The Revival of Ray LX

State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656 has laid down certain principles relating to under-inclusive and over-inclusive classification. This is, no doubt, apart from holding that a law which contravenes fundamental rights of the citizens may continue to be valid as regards non-citizens [See, Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788]. As regards classification and the vice of under-inclusive and over-inclusive classification, we may notice the following statement.  

In short, the problem of legislative classification is a perennial one, admitting of no doctrinaire definition.

The following caveat by Justice Vivian Bose in State of West-Bengal v. Anwar Ali, AIR 1952 SC 75 is worth noticing.

This, however, does not mean that Judges are to determine what is for the good of the people and substitute their individual and personal opinions for that of the Government of the day, or that they may usurp the functions of the Legislature.”

The seed of this idea had a muted growth. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 laid bare a new dimension in the majestic provisions of Article 14.

Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph, Manish Kumar v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26 of 2020].