https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168906 Article 14 permits reasonable classification, and the Ordinance was upheld because its preamble and surrounding context disclosed a definite public purpose of maintaining public safety, order, and tranquillity in disturbed areas. The power to select specified offences for Special Court trial was treated as a controlled power with a rational relation to that objective, so the different procedure did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The scheme was also characterised as conditional legislation: the legislative policy was set by the Ordinance itself, while executive action was confined to determining local application within that policy framework. The challenge based on excessive delegation therefore failed. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:27:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168906 Article 14 permits reasonable classification, and the Ordinance was upheld because its preamble and surrounding context disclosed a definite public purpose of maintaining public safety, order, and tranquillity in disturbed areas. The power to select specified offences for Special Court trial was treated as a controlled power with a rational relation to that objective, so the different procedure did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The scheme was also characterised as conditional legislation: the legislative policy was set by the Ordinance itself, while executive action was confined to determining local application within that policy framework. The challenge based on excessive delegation therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Feb 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168906