LAW Courses
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

AMIT BAJAJ ADVOCATE (ADVOCATE)     25 June 2010

is it violation of artcle 14 of constitution?

Uunder the Income tax act 1961 there is basic exemption limit of Rs 160000 is available to non senior citizen male assessees and Rs 190000 to the non senior citizen female assessees.

Can there be a I cannot find any reasonable justification for more exemption to females. Its just a gender biased taxation. Suppose a woman is working as a clerk and earning salary of rs 190000, similarly a man is working in the same office in the same designation as the woman is and earning same salary of Rs 190000, then in such case man will be paying tax of Rs 3000 and woman will be paying no tax. Is it equality before law? Isnt it violation of article 14 of the constitution?

Article 14 of the constitution  provides the Fundamental right of equality before Law to all the citizens of India. It uphelds the rule of law. Rule of law ensures equality to every person before the law of the land. There are also certain exceptions to the rule of law one of which is, the rule of law doesnot prevent certain classes of persons being subject to seperate rules. The equal protection of laws guaranteed  by Article 14 doesnot mean that all laws must be general in character and the same laws should apply to all persons

 

Thus article 14 permits classification of persons objects  and transactions  by the legislature for the purpose of acheiving specific ends  but not class legislation. But such clasification must be founded on intelligible differntia which distinguishes persons or thisngs that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the diferentia must have a rationale relation to the object of the act.

What is necessary that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. Now  can there be a reasonable justification or nexus with the object of Income Tax Act 1961 for giving exemption to women of Rs 190000 and Rs 160000 to men.

 

It is also a  well settled principle that there must be equal pay for equal work, and if men and women are doing equal work then they must be paid equally otherwise it amounts to voilation of article 14 i.e fundamental right of equality before law.

Considering the above principle why different tax exemption is provided to same woman and man who are working on the same designation and are doing equal work. A woman earning salary of Rs 190000 will be paying no tax where as a man who is doing the same job as the woman and getting same salary of Rs 190000 will be paying tax of Rs 3000.
 

Equal pay for Equal work why not Equal taxation?

As stated above there should be equal pay for equal work for both men and women as per requirement of article 14 of constitution. Then why there is no equal taxation where men and women are doing equal work and are earning equal pay. why men will have to pay more tax in such case?

If a law within the range of its selection for classification, operates unequally and cannot be justified on the basis of a valid classification then it should be considered as violative of article 14 of the constitution. A taxation provision should be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the constituion if there is no reasonable basis behind the classification made by it. what can be a reason to justify more exemption to women?




Is it a violation of article 14 of the constituion? Is it a mere  gender biased law and is violative of article 14?

 

Please provide you valuable comments.



 5 Replies

Adv.Aiyer VLV (Proprietor)     25 June 2010

Dear Amit ji

worth a shot

certainly class legislation based on gender alone, but what about Art 15

but check on earlier case laws for SC views

regards

 

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     26 June 2010

You are absolutely right. 

It is polictical issue..  Politicians cannot understand law they only know vote.

ravi shankar sharma (advocate)     26 June 2010

ya very nice obsevation made by you but i feel otherwise. say no to ur query.

tanks

Vineet (Director)     26 June 2010

I do not subscribe to the view that this classification is keeping votes in mind.

 

Do agree that equal pay for equal work is applicable but let's ask ourselves, does it end there? What about the extra hard work the lady has to perform at home front. How many from male fraternity do actually contribute to household chores.

 

Principal of equity is nowhere violated if a small concession is provided to the entire class and we should accept it gracefully as a token of appreciation.

samynathan (asst manager accounts)     28 June 2010

Though i am partly agree with Mr. Amit Bajaj, I consider the views expressed by Mr. Vineet is correct.

 

Regards,

Samynathan


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query