Question

In the context of the Constitution of India, a pension scheme differentiates between employees retiring before and after a specified cut-off date. Those excluded challenge the classification as arbitrary. The constitutional issue would primarily attract:

• A. Doctrine of eclipse
• B. Article 14 and the principle of classification
• C. Doctrine of severability
• D. Legislative competence of the State

Hint:

Article 14 is the "Equality" article. If you see a law creating two groups of people (like retirees) and treating them differently, always look for the "Reasonable Classification" test!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The central constitutional challenge here is whether a government policy creates discriminatory or "arbitrary" classifications among similarly situated citizens, which triggers the Equal Protection Clause.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Article 14 of the Constitution mandates equality before the law. While "reasonable classification" is permissible, the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
- When a cut-off date creates two classes of retirees, the court examines if this classification is arbitrary. If it fails the test, it violates Article 14.
- The other doctrines (Eclipse, Severability) relate to the validity of laws inconsistent with fundamental rights, not the nature of the classification itself.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The issue primarily attracts Article 14 and the principle of classification, making (B) correct.

Answer 2

The question asks which constitutional doctrine is primarily attracted when a pension scheme's cut-off date is challenged as arbitrarily excluding some retirees. Testing each doctrine against what it is actually designed to address helps identify the right fit.

1. Doctrine of eclipse: This doctrine deals with a pre-constitutional law that was inconsistent with fundamental rights becoming dormant, or eclipsed, rather than void, and capable of reviving if the inconsistency is later removed. It concerns the status of old laws, not whether a classification within a scheme is arbitrary, so it does not fit this fact pattern.
2. Article 14 and the principle of classification: Article 14 guarantees equality and permits reasonable classification only where there is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. A pension scheme drawing an arbitrary line between similarly placed retirees based solely on a cut-off date is exactly the kind of classification challenge Article 14 exists to test.
3. Doctrine of severability: This doctrine addresses what happens when only part of a statute is unconstitutional, namely whether the invalid part can be severed while the rest survives. The question here is about whether the classification itself is valid in the first place, not about severing part of a statute after a finding of invalidity, so this doctrine is not the primary issue.
4. Legislative competence of the State: This concerns whether the appropriate legislature had the constitutional authority to enact the law at all, typically a Seventh Schedule question. The dispute here is not about which legislature could pass the pension rule, but about whether the classification it creates is fair, so competence is not the central issue.

Since the challenge is squarely about whether excluding a class of retirees is a reasonable classification, only Article 14 directly addresses that question; the other doctrines apply to entirely different kinds of constitutional problems.

Therefore, the correct answer is Article 14 and the principle of classification.