Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DS Nakara v Union of India 1983,Article 14 equality,pension equality,arbitrary classification,equal protection RTI)
+metatag-description=(SC 1983: arbitrary classification of pensioners violates Article 14. The doctrine that govt schemes must apply equally to similarly-placed citizens — used in.)}}
+====== D S Nakara v. Union of India (1983) ======
+**The 1983 Supreme Court ruling that arbitrary classification of citizens violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Government cannot give one group of pensioners a benefit and deny it to similarly-situated others without a "rational and objective" basis. This principle is widely used in RTI matters when the Government applies [[act:section-8|§8]] exemptions to one citizen but not another in identical circumstances.**
+**D S Nakara v. Union of India** {{tag>supreme-court constitutional-law article-14 equality pension 1983}}
+===== The issue =====
+The Government had a pension liberalisation scheme that benefited only those who retired after a cut-off date. D S Nakara, who retired before that date, challenged the cut-off as arbitrary under Article 14.
+===== The holding =====
+A 5-judge Constitution Bench held:
+  - **Article 14** forbids arbitrary classification — the Government must show a **rational basis** for differential treatment.
+  - The **pension cut-off was arbitrary** — there was no rational nexus between the date of retirement and entitlement to a higher rate.
+  - The classification was **struck down** and the benefit extended to all eligible pensioners.
+  - The doctrine of "**reasonable classification**" requires **(a)** intelligible differentia and **(b)** rational nexus to the object sought.
+===== Why this matters for RTI =====
+Apply Nakara to RTI in two scenarios:
+  - When a public authority **answers one applicant's RTI fully but stonewalls another with identical query** — the differential treatment is challengeable under Article 14.
+  - When a department applies **[[act:section-8|§8(1)(j)]] selectively** — denying an asset disclosure to citizen A but disclosing to citizen B under the same facts. The selective application is arbitrary.
+===== Citation =====
+**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, B Eradi JJ).
+===== Use this case in your RTI appeal =====
+If the same PIO's office disclosed similar information to another applicant but denied it to you, cite D S Nakara to argue the classification is arbitrary. Demand the prior disclosures via RTI to establish the comparator.
+===== Sources =====
+  * Supreme Court of India, **D S Nakara v. Union of India**, (1983) 1 SCC 305.
+  * **Constitution of India**, Article 14.
+  * **Right to Information Act, 2005**, [[act:section-8|§8]] + [[act:section-10|§10]]. [[:act|Full text]].
+===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal|CPIO SC v. Subhash Agarwal]]
+  * [[:cases:maneka-gandhi-v-uoi-1978|Maneka Gandhi v. UoI]]
+  * [[:cases:puttaswamy-v-uoi-2017|Puttaswamy v. UoI]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005]]
+//Last reviewed: 4 May 2026.//
+{{tag>ds-nakara article-14 equality reasonable-classification constitution-bench 1983 2026}}