The Indian Supreme Court rendered a major decision in the 1983 case of ds nakara v union of india, which greatly broadened the application of article 14 of the indian constitution, which protects equality before the law and equal treatment under the law. In the context of India’s social security and pension reforms, this case is crucial. Judges Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati, among others, handed a judgment that fundamentally altered the perception of pensions, elevating them above the status of a gratuity.
ds nakara v union of india Case Facts
- The petitioners in the case argued that article 14 of the indian constitution is violated and that the new, liberalized pension scheme is discriminatory.
- The government has not provided an explanation for why the division is carried out on a given date.
- The argument put forth was that the primary aim of pensions is to support employees during their old age and after retirement, when they are no longer able to work.
- Additionally, they claimed that the discriminatory treatment of pensioners who retire before or after a specific date, the date being entirely arbitrary, would create a class divide among those who retire before or after, in violation of article 14 of the indian constitution.
- The petitioners additionally argued that a subclass of pensioners will emerge as a result of the liberalized pension program. It was stated that the term “pensioners” contradicted employment.
- It speaks about those retired government employees who are no longer employed and who receive neither a salary nor an allowance. Thus, further subdividing the pensioners according to when they retired will result in yet another unfair divide and categorization of “pensioners.”
ds nakara v union of india Issues
- Whether it was appropriate and justified to divide pensioners into two groups according to the date of retirement.
- Whether the unequal treatment of pensioners was against Article 14 of the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners said that the government had not provided a specific justification for determining the date on which pensions would be paid. The petitioners argued that in such cases, differentiating pensioners based on the fact that some retired before a given date and some after it, the date in question being completely arbitrary, would violate article 14 if the pensions were granted to retirees for the services rendered in the past, to prevent destitution in old age, and to maintain socioeconomic justice.
- The petitioners’ principal argument was that Central Government pensioners constitute a distinct class as a whole. An employee who receives subsidies and compensation for their services is not the same as a pensioner. All persons who have retired and are not engaged in active military duty are collectively referred to as “pensioners.”
- The petitioners further argued that each retiree would create a class of their own based on their date of retirement if the date of retirement is to be recognized as a means of distinguishing among the pensioners. There is no justification for the categorization to be made, and it is either illegal or permitted under Article 14.
Respondent:
- The Attorney-General argued on behalf of the Government that the date and the scheme are essential components of the Act and that the date is a necessary component of the scheme in order for it to be enforceable.
- The respondent further argued that the Court’s only authority was to interpret the statutes that the executive and legislative branches had passed. Expanding the case would be beyond the court’s purview, and in doing so, the court would be legislating as opposed to interpreting the law.
- It was further argued that the court should consider whether to strike down the entire statute or only the unconstitutional portion when two smaller groups are covered inside a single, bigger class, one of which is unconstitutional.
- Additionally, it was argued that severed legislation always has a limited scope and never gets wider. In this case, removing the dates from the act would result in the older pensioners being included, which would extend rather than narrow the legislation’s reach and go against the doctrine of severability.
ds nakara v union of india Judgment
- The phrase “that with regard to the government employees who were employed on March 31, 1979, and retiring from service on or after the date”;
- The new pension rates take effect on April 1, 1979, and they will be applicable to all service officers who cease to be employed on or after that date.
- It was deemed unconstitutional and overturned.
- With the requirement that all pensioners, regardless of the date of retirement, have access to the liberalized pension scheme.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
