Article 14 equality and Government debt priority: the State is not a "person", and insolvency preference is not discriminatory.

Article 14 does not extend the constitutional meaning of "person" to the State or Government; the text treats that expression as covering natural and artificial persons, while the State remains distinct from its inhabitants and the Government acts only as its political agency. Article 300 was noted as conferring the State's capacity to sue and be sued, not as making it a "person" for equality purposes. Section 44 of the Provincial Insolvency Act was analysed as a classification of debts, not creditors, and its preference for Government debts was viewed as uniformly applicable and directed to a public purpose, so it was not discriminatory.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Government or State is a "person" within Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether Section 44 of the Provincial Insolvency Act offends the equal protection guarantee by giving priority to debts due to Government.

Analysis: The expression "person" was held to denote natural persons and artificial persons such as corporations, but not the State or Government. The State was treated as distinct from the inhabitants, and the Government as the political agency through which the State acts. Article 300 was noted as the source of the State's capacity to sue and be sued, not as a basis for treating it as a person under Article 14. On the validity of Section 44, the provision was viewed as a statutory classification of debts, not creditors, and as operating uniformly on all persons within its sphere. The preference for Government debts in insolvency was held to serve a public purpose and not to create arbitrary discrimination.

Conclusion: Neither the State nor the Government is a "person" within Article 14, and Section 44 of the Provincial Insolvency Act does not violate Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional guarantee of equality to "persons" does not include the State or Government, and a statutory priority for debts due to Government, when uniformly applied as a classification of debts, is not discriminatory.

---