While reasonable clessification is permissible, such cllassification must be based on some real and

subbstantial distinction bearing a reasonabe ald just realtion to the object sougght to be achieved,
and the classification cannot be made arbitarily and without any substantial basis.

To carry the presumptio of reasonablenes to the extent of hoolding that there must be some
undisclosed or unknown reason for subjecting certain individuals to hostile and discriminatory
llegislation is to make the protecction clause a mere rope of sand in no manner estrainig state
action. Unless a just cause for discrimination is put forth in the law itself, the satute has to be
decllered unconstitutional. The just cause must be an objective factor havin a real and substanial
relation too the object of the legislation. 1

By virtue of the Supreme Court’s explanation to article 14 in order to satisfy a challenge under art 14
the impugned state act must not only be non discriminatory but also be immune from arbitariness
unreasonableness and unfairness and also be in consonance with public interest. 2

1
Ramprasad v. state of bihar AIR 1958 SC 215
2
Ramana v. IAAI AIR 1979 SC 1628, see also Kasturi v. stateof J & K AIR 1980 SC 1992