LAW
Supreme Court on Equality before Law, on Alien's Right to Equality
On Right to Equality
Gursharan Singh and others etc., Appellants v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, Respondents WITH Smt. Ashwani Sachdeva, Petitioner v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, Respondent.
Madan Mohan Punchhi & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Constitution of India, Article 14 Equality before law Is a positive concept - Cannot be enforced in negative manner Equality clause cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegal order.
The guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, so far such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in an irregular or illegal manner. Such petitioners can question the validity of orders which are said to have been passed in favor of persons who were not entitled to the same but they cannot claim orders which are not sanctioned by law in their favor on principle of equality before law. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the quality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continuance and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1175)
On Alien's Right to Life and Equality
National Human Rights Commission, petitioner v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and another, Respondents. A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.L. and S.C. Sen, J.
Constitution of India, Articles 21, 14- Right to life o and equality clause- Applicable to every person, be he a citizen or otherwise.
Our Constitution confers rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being be he a citizen or otherwise.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1234)
On Reservation in Promotion
Ajit Singh Januja and others, Appellants v. State of Punjab and others, Respondents
AND Harbhajan Singh and another, Appellants v. State of Punjab and others, Respondents,
J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Constitution of India, Article 16(4) - Reservation Gives accelerated promotion - But not accelerated consequential seniority Seniority between reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category Governed by their panel position i.e. with reference to their inter se seniority in the lower grade.
Constitution of India, Articles 16(4), 335- Reservation - Policy as to - Cannot be implemented in a manner to block merit channel and to make it dry- Care has to be taken that efficiency of administration of the country is not harmed and there is no reverse discrimination.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1189)
Andhra Pradesh High Court On Ban on Use of Loud Speaker
Satyayug Party and another, Petitioners v. Government of A.P. and another, Respondents.
C.V.N. Sastri, J.
Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech Loud speaker Total ban on use of- Violates Article 19(1)(a).
Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a)- Hyderabad City Police Act (1348-F), Section 22 - Hyderabad City Loudspeakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, (1963), Rules 3,7,15- Loudspeakers - Use of- Blanket ban cannot be imposed - Ban imposed on use of mike and audio-cassettes No reasons whatsoever. given Order liable to be set aside Petitioner intending to undertake publicity campaign by five persons through streets Restricting time limit of campaigning between 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.- Contrary to Rule 15.
(Source: AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 218)
Kerala High Court on Non-statutory Maintenance
Joy s/o Immatty Chakkunny, Appellant v. Usha w/ Immatty Joy and others, Respondents.
V.V. Kamat & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), Section 7- Maintenance Quantum Absence of statute providing for maintenance to parties who were Christians Principles of justice, equity and good conscience would be the guidelines - Husband, owner of grocery business stripping off wife of all joint assets before living separately Quantum of maintenance of Rs. 500/- to herself and Rs. 300/- to child per month - Is proper.
(Source: AIR 1996 Kerala 1910 MUSLIM INDIA 163, JULY, 1996)
