... It was observed in Anwar Ali Sarkar's case that a rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of art 14 of the Indian Constitution as any rule of substantive law and it was necessary that all litigants, who are similarly situated, are able to avail themselves of the same ... Indeed in Anwar #....

PP vs SU LIANG YU

In Anwar Ali Sarkar's case, supra Mukherjea J said at p 88 that the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. ... It was observed in Anwar Ali Sarkar's case that a rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of art 14 of the Indian Constitution as any rule of substantive law and it was necessary that all litigants, who are similarly situated, are able to avail themselves of the same ... Indeed in Anwar #....

Thakur Madhosingh VS State of Rajasthan - 1954 Supreme(Raj) 130

Obviously therefore this Act falls on that side of the line in which the case of Anwar Ali Sarkar falls, and is ultra vires as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. ... 11. ... The principles governing the application of Art. 14 of the Constitution have been fully explained in three cases by the Supreme Court. These cases are The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1) (AIR 1952 S.C., 75.), Kathi Raning Ra....

B. G. Krishnamurthy S/o. B. K. Gopal Rao VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 67

19. Though discrimination is frowned upon, as noted earlier, Article 14 does not prevent the State from creating a classification founded on an intelligible basis. As long as there is a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act or the provision under consideration, the classification cannot be regarded as arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952 SCR 284] and Budhan Choudhry and Others v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 191] are relevant in this context. Amidst the various basis of classification,....

Yash Pramesh Rana of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant VS State of Maharashtra - 2020 Supreme(Bom) 412

Nor does the GR fail the Supreme Court’s test of reasonable classification State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [AIR 1952 SC 75]. Accepting the Government’s contentions, Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat has found no merit in the petitioners’ attack on “the classification between the students belonging to backward and economically weaker sections who are admitted through CAP rounds and the students who have applied through CAP rounds but are forced to seek admissions in colleges run by the respective managements after the CAP rounds.” Dr. Birendra Saraf, the learned counsel for the....

Appu Food Products rep. by its Authorised Signatory P. Uma Maheshwari VS State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW. 4-3) Dept. , Fort St. George, Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1579

According to him, the object of the Government Order is to ensure proper supply of eggs to the noon meal programme and hence, the classification between the producers and processors of eggs, cannot bear any rational nexus with the object, as there is nothing to suggest that the egg processors are somehow incapable of supplying eggs of sufficient quality to the noon meal programme. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 6 SCC 562], wherein, it is held that a classification made must be based on empiri....

K. M. Chikkathayamma VS State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 36

The reasonable classification test under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is two pronged. In that, for a legislative classification to be valid, it is not merely sufficient that the legislature concerned make a classification on the basis of an intelligible differentia, but it is also additionally necessary that such classification bear a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved through legislation. It is evident that in providing for the payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land under the State enactments it was always intended that the m....

N. K. Shah VS Physical Research Laboratory - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 1063

Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Art. 14.”