NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Thursday, affirmed that the fundamental right to equality ensures “factual and not formal equality.” Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, in his 140-page majority judgement, stated that the Constitution empowers states to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) for quota purposes. He highlighted that classifications are permissible if different individuals are not similarly situated.
CJI DY Chandrachud explained that for a classification to be valid under the Constitution, two conditions need to be met.First, there must be an intelligible differentia that sets apart those grouped together from those excluded from the group.
The term “intelligible differentia” refers to a difference that can be understood.
“In making the classification, the State is free to recognise degrees of harm. Though the classification need not be mathematical in precision, there must be some difference between the persons grouped and the persons left out, and the difference must be real and pertinent,” he said.
“Second, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis of classification must have a nexus with the object of the classification,” he added.
The Chief Justice further elaborated on Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality, and examined if sub-classification breaches this article.
“It is established that Article 14 guarantees factual and not formal equality. Thus, if persons are not similarly situated in reference to the purpose of the law, classification is permissible. The same logic of classification equally applies to sub-classification,” he noted.
The court must evaluate the validity of sub-classifications by determining if the class is “homogeneous” or “similarly situated” for the specific law’s purpose.
“If the answer to this is in the affirmative, the class cannot be sub-classified,” he said.
The Chief Justice emphasised the importance of recognising individual differences in legal contexts.
“All persons are unequal in one or the other aspect. In a given situation, even a single individual may be treated as a class by themselves. In that case, it is particularly important that laws do not micro-classify,” he concluded.
CJI DY Chandrachud explained that for a classification to be valid under the Constitution, two conditions need to be met.First, there must be an intelligible differentia that sets apart those grouped together from those excluded from the group.
The term “intelligible differentia” refers to a difference that can be understood.
“In making the classification, the State is free to recognise degrees of harm. Though the classification need not be mathematical in precision, there must be some difference between the persons grouped and the persons left out, and the difference must be real and pertinent,” he said.
“Second, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis of classification must have a nexus with the object of the classification,” he added.
The Chief Justice further elaborated on Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality, and examined if sub-classification breaches this article.
“It is established that Article 14 guarantees factual and not formal equality. Thus, if persons are not similarly situated in reference to the purpose of the law, classification is permissible. The same logic of classification equally applies to sub-classification,” he noted.
The court must evaluate the validity of sub-classifications by determining if the class is “homogeneous” or “similarly situated” for the specific law’s purpose.
“If the answer to this is in the affirmative, the class cannot be sub-classified,” he said.
The Chief Justice emphasised the importance of recognising individual differences in legal contexts.
“All persons are unequal in one or the other aspect. In a given situation, even a single individual may be treated as a class by themselves. In that case, it is particularly important that laws do not micro-classify,” he concluded.
#equality #guarantees #factual #formal #equality #Supreme #Court #verdict #India #News #Times #India
