Plessy VS Ferguson : Separate Treatment To White And Colored Persons Are Valid
Plessy Vs. Ferguson was one of the regressive judgments of the US Supreme Court passed in 1896 wherein separate coaches in a rail for two races i.e. white and colored persons were held valid. It shows that view of even highest Courts can be colored by social norms of the times rather than being objective.
What were facts in Plessy Vs Ferguson ?
Mr. Plessy was a citizen of USA. He was not even a completely colored person. He was of mixed descent in proportion of seven eighth Caucasian and one eighth African blood. He bought ticket for first class passage on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans to Covington and took vacant seat in a coach which was reserved for passengers of white race. He was forcefully ejected from the coach and imprisoned for his crime.
What were findings of the Supreme Court in Plessy Vs Ferguson ?
Mr. Plessy challenged the constitutionality of the act of the General Assembly of the States of Louisiana passed in 1890 providing for separate railway carriages for white and colored races. It was contended before the Supreme Court that this act violated 13th and 14h Amendments to the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention that 13th Amendment had abolished slavery in USA and 14th Amendment provide equal protection of laws to citizens.
The Supreme Court held that the aforesaid act does not infringe 13th Amendment. The Court observed that a statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races – a distinction which is founded in the colour of the two races and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude.
The Supreme Court also held that the aforesaid act does not infringe 14th Amendment. The Court observed that the object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon colour, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality or a commingling of the two races upon terms satisfactory to either.
The Court finally concluded that the case reduces to the question whether statute is reasonable. Reasonableness has to be interpreted with established uses, customs and traditions of people and preservation of peace and good order. The Court found that requirement of separation of the two races in public conveyances not unreasonable or more obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment that the acts of the congress requiring separate school for colored children.
What was dissenting opinion ?
Justice Harlan dissented and held that the legislation in question was in violation of 14th Amendment. Justice Harlan observed that in the eyes of Constitution there is no superior dominant class of citizens. All citizens are equal before law. The humblest and the powerful both are equal. The law regards man as man and takes no account of color of man. Justice Harlan regretted that the Supreme Court found it competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by the citizens of civil rights solely upon the basis of race.
_______________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
