D S Nakara v. Union of India (1983)

The Government liberalised pension by an office memorandum, but the benefit was confined to employees who would retire after a cut-off date. D S Nakara, already retired before that date, challenged the cut-off: identical service, identical pension scheme — an arbitrary line. His plea was under Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of the laws).

The Constitution Bench (CJI Y V Chandrachud, with D A Desai, who wrote the judgment, V D Tulzapurkar, O Chinnappa Reddy and Baharul Islam JJ) held for the pensioner:

1. Article 14 forbids arbitrary State action — a classification must rest on an intelligible differentia and bear a rational nexus to the object of the measure.
2. The date-of-retirement cut-off failed that test: there was no rational connection between crossing one date and deserving the liberalised rate. The classification was struck down and the benefit made available to all eligible pensioners. The Court did not, however, order arrears: “Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible.”
3. Along the way, the Bench restated first principles: pension is not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but payment for past service rendered. On the authority of Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, which the Bench relied on, it is a right enforceable in court rather than a matter of the employer's grace.

Apply Nakara to RTI in two recurring scenarios:

1. Differential treatment of identical requests — the same PIO's office answers one applicant fully and stonewalls another with an identical query. Article 14, via Nakara, makes the differential treatment itself challengeable in appeal: demand to know on what basis the earlier identical request was decided differently.
2. Selective exemption application — a department invokes §8(1)(j) to deny an asset disclosure to citizen A while disclosing the same class of facts to citizen B. The selective application is arbitrary on its face; the comparator evidence (what was disclosed to B) is itself obtainable by RTI.

The comparator tactic is the whole game: Nakara arguments win on records, not adjectives — get the prior disclosures first, then cite them.

1. Establish the comparator by RTI: ask for the office's replies to the earlier, identical requests (registration numbers if known).
2. In the first appeal, set out the two requests side by side and demand the rational basis for the difference.
3. Cite **D S Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305** for the two-test rule; add Article 14 in the prayer.

It binds every public authority as constitutional law — commissions apply Article 14 routinely when differential treatment is shown on record.

Indirectly: it is the classic statement that entitlements flow from service records, and service/pension records are among the most-asked RTI categories.

Five — a Constitution Bench. The two-test classification rule is settled law of the land, not a passing view.

D S Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, AIR 1983 SC 130. Decided 17 December 1982 by a 5-judge Constitution Bench (CJI Y V Chandrachud, D A Desai, V D Tulzapurkar, O Chinnappa Reddy, Baharul Islam JJ).

• Supreme Court of India, D S Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305; AIR 1983 SC 130.
• Constitution of India, Article 14.
• Right to Information Act, 2005, §8 + §10. Full text.

• CPIO SC v. Subhash Agarwal
• Maneka Gandhi v. UoI
• Puttaswamy v. UoI
• RTI Act, 2005
• The RTI Playbook book

Last reviewed: 27 August 2026. Broken description repaired (it ended mid-sentence); pension-as-property holding and the comparator tactic added; the stray mid-page tag line folded into the page footer tags.