TMI Blog1954 (3) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore-Cochin: T.R. Balakrishna Iyer and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates. for the interveners. State of Bihar: Lal Narayan Sinha, Senior Advocate, (B.K.P. Sinha, Advocate, with him), instructed by R.H. Dhebar, Agent. for the interveners. State of Madras: V.K.T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (V.V. Raghavan, Advocate, with him), instructed by R.H. Dhebar, Agent. for the interveners. M. Seshachalapathi, Advocate, instructed by R.H. Dhebar, Agent, for the respondent. K.V. Venkatasubramania Iyer, Senior Advocate, (A.N. Rangaswami and M.S.K. Aiyangar, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS, J.- These two appeals arise out of W.P. Nos. 21 and 41 of 1952 filed in the High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the certificate granted by the High Court that it was a fit case for appeal to this Court. Learned Advocate appearing in support of these appeals has not pressed the objection under item (b) but has insisted on the remaining grounds of objection. In our opinion the decisions of the High Court on those grounds are substantially well-founded and correct. On the question of legislative competency the learned Advocate drew our attention to entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and argued that this entry clearly indicated that entry 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, under which the impugned Act was passed, was much narrower in its scope and could not be read as au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... require that the same law should be made applicable to all persons. Article 14, it has been said, does not forbid classification for legislative purposes, provided that such classification is based on some differentia having a reasonable relation to the object and purposes of the law in question. As pointed out by the majority of the Bench which decided Chiranjitlal Chowdhury's case, [1950] S.C.R. 869., there is a strong presumption in favour of the validity of legislative classification and it is for those who challenge it as unconstitutional to allege and prove beyond all doubt that the legislation arbitrarily discriminates between different persons similarly circumstanced. There is no material on the record before us to suggest that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
