Exploring Constitutional Law: Right to Equality and Landmark Cases
Delve into the concept of equality as interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases, such as State of Karnataka v. B. Suvarna Malini and Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. Understand the nuances of Article 14 through cases like Ramkrishn Dalmiya v. Justice Tendulkar and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. Explore how Article 14 addresses arbitrariness in State actions, as seen in cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Mithu v. State of Punjab. Gain insights into judicial decisions shaping equality and fairness in Indian law.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LL.B. 3 YEAR 2NDSEM By Dr. Rajnish Kumar Srivastava Asst. Professor Dept. of LAW DDU Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur
RIGHT TO EQUALITY- ART. 14 Explaining the concept of equality the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. B. Suvarna Malini AIR 2001 SC 606, viewed that equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings.
CHIRANJIT LAL V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1951 S.C. 41 Legal person is also a person under article 14.
RAMKRISHN DALMIYA V. JUSTICE TENDULKAR AIR 1958 S.C. 538 Art. 14 restricted legislation for any group but allow classification. Test of reasonable classification- 1- Intelligible differentia 2- the differentia must have some rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
E.P. ROYAPPA V. STATE OF TAMILNADU AIR 1974 SC 555 Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, confined within doctrinaire limits. cabined traditional and and
MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1978 SC 597 Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot imprisoned traditional and doctrinaire limits. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action fairness and equality of treatment. within and ensures
MITHU V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1983 SC 473 In this case the court struck down section 303 of IPC as unconstitutional, on the ground that the classification between persons who murder whilst under the sentence of life imprisonment and those who commit murder whilst not under sentence of life imprisonment for the purpose of making the death sentence mandatory, was not based on any rational principle and was violative of of the constitution. article 14
AIR INDIA V. NARGISH MEERZAAIR 1981 SC 1829 The Supreme Court struck down the Air India and Indian Airlines Regulations on retirement and pregnancy during the services as air hostesses, unconstitutional. were held to be unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of article 14. as These rules therefore, a
JAVED V. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 2003 SC 3057 The Supreme Court upholding the provision as, not discriminatory, held that the classification made by the act was intelligible differentia nexus with the object of family planning programme.The act was not violative of article 14 . based on having
SOME OTHER IMPORTANT CASE LAWS State Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122 Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 662 Veer Kishor Dev v. State of Odisha AIR 1978 SC State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association AIR 2013 SC 2582 National Legal Services Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863 of J & K v. Bakshi Gulam Authority v.
THANKS Dr. Rajnish Kumar Srivastava
