The doctrine of object and nexus is a principle of constitutional law that is used to test the validity of a statute under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India. It prohibits the state from making any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination between different classes of persons.

Introduction

The doctrine of object and nexus is based on the premise that a statute can classify persons or things into different categories, provided that such classification is not arbitrary, artificial or evasive. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes the persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group. Moreover, the classification must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. In other words, there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the purpose of the statute.

The doctrine of object and nexus was refined by the Supreme Court of India in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, where it held that:

The latest and most complete exposition of the propositions relating to the applicability of Article 14 as emerging from “the avalanche of cases which have flooded this Court” since the commencement of the Constitution is to be found in the Judgment of one of us (Chandrachud, J. as he then was) in Re: Special Courts Bill MANU/SC/0039/1978 : [1979] 2SCR476 It not only contains a lucid statement of the propositions arising under Article 14, but being a decision given by a Bench of seven Judges of this Court, it is binding upon us. That decision sets out several propositions delineating the true scope and ambit of Article 14 but not all of them are relevant for our purpose and hence we shall refer only to those which have a direct bearing on the issue before us. They clearly recognise that classification can be made for the purpose of legislation but lay down that:

1. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,(l) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

2. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. In short, while Article 14 forbids class discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large number of other persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation, provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense above mentioned.

Importance of doctrine of object and nexus

The doctrine of object and nexus is important because it serves as a safeguard against arbitrary and discriminatory legislation by the state. It ensures that the state does not violate the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. It also ensures that the state does not abuse its power of classification by creating artificial or irrational distinctions between persons or things.

The doctrine of object and nexus also reflects the principle of substantive equality, which means that not only formal equality but also real equality should be achieved by the law. Substantive equality recognizes that sometimes different treatment may be necessary to achieve equal results for different groups of people. Therefore, the doctrine of object and nexus allows for reasonable classification based on relevant and material criteria, which are related to the object and policy of the law.

Application of doctrine of object and nexus

The doctrine of object and nexus is applied by examining whether a statute satisfies the twin requirements of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. The burden of proof lies on the state to justify its classification as reasonable and non-arbitrary. The court will not interfere with the legislative wisdom or policy unless it finds that there is no rational basis for the classification or that it is manifestly unjust or oppressive.

Some examples of statutes that have been upheld as valid under Article 14 by applying the doctrine of object and nexus are:

• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which provides for a special procedure for trial and punishment of public servants accused of corruption2. The court held that there was a reasonable classification between public servants and other persons based on their position and responsibility, and that there was a rational nexus between the classification and the object of curbing corruption in public life.
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gives preference to male heirs over female heirs in certain matters of inheritance3. The court held that there was a reasonable classification between male and female heirs based on their social and economic conditions, and that there was a rational nexus between the classification and the object of protecting family property and preventing its fragmentation.
• The Representation of People Act, 1951, which disqualifies a person from contesting elections if he or she has been convicted for any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more4. The court held that there was a reasonable classification between convicted persons and non-convicted persons based on their moral character and suitability for public office, and that there was a rational nexus between the classification and the object of ensuring free and fair elections.

Comparing to US constitutional jurisprudence on reasonable nexus and arbitrariness

The doctrine of object and nexus in India is similar to the rational basis test in the US constitutional jurisprudence, which is used to review the validity of a statute under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rational basis test requires that a statute must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court will uphold the statute unless it is arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable.

However, there are some differences between the two doctrines. First, the doctrine of object and nexus in India applies to all statutes that classify persons or things, whereas the rational basis test in the US applies only to statutes that do not involve any suspect or quasi-suspect classification, such as race, gender, religion, etc. For such classifications, the US courts apply a stricter standard of review, such as strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the statute must be necessary to achieve a compelling or important government interest. Second, the doctrine of object and nexus in India is more flexible and context-specific than the rational basis test in the US, which is more rigid and formalistic. The Indian courts have shown more willingness to examine the actual purpose and effect of the statute, rather than relying on any conceivable or hypothetical justification. The Indian courts have also taken into account the social and economic realities of the country, and have given more deference to the legislative policy and wisdom in matters of economic and social welfare.

Here are few judgments where the court has discussed the doctrine of object and nexus in detail.

1. The State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar: This case challenged the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, which empowered the state government to refer certain cases or offences or classes of cases or offences to special courts for speedier trial. The Supreme Court held that the act violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, as it gave arbitrary and unguided discretion to the state government to discriminate between different persons accused of the same or similar offences without any reasonable basis or classification. The Court also held that the question is not whether the classification is based on any quality or attribute which is inherent or peculiar in the persons or things classified, but whether that quality or attribute has a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the differentia on which the classification is made has no rational relation to the object of the legislation, then the classification is irrational and violative of Article 14.
2. RK Garg and Ors vs Union of India UOI and Ors.: This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981, and the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981, which provided certain immunities and exemptions from direct taxes to the holders of special bearer bonds issued by the central government to canalise black money for productive purposes. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ordinance and the act, holding that they did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as they were based on a reasonable classification between holders of special bearer bonds and other taxpayers, having a rational nexus with the object of curbing black money and promoting economic and social planning. The Court further held that legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. If the law deals alike with all of a certain class, it is normally not obnoxious to the charge of denial of equal protection; but classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation.
3. Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors vs Delhi Development: This case challenged the validity of the rules adopted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for promotion of junior engineers to assistant engineers and assistant engineers to executive engineers in its engineering cadre. The rules prescribed different conditions of eligibility for diploma-holders and graduates in engineering, requiring more service experience for diploma-holders than graduates. The Supreme Court struck down the rules as unconstitutional, holding that they violated Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality in general and in matters of public employment respectively. The court held that the classification made by Rule 5(1) between diploma-holders and graduates in engineering for purposes of promotion to higher posts in engineering cadre is not based on any intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule. The object of the rule is to ensure efficiency and competence in higher posts in engineering cadre. Both diploma-holders and graduates in engineering are equally qualified and competent for promotion to higher posts in engineering cadre. There is no rational basis for discriminating between them on the ground of educational qualification.
4. Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh: This case challenged the validity of a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) and approved by the state government, which granted additional compensation and rehabilitation benefits to certain landholders whose lands were acquired by NOIDA for industrial development. The resolution made a distinction between ‘Pushtaini’ (hereditary) and ‘Gair-pushtaini’ (non-hereditary) landholders, giving more benefits to the former than the latter. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the resolution, holding that the classification made by the impugned resolution between ‘Pushtaini’ and ‘Gair-pushtaini’ landholders is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the resolution. The object of the resolution is to rehabilitate the original residents who are likely to become landless due to acquisition of their lands by NOIDA for industrial development. The ‘Pushtaini’ landholders are those who have inherited their lands from their ancestors and have been residing in their villages since generations. They have a stronger claim to rehabilitation than the ‘Gair-pushtaini’ landholders who have acquired their lands by purchase or otherwise and have no such attachment or connection with their lands or villages.

Conclusion

The doctrine of object and nexus is a vital tool for ensuring equality before the law and equal protection of the laws under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It allows for reasonable classification by the state based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of the statute. It prevents arbitrary and discriminatory legislation by the state that violates the fundamental right to equality. It also reflects the principle of substantive equality, which aims at achieving real equality for different groups of people. The doctrine of object and nexus is similar to but not identical with the rational basis test in the US constitutional jurisprudence, which also reviews the validity of a statute under the equal protection clause. The doctrine of object and nexus is more flexible and context-specific than the rational basis test, and gives more deference to the legislative policy and wisdom in matters of economic and social welfare.