Article 14

Whether Whether the defendant’ defendant’ss actions actions violated violated the plaintiff’ plaintiff’ss fundamental fundamental rights under Article Article 14 of  the Constitution? The defendant’s actions are discretionary and arbitrary Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executiveadministrative action because any action that is arbitrary must be necessarily involve the negotiation of e!uality" #urther$ one does not have to confine the denial of e!uality to a comparative evaluation bet%een t%o people to arrive at a conclusion conclusion of discretiona discretionary ry treatment" treatment" 1  An action per se arbitrary itself denies e!uality of   protection by la%" &oreove &oreover$ r$ Article Article 14 is invoked invoked to mitiga mitigate te the dangers dangers of admini administr strati ative ve discre discreti tion on and arbitrariness" Article 14 is a very meaningful guarantee against any action of the Administration %hich may be arbitrary$ discriminatory discriminatory and une!ual"' An example of arbitrary implementation of administrative action is (ection ) *4+ of the ,"-" .ndustrial /isputes Act$ 104 %hich authori2ed the state to remit an order of the labour tribunal for reconsideration of the ad3udicating authority and that authority %as to submit the a%ard to the government after reconsideration" (ection ) *4+ did no t re!uire the government to hear the parties  before remitting the a%ard to the concerned ad3udicating authority$ the government %as not re!uired to give reasons for remitting the a%ard the 5overnment %as not re!uired to inform the authority the specific points on %hich it %as to reconsider the a%ard" .n B.B. .n  B.B. Rajwanshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh,3 the (upreme Court declared (ection )*4+ unconstitu unconstitutional tional under Article Article 14" The court observed that6 1 A"7"

8alra v" -9: Corpnog .ndia ltd"$ A.; 10<4 ( C 1=)1

2(hrinivas

;ao v" >" eeraiah$ A.; 100= (C 0'0

@The provision cannot be upheld in the absence of necessary statutory guidelines for the exercise of the po%er conferred by it having regarded the fact that proceedings before the labour court of  industrial tribunal is in the nature of !uasi63udicial proceedings %here parties have ade!uate opportunity to state their respective cases$ to lead evidenc e and make all their submissions" There are procedural safeguards sub3ect to %hich po%er has to be exercised$ these include natural 3ustice$ recording of reasons for decisions$ provision of appeal to higher authority etc"4 #urther$ it has been held that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct %ould be violative of Article 14"B .n the present case$ the actions of the assessing officer are discretionary and arbitrary as he refused all of the plaintiff’s claims out of anger" &oreover$ no reasons or 3ustifications have been given by the defendant as to the !uantum of punishment meted out and the basis for making the  best 3udgment assessment" &oreover$ even if the .T act itself is valid$ it does not mean that the actions of the defendant$ %hich are in pursuance of his o%n interpretation of the act have to be held valid and intra vires" There is al%ays a difference bet%een a statute and the action taken under the statute i"e" the statute may be valid and constitutional but the action taken under it might be invalid"

The defendant’s actions violate the rules of natural 3ustice 3A.;

10<< (C 1<0

4(ukh%inder

5Dhagat

-al Dipin 8umar v" (tate of -un3ab$ A.; 10<' (C )B

ram v" (tate of Eimanchal -radesh$ A.; 10<= (C 4B4

.t is no% considered that non6compliance %ith the rules of natural 3ustice amounts to arbitrariness violating Article 14") Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to the persons adversely affected by an administrative order" The audi alteram partem rule$ in essence enforces the e!uality clause in Article 14 and it is applicable not only to !uasi63udicial bodies but also to administrative orders adversely affecting the party in !uestion unless the rule has been excluded by an Act in !uestion" The instrument of  natural 3ustice is an integral part of guarantee of e!uality assured by Article 14"< Eo%ever$ in the present case$ the defendant’s actions are a direct violation of the rule of audi alteram partem  %here the plaintiff has been penali2ed %ithout being heard" &oreover$ the  plaintiff had valid reasons for not being able to file the exact or timely returns" While she %as not able to do so due to occupational ha2ards$ the defendant failed to give her a reasonable chance of   presenting her case" Fn the contrary$ the defendant re3ected all her claims in anger$ %ithout %eighing them based on their merits" Therefore$ the defendant has violated the rules of natural 3ustice as guaranteed under article 1 4"

6 ;a3asthan

7 ,nion

(tate ;oad Transport corporation v" Dal &ukunda Dair%a$ *'0+ 4 (CC '00

of .ndia v" Amrik (ingh$ A.; 1001 (C B)4

8 &aneka

5andhi v" ,nion of .ndia$ *10<+ ' (C> at =B

Administrative discretion does not necessarily mean a violation of Article 14" To be valid$ discretionary po%er ought to be hedged by policy$ standards$ guidelines or   procedural safeguards to regulate its exercise" #urther$ it is only %hen a statute vests unguided and unrestricted po%er in an authority to affect the rights of a person %ithout laying do%n any  policy or principle %hich is to guide the authority in exercise of this po%er$ it %ould be affected  by the voice of discrimination and arbitrariness" 0 .n practice$ a great deal of tolerance and deference is sho%n to%ards conferment of discretion$ and it is only in extreme situation that a statutory provision is declared invalid on the ground of  conferring excessive administrative discretion" 1 There are a number of cases in %hich conferment of broad discretion has been upheld on such grounds asG the statutory provision conferring po%er has sufficient guidelines$ principles or   policies to regulate the exercise of po%er$ the po%er has been conferred on an higher official %ho is not expected to misuse the same but is expected to exercise the po%er reasonably and rationally$ there lies a provision of appeal to a higher authority etc"11 &ost importantly$ discretion vested in a 3udicial officer exercisable on the facts and circumstances of each particular case does not amount to denial of e!ual protection unless there is sho%n to be present in it an element of intentional and purposeful discrimination" 9&aneka

5andhi v" ,nion of .ndia$ *10<+ ' (C> at =B

10Chinta

7ingam v" ,nion of .ndia$ A.; 101 (C 44

11(ukh%inder

-al Dipin 8umar v" (tate of -un3ab$ A.; 10<' (C )B

(imilarly$ the discretion of 3udicial officers is not arbitrary as the la% provides for revision by superior courts of orders passed by subordinate courts"1' The same principle has been extended to discretion given to !uasi63udicial authorities$ e"g" rent controller$ disciplinary authority etc"1= Therefore$ in the present case$ the actions of the defendant or the la%s under %hich these actions have been taken cannot be held arbitrary and discretionary" The .ncome Tax Act itself provides for various procedural safeguards in the exercise of administrative po%ers" An appeal lies before the Commissioner of Appeal against the actions taken by an Assessing Ffficer" &oreover$ the same has been done in the present case" #urther$ the Assessing Ffficer must be assumed to have exercised his discretionary po%ers in a reasonable and rational manner"14 Actions and po%ers cannot be held arbitrary based on the possibility that despite the guidelines in the provisions  providing for such po%er may be exercised unreasonablly"1B &oreover$ the mere fact that some hardship or in3ustice %as caused to someone is no ground to strike do%n the action altogether if other%ise it appears to be 3ust$ fair and reasonable and not unconstitutional"1) The Act provides a person %ith a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the same %as provided to the plaintiff t%ice" Eo%ever$ her inability to comply %ith the re!uests of the defendant and failure to appear for hearings is her o%n fault"

12Dudhan

v" (tate of Dihar$ A.; 10BB (C 101

13&anindra(anyal

14 (upra

v" (tate of West Dengal$ A.; 10) Cal" 14

not 11

15 Commissioner

16A"-" Coop"

of Central :xercise$ >amshedpur v" /abur *.ndia+ 7td" $*'B+ = (CC )4)

Fil (eeds 5ro%ers #ederation 7td v" /" Achyuta;ao$ *'+ 1=( (CC ='

The actions of the defendant cannot be held against the rules of natural 3ustice .t is an ex parte  hearing and the plaintiff %as given reasonable opportunities to be heard$ ho%ever she failed to comply %ith an y of them"