To Compare or not to compare: Testing Compassionate Appointment on the anvil of equality through the lens of Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi

  • Sayak Banerjee Student

Abstract

The equality jurisprudence has been evolving under the rule of law; the Courts have been faced with a tumultuous task of protecting the core principles of reasonableness, fairness, equity, through the years. As the cases have been pronounced over the years, and with the passage of the landmark privacy judgment, the Courts have tried to standardize its parameters, and bring to a test of proportionality. Though, the endeavor has been to reduce the multifaceted interpretations, but issues have started arising in the applicability of the standardized tests in various areas of law, one such being in this case. Herein, I analyze the case, by giving a systemic background, then critically appraising the judgment by sharing that Courts could have considered the parameter of ‘non-comparative unreasonableness’ facet of equality jurisprudence, instead came to a conclusion by the narrow classification test. On assessing the parameter of non-comparative unreasonableness, the Court through this very case, could have set a firm precedence, and taken the discussion forward.        

Published
2020-06-12
How to Cite
BANERJEE, Sayak. To Compare or not to compare: Testing Compassionate Appointment on the anvil of equality through the lens of Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi. Journal of Family and Adoption Law, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 39-43, june 2020. Available at: <http://lawjournals.stmjournals.in/index.php/jfal/article/view/497>. Date accessed: 24 sep. 2020.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.