Intelligible differentia

2026 PLC(CS) 86 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Principle of equalityReasonable classificationIntelligible differentiaScopeArt. 25 guarantees equality before the law, but does not prohibit reasonable classificationEquality is not absolute similarity

For a classification to be valid, it must satisfy: (i) an intelligible differentia distinguishing persons or things grouped together from others, and (ii) a rational nexus between the differentia and the object of the statute or policy.

2025 PLC(CS) 738 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reglns. 2(j), 32, 49(b)(1), (2) & (3), 63 & 100Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25Grant of special family pension to widow/parents/children and dependent of the Armed Forces Officers/AFNS OfficersScopeReasonable classificationIntelligible differentia

Mother of the martyred military officer claimed special family/full pension after the death of first recipient (wife) on the ground of discrimination

Respondent raised an objection that petitioner was only entitled to ordinary/normal family pension

Validity

Under Regln. No.49 when the deceased officer is survived by a widow in such case Clause-b(1) of Regln. No.49 would be attracted, and if there is no widow at the time of death of deceased officer Clause-b(2) would come into force

Case of the appellant being mother would, thus, be covered under the former Clause and she could not press into service Regln. No.63 in support of her claim, as the said provision of law primarily dealt with the cases of normal pension and it carries the eventualities where the original grantee died or suffered some disqualification

Appellant was precluded to take refuge of said provision of law

Article 25 of the Constitution though ordains that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law and also guarantees that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex but equality does not prohibit classification for differently placed persons

Doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems

Right of equality of citizens is always founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those, who have been left out

Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities, thus, in the light of clear distinction of service cadre and nature between a Commissioned Officer and Junior Commissioned Officer, the contention of the appellant was highly ill-founded

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLD 348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 25EqualityReasonable classificationIntelligible differentiaScopeConstitution prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation

Such classification must specify the twin test of classification on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out

Group of differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by a statute.

2021 PLC(CS) 1553 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts.25 & 199Constitutional petitionJudicial ReviewRecruitment policyPermissible classification, test ofIntelligible differentia

Held, that when test of permissible classification was applied to the impugned policy, it was noted that the classification of residents of rural area and urban area was based on intelligible differentia which had rational nexus with the object to be achieved; therefore, it could not be said that Art. 25 of the Constitution had been violated.

2021 PLD 144 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 4 & 25Reasonable classificationIntelligible differentiaApplicabilityEqual protection of law as envisaged under Arts. 4 & 25 of the Constitution has to be given effectAll similarly placed and situated person are to be treated alike

Reasonable classification is permitted subject to law on the basis of intelligible differentia which distinguishes person or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out.

2020 SCMR 1689 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Civil serviceDistinct and separate groupsIntelligible differentia

Orderly allowance and special additional pension in lieu of such orderly allowance after retirement ('allowances in question'), payment of

Doctors working in teaching cadre as Professors (BS-20) in Province of Balochistan not paid allowances in question, whereas, officers and employees of Grade-20 and above working in the Civil Secretariat of the Province of Balochistan, the Federal Government as well as the other Provinces (Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) paid the allowances in question

Whether the doctors were discriminated against

Held, that respondents by reason of their job descriptions, service structure, emoluments and allowances constituted a distinct and separate group of officers compared to the Secretaries and other officials placed in Grade-20 and above in Balochistan Civil Secretariat

Intelligible differentia existed between the two sets of officers which could easily be differentiated and such differentiation was clearly understood as logical and lucid and it was neither artificial nor contrived

Furthermore respondents had and continued to be adequately and sufficiently compensated by reason of special allowances which were specific and germane to their cadre and were not available to other civil servants despite the fact that such civil servants were working in BS-20 and above

Respondents had not been discriminated against as alleged by them and none of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution had been violated by reason of denial of the allowance in question.

2020 PLC(CS) 1437 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Civil serviceDistinct and separate groupsIntelligible differentia

Orderly allowance and special additional pension in lieu of such orderly allowance after retirement ('allowances in question'), payment of

Doctors working in teaching cadre as Professors (BS-20) in Province of Balochistan not paid allowances in question, whereas, officers and employees of Grade-20 and above working in the Civil Secretariat of the Province of Balochistan, the Federal Government as well as the other Provinces (Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) paid the allowances in question

Whether the doctors were discriminated against

Held, that respondents by reason of their job descriptions, service structure, emoluments and allowances constituted a distinct and separate group of officers compared to the Secretaries and other officials placed in Grade-20 and above in Balochistan Civil Secretariat

Intelligible differentia existed between the two sets of officers which could easily be differentiated and such differentiation was clearly understood as logical and lucid and it was neither artificial nor contrived

Furthermore respondents had and continued to be adequately and sufficiently compensated by reason of special allowances which were specific and germane to their cadre and were not available to other civil servants despite the fact that such civil servants were working in BS-20 and above

Respondents had not been discriminated against as alleged by them and none of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution had been violated by reason of denial of the allowance in question.

2020 PLC(CS) 1287 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Claim for appointment against quota reserved for children of in service employeesAppointment criteriaPreferential right of appointmentIntelligible differentiaScopeAppellant assailed order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby his constitutional petition was dismissed

Claim of appellant was that he applied for appointment against 20% quota reserved for children of in-service employees but his case was not properly considered

Validity

Appointment was to be made on the basis of inter-se merit of children of employees to be fixed keeping in view the priorities mentioned in para. 1 of the notification in question wherein the children of deceased and retired employees had to be given priority over the children of in-service employees

Appellant was not entitled to be considered for appointment along with or in preference to the said categories and had to be considered when the candidates in the said categories had been exhausted

Notification challenged by appellant was based on a policy decision which could not be called in question through constitutional jurisdiction unless the same was violative of the Constitution Fundamental Rights, law or suffered from illegality, arbitrariness or established mala fides

Reasonable classification had been made by giving priority to the children of employees who no longer remained in service over the children of serving employees which itself was made on the basis of intelligible differentia and reasons for making such classification was beyond the scope of determination by High Court as the said classification was not in conflict with any prevailing law

Intra-court appeal was dismissed.

2019 MLD 1347 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Reasonable classification, principle ofIntelligible differentiaClassification must be reasonable and must have nexus with objects sought to be achieved by such classificationWhat needs to be seen is whether classification assailed before the Court can be termed reasonable or not

Provisions of Art. 25 of Constitution apart from stipulating equality and equal protection of law to all citizens, expressly prohibits discrimination and provides that State may make special provisions for protection of women and children

'Valid Classification Test' of any enactment is that regulation or rule must not be arbitrary in nature and is founded on intelligible differentia.

2018 PTD 336 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 99-A & Ninth Schedule [as amended by Income Tax (Amendment) Act (III of 2016)]Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25Constitutional petitionDiscriminationIntelligible differentia

Petitioner assailed benefit granted to traders through amendment made by Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016, on the plea of discrimination

Validity

None of the traders belonging to same class raised voice against benefit under the enactment to have been denied to them

Such measure could be regarded as an affirmative action on the part of Federal Government and one which was actuated by good faith and proper purposes

Petitioner could not point out any similarly placed individuals and persons who were discriminated by the provisions of S.99-A and Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Whether in case the benefit under the amending Act was handed out to a certain class of trader that any other class of individuals and citizens would stand to be treated differently having the same status and financial standing was not clear

Such was permissible classification and did not impinge upon the right of any individual in terms of Art. 25 of the Constitution

Reasonable classification could be made in respect of similarly situated persons who were required to be treated alike

Reasonable classification in such matter was the class of traders contemplated by the provisions under challenge and petitioner did not claim any other class to be similarly situated

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 CLC 523 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Equality, doctrine ofScopeIntelligible differentiaCourt, duty of

Legislature has been authorized to make classification on the basis of an intelligible differentia between distinct persons and things grouped together and from those who have been left out, provided it is not arbitrary or capricious

Court cannot demand scientific accuracy for the classification so created by the Legislature

Intelligible classification of persons, things or houses is not repugnant to the equality doctrine as long as the same is not arbitrary or capricious, is natural and reasonable and bears a fair and substantial relation to the objection of the Legislation.