ISSUE 3 Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
3. whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of

article 14 of the constitution of Mayfair in as much it imposes different
standards for regular automobile manufactures vis -a-vis EV manufacturers?
1.It is humbly submitted before the court that notification implementing MS VI

emission norms is not violating article 14 of the constitution of Mayfair .
Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection before law and
states that the state shall not make any laws which are discriminatory or
arbitrary towards any person or group of persons. It is also humbly noted that
the State shall not deny to any person’s equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of Mayfair.
3.2 intelligible differentia-
expression “intelligible differentia” means difference capable of being
understood. A factor that distinguishes or in different state or class
from another which is capable of being understood. The impugned act
deals with users of social networking websites Test laid down in State
of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar i.e., the differentia or
classification must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question Supreme Court in many of its
judgment has clearly indicated about such kinds of classifications as
vague and inoperative. The Supreme Court in landmark judgment of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India clearly ruled out the room for
arbitrariness. ‘Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and
ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of
reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically, is an
essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14
like a brooding omnipresence.’ Rule of law which permeates the
entire fabric of the Indian Constitution excludes arbitrariness.
Wherever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial
there is denial of rule of law.
This new dimension of Art.14 transcends the classificatory principle.
Art.14 is no longer to be equated with the principle of classification. It
is primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness in state action and the
doctrine of classification has been evolved only as a subsidiary rule
for testing whether a particular state action is arbitrary or not. If a law
is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of Art.14. As an example, it
has been held that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct would be violative of Art.14. So the impugned act should
be tested at the touchstone of Art. 13(2) and should be declared
invalid.
The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been explained in a
number of cases by the supreme court. In view of this the propositions
laid down in Damia case still hold good governing a valid
classification and are as follows:
1. A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single

individual if on account of some special circumstances or reasons
applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual
may be treated as a class by itself
2. There is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a

statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there
has been a clear transgression of constitutional principles.
3. The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases by showing that

on the fact of the statue, there is no classification and no difference
peculiar to any individual or class and not applicable to any other
individual or class, and yet the law hits only a particular individual or
class
4. It must be assumed that Legislature correctly understand and
appreciates the need of its own people that its law are directed to
problem made manifest by experience and that its discrimination are
based on adequate grounds
5. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court

may take into consideration maters of common knowledge, matters of
report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts
which can be conceived existing at the time of the legislation.
6. Thus the legislation is free to recognize degrees of harm and may

confine its restriction to those cases where the need is deemed to be
the clearest.
7. While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the

part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face
of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of
the court on which the classification may reasonable be regarded as
based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to extent
always that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reason for
subjecting certain individuals or corporation to be hostile or
discriminating legislation
8. The classification may be made on different bases e.g. geographical

or according to object or occupation or the like.
9. The classification made by the legislature need not be scientifically

perfect or logically complete. Mathematical nicety and perfect
equality are not required. Equality before the law does not require
mathematical equality of all persons in all circumstances. Equal
treatment does not mean identical treatment. Similarly not identity of
treatment is enough.
10. There can be discrimination both in the substantive as well as the

procedural law. Article 14 applies to both. If the classification
satisfies the test laid down in the above propositions, the law will be
declared constitutional. The question whether a classification is
reasonable and proper and not must however, be judged more on
commonsense than on legal subtitles.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. DR JAI DEV WIG
AND ORS -.Article 14 permits reasonable classification. But such
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and that
differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to
be...Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. The Union Territory,
Chandigarh, the Medical College, Chandigarh and the PGI
(Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 before the Tribunal is achieved.
OM KUMAR AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA -
elaborately with “proportionality” and held that the punishment

provided by the statute was disproportionate. 32. So far as Article 14
is concerned, the courts in India examined whether the classification
was based on...relating to life and liberty. The European Court has
applied the principle of proportionality also to questions of
discrimination under article 14 of the convention (corresponding to
article 14 of our...classification was based on intelligible differentia,
the courts were examining the validity of the differences and the
adequacy of the differences.
3.3 CERTAIN COMMITTEES WHICH IS FORMULATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT .
3. In 2014 ,a committee formulated by the ministry had in its report – Auto fuel
Vision policy 2025 recommended the implementation of the Mayfair Emission
Standards which are based on the European regulations in a staggered manner,
the Mayfair Government decided to leapfrog MS V level emission standards
completely and move directly to the more stringent and robust VI level.
4. Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal- In the year 2006, the West Bengal
government agreed to let Tata Motors build and operate a car manufacturing
unit in the state. As a result, for this project they acquired approximately 1,000
acres of agricultural land under the land acquisition act. The livelihood of
approximately 25,000 people was affected. After huge protest, compensations
were given to some to those people. When a new Act was passed regarding land
acquisition, Tata Motors challenged the constitutionality of the new Act before
the Supreme Court arguing that it conflicts with the earlier land acquisition act.
The Court however rejected Tata Motors plea and stated that the state
legislature can change its laws. The court further held that the land that was
previously acquired by Tata Motors was not for public purpose and the present
government exercised its eminent domain. The Court quashed the acquisition of
landowners and declared it illegal and void ordering the Government of Bengal
to conduct a survey on what land needed to be returned. The court also ordered
that the compensation that has already been paid to the landowners shall not be
returned and shall serve as a penalty for the company
5.Maganlal Chagganlal Pvt Ltd vs Municipal Corporation -In this case the court
may declare distinction between the statutes which make a classification
themselves and those statutes which make a classification which is authorised to
the executive. In the case where the classification is made by the statute itself
the statute will be held invalid if it fails to meet the reasonable classification
test. The other case where the classification is made by executive given
authority if guidelines are provided in such statute (be it either express or
implied) to the executive to make such classification and if the executive fails
the test of reasonable classification, then action will be invalid and not the
complete statute itself.
6.Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India-In this case a seven-judge bench discussed
the question on violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and stated that all these
articles have to be read together to be understood and hold a very special place
in the Constitution of India. And if any law interferes with the personal liberty
of an individual, it must satisfy the following three points - (a) there must be a
prescribed procedure, (b) the prescribed procedure shall withstand the test of
one or more rights guaranteed under Article 19 in a given situation and (c) it
must also be tested with Article 14. And the law in question interfering with
personal liberty of an individual must also be just and fair and it shall not be
discriminatory or arbitrary.
7.The Special Courts Bill vs Unknown the Supreme Court -In this case had
warned the legislation against over emphasising on the process of classification
under equality. The court also observed that the doctrine of classification is a
secondary or ancillary rule which has been used by the various courts to
facilitate the doctrine of equality. And if there is an undue emphasis upon the
doctrine of classification, it would without any doubt result in in the doctrine of
equality under Article 14 to erode. And this over in fishes will result in
substitution of the doctrine of equality by doctrine of classification. The court
held that this was a serious inroad on the independence of the judiciary and
should be fraught with serious consequences. It was therefore necessary to be
put down otherwise it would have given rise to a prospect to gruesome to
investigate and too dangerous to be allowed to have the sanction of law.
Ultimately the court held that clause 5 and 7 of the bill are constitutionally
invalid and hence, struck down.
8. Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab -In this landmark case the Supreme Court
explained the new dimensions of equality f Article 14 and it is far greater than
just being equated with the principles of reasonable classification.
9. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
This case was brought forward after the horrendous incident of Bhopal Gas leak
disaster of 1984. There was a massive leakage of the methyl isocyanate gas
from the company gas plant which led to death of nearly 3000 inhabitants of the
city and many more were severely injured. The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was passed by the Government of India as a
result of this disaster. Through this Act, the government wanted the legal claims
arising out of the Bhopal Gas leak case to be dealt speedily, effectively, and
equitably. Charan Lal Sahu, who was a practicing advocate in Bhopal High
Court, questioned the constitutional validity of this act. The petitioner claimed
that the Act in question is violative under Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21
of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court held that the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of
Claims) Act, 1985 was constitutionally valid. The court also held the view that
till the proceedings and adjudication process continues and until the claims are
obtained or realised from the delinquents, that is, Union Carbide Company or
Union Carbide India Limited; the interim compensation to the victims is to be
paid by the Central Government.
10.“A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in new
source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the employment
exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such back door entry in the
employment are in need of the particular jobs”
3.3 RIGHT TO GET POLLUTION FREE WATER AND AIR
11.In Subhas Kumar V State of Bihar, it has been held that public interest
litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air
which is included in the “right to live” under Art.21 of the constitution.
3.4 PROTECTION OF ECOLOGY AND ENVITONMENTAL POLUTION
12. In rural litigation and entitlement Kendra v. State of UP., The court order
the closure of certain lime stone queries on the ground that they were series
deficiency regarding safety and hazards in them the court had appointed A
committee for the purpose of inspecting certain limestone queries the committee
had is suggested the closure of shirt and categories of stone pollution was
caused by limestone queries adversely affecting the safety and health of people
living in the area.

ISSUE 3 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE 3 Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE 3 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of

1.It is humbly submitted before the court that notification implementing MS VI

1. A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single

2. There is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a

3. The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases by showing that

5. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court

6. Thus the legislation is free to recognize degrees of harm and may

7. While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the

8. The classification may be made on different bases e.g. geographical

9. The classification made by the legislature need not be scientifically

10. There can be discrimination both in the substantive as well as the

elaborately with “proportionality” and held that the punishment

You might also like