Page 33 - test_constitution 100

ART. 14 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 33
Recruitment by transfer of candidates from other services if most eligible persons are available can be made. (Association of Engineers v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5111).
Under Section 139-AA of the Income Tax every person who desires to obtain PAN or who is an assessee has to necessarily enroll for Aadhaar. The said section is neither discriminatory nor offends equality clause in Article 14. (Binoy Viswam v Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 2967 : (2017)7 SCC 59).
Article 14 does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality. (Basawaraj and Another v The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2014(1) Kar. L.J. 34 (SC) : AIR 2014 SC 746 : (2013)14 SCC 81 : 2013 AIR SCW 6510).
Equality clause in Article 14 is positive concept. (M/s. Mangalam Organics Limited v Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 2406 : (2017)7 SCC 221).
Article 14 cannot be invoked for perpetuating irregularities or illegalities. (Shanti Sports Club v Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 433 : (2009)15 SCC 705; (M/s.) Vishal Properties Private Limited v State of U.P., AIR 2008 SC 183 : (2007)11 SCC 172).
Principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application to all persons who are not in the same position. (Union of India v M/s. N.S. Rathnam and Sons, AIR 2016 SC 1273 : (2015)10 SCC 681).
Where a wrong benefit has been inadvertently granted to a person, similar relief to other cannot be granted. Plea of discrimination would be rejected. (Chaman Lal v State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 3640 : (2014)15 SCC 715 : 2014(7) Scale 80).
Arbitrariness has to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and not on subjective notions. (Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others v State of Karnataka and Others, 2012(6) Kar. L.J. 20 (SC) : AIR 2013 SC 3217 : (2013)8 SCC 154).
It is not permissible for the Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it is ‘arbitrary’. (Rajbala v State of Haryana, AIR 2016 SC 33 : (2016)2 SCC 445).
A provision cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional, merely because the authority vested with the power may abuse his authority. (Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2115 : (2005)3 SCC 647).
Normally the Courts should raise a presumption in favour of the impugned law; however, if the law under challenge violates the fundamental rights of the citizens, the law is arbitrary, or is discriminatory, the Courts can either hold the law to be totally unconstitutional and strike down the law or the Court may read down the law in such a manner that the law when read down does not violate the Constitution. (Independent Thought v Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4904 : (2017)10 SCC 800).
A KLJ PUBLICATION