Constitution of India, Article 14 - Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), section 30 - Whether ultra vires the Constitution Article 14 -Reasonable classification - Not forbidden - Test of permissible classification - Necessary conditions - Constitution - Whether assures unanimity of decisions or immunity from erroneous action of courts or executive agencies of State. 

It is well-settled that while Article 14 of the Constitution for- bids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,

(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and,

(ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to achieved by be the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. Further Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.

The Constitution does not assure immunity from merely erroneous action, the executive agencies of a State. unanimity of decisions or whether by the courts or the executive agencies of a state.

Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India ([1950] S.C.R. 869), The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara ([1951] S.C.R. 682), The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar ([1952] S.C.R. 284), Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra ([1952] S.C.R. 435), Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay f Bombay ([1952] S.C.R. 710), Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad ([1953] S.C.R. 581), Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad ([1953] S.C.R. 661), The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh ([1953] S.C.R. 254), Yick Wo v. Peter Hopkins ([1886] 118 U.S. 356; 29 L. Ed. 220), and Snowden v. Hughes ([1944] 321 U.S. 1; 88 L. Ed. 497), referred to.