Judgment :- Petitioner is an independent candidate for election from the Ernakulam Parliamentary Constituency. The grievance of the petitioner is that he, an independent candidate, is not permitted to broadcast his views over Television and Radio by the Chief Electoral officer, whereas nine national political parties have been allowed to do so. Petitioner contends that the above approach is basically wrong and highly discriminatory and that the privilege given to the political parties should not be denied to him merely because he is an independent candidate. He prays for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to provide him an opportunity to broadcast his views through the media of Television and Radio as an independent candidate. 2. The pleadings in the Original Petition do not establish that the respondents have adopted any discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner. He has no case that any other independent candidate is allowed to use the media, whereas he has been singled out and denied of the privilege. 3. Art.14 of the Constitution docmota bridge the power of the State in making classification for legitimate purposes. Whenever a classification is made it is bound to create some inequality. Merely because of differential treatment cannot jump to the conclusion that Article 14 is violated. Lack of reasonable basis for the differentiation tantamount to denial of equal protection and in such a case Article 14 is violated. It is the settled legal position that whenever a well-defined class is treated in a discriminatory mannerist is obnoxious to Article 14. Two conditions must necessarily be satisfied to pass the test of permissible classification. They are: i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and ii) that, that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. There can be classification on geographical or regional basis. There may be classification according to the objects or occupation or the like. The essential aspect of the matter is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by it. 4. Classification is permissible if it is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. The essential aspect of the matter is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by it. 4. Classification is permissible if it is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Not only that, that differentia should have a rational relation to the proposed object. Viewed in that line the classification of candidates belonging to the political parties and independent candidates is only reasonable. It is not possible to hold that the classification must fit in with mathematical precision or that it should be absolutely perfect or logically complete. 5. Petitioner has no case that any of the national political parties is treated in a discriminatory manner. As the petitioner admittedly is an independent candidate he does not come within the category of a national political party. On the ground that the national political parties are allowed to make use of the media of Television and Radio, the petitioner an independent candidate, cannot claim the same right. As there exists only a reasonable classification vis-a-vis independent candidates and candidates 'belonging to national political parties Article 14 has not been violated. 6. The petitioner could not establish that the classification resulted in any flagrant inequality or discrimination. National political parties vie with each other to highlight their programmes and plans of action before the voters. In a democratic set up, as we have today, voters are only eager to know what the national political parties have to offer to them. Independent candidate stand on a different footing altogether. Essentially on account of this factor the respondents decided that only the national political parties would be allowed to use the media of Television and Radio. The petitioner or similarly placed independent candidates cannot claim the use of the media of Television and Radio merely on the ground that representative of national political parties have been allowed such a privilege. Moreover in view of the plethora of independent candidates in the election fray if the petitioner is allowed to broadcast through the media it would result in the violation of Article 14 in so far as the other independent candidates arc concerned. There is no merit in the Original Petition and it is dismissed in limine.