The Revival of Ray XXXI

The same set of judicial precedents were cited and debated before us by both the sides. The first in the sequence is the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76. While referring to the observations of Justice Brewer, “the very idea of classification is that of inequality”, it was recognized that the Court had tackled the paradox over the years while neither abandoning the demand for equality, nor denying the right to classify. The Doctrine of Classification was not to be carried out to a point where instead of being a useful servant, it would become a dangerous master as otherwise, in the words of Y.V. Chandrachud J. in the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19 “the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well-marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments”. There could not be an overemphasis on the Doctrine of Classification to deprive the guarantee of equality of its spacious content.

Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, State of Uttarakhand v. S.K. Singh, [Civil Appeal 10194 of 2013].

My Lord, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in Mohammad Shujat Ali, (1975) 3 SCC 76 and Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19?

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.