Pension Scheme Classification Dispute
The question concerns a pension scheme that creates a distinction between employees based on a retirement cut-off date. Employees retiring after this date receive benefits potentially different from those retiring before. The challenge alleges this classification is arbitrary.
Identifying the Constitutional Issue
When a classification made by a law or scheme is challenged as arbitrary, the core constitutional question often revolves around the authority of the entity (in this case, the State) to enact such a law.
- The State's legislative competence refers to its power to make laws. This power is not absolute and must be exercised within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
- A law that enacts an arbitrary classification might be seen as exceeding the State's constitutional authority, as legislative power cannot be used to create discriminatory or irrational distinctions.
- While Article 14 (Equality before Law) is intrinsically linked to challenges based on arbitrary classification, the *primary* constitutional question questioning the fundamental validity of the law itself stems from the legislative competence of the State to enact such a provision.
Analyzing Other Options
- Article 14 and the principle of classification: Although directly relevant to arbitrariness, the question asks what the issue would *primarily* attract. Arguably, the competence to make such a classification underpins the Article 14 aspect.
- Doctrine of eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights.
- Doctrine of severability deals with severing unconstitutional parts of a law, not the primary challenge to the law's validity based on competence.
Therefore, the challenge primarily attracts scrutiny regarding the legislative competence of the State to enact a statute with such a classification.
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Reason (R) : The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.
In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct ? - "The rules of natural justice were not confined to the narrow precincts of the prevailing definition of quasi-judicial functions." This principle was laid down in which case ?
- Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? - Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision ?
- Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
