classification need not be great. However, it has to be shown that the difference is real and substantial and there must be some just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation or notification.
Classification having regard to microscopic differences is not good. To borrow the phrase from the judgment in Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA : “To overdo classification is to undo equality.”
111. The crux of the classification test is that if there is no rational nexus between the grouping and the object, and the same is found to be arbitrary, the classification is unreasonable and is liable to be struck down.
112. On behalf of the GNCTD, reliance has been placed on D.P. Joshi v.
Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 58 of 71
State of M.B., AIR 1955 SC 334, which recognises domicile as a valid basis for classification. It is, however, noticed that in the said decision, the domicile test has been applied in the context of admission to educational institutions etc., and not in respect of social welfare schemes. Moreover, in the present case, the Scheme is not an ordinary scheme, it is a scheme which is meant to recognise the role of advocates in the practice of law. This role is to be gauged not on the basis of the place of residence of the advocate but on the basis of their place of practice, as the former has no recognition whatsoever in the statutes governing the practice of law. The submission on behalf of the GNCTD that the conditions to be imposed in the Scheme being one of governmental policy, the Court ought not to interfere in the same, would not be correct if the conditions are found to be discriminatory or arbitrary.
113. Furthermore, the GNCTD had accepted the recommendation of the Committee for providing life insurance and health insurance policies for advocates and their families. Insurance is inextricably linked with healthcare. Though such a scheme, which is in the nature of a special scheme for advocates, cannot by itself be demanded by advocates as a matter of right, once the Scheme is promulgated and is being implemented as a health related scheme, it takes the colour of a scheme which is intending to protect `Right to life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the settled position in law that Right to health and healthcare is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as held in LIC of India & Ors. v.
CERC & Ors., AIR 1995 SCC 1811, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. ESIC, AIR 1996 SC 3261 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jay Prakash Tayal, 247 (2018) DLT 379.
Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 59 of 71
114. A Division Bench of this Court in Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2018) 253 DLT 466 has, in fact, struck down a similar condition while dealing with hospital services for non-Delhi residents. The Court has clearly observed that the condition imposed by a Government hospital in Delhi that its services would not be available for a patient who does not hold a voter ID card of Delhi is liable to be struck down. The observations of the Court are as under:
“9. … The circular therefore clearly creates two categories of patients with two different procedures and systems for treatment and consequently the medical facilities available in the hospital to these two categories of patients differ. There is nothing to indicate as to what is the difference between these two categories of patients. The only differentiation indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and what is made out from the circular is that one category of persons have a Voter ID Card issued by a particular authority classifying them to be voters of a particular constituency or area within the territory of Delhi and others do not have such a Voter ID Card. The question is - Is this a reasonable basis for classifying identically situated citizens for the purpose of extending medical facility in a hospital? Providing medical facilities to each and every citizen is a constitutional responsibility, and the State may in the matter of providing medical facilities classify citizens into different categories by adopting a principle of permissible classification which has nexus to the purpose to be achieved. In the present case, the classification is based not on the basis of any scientific or intelligential classification or system but it is based on availability of a Voter ID Card and the purpose to be achieved by this classification is to decongest the hospital and to
Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2021 15:21:55
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
W.P.(C) 3298/2020 & connected matters Page 60 of 71
bring in a system of discipline in the functioning of the hospital and running it in a smooth manner. In our considered view, neither is the classification reasonable, is not based on any justifiable reason nor is the nexus said to be achieved a reasonable one.
10. Health care facility and its access to a citizen is