Minister of Posts and Telegraphs v Rasool 1934 AD 167

Facts

In December 1931 the postmaster general issued the instruction that Europeans were to be served in one room and all non-Europeans in another. Indians at the time were obliged to go to the non-European room for their postal business. Rasool, an Indian man, whilst receiving equal service from both counters objected to the new regulation and instituted legal action to have it revoked. The court a quo issued the appellant with a mandamus compelling them to withdraw the instructions thus his appeal was disallowed. Another appeal was brought to the AD.

Legal Issue

Whether the instructions of the postmaster-general were ultra vires the provisions above.

Appellant’s argument

The separation of races is not unlawful and is resorted to by other institutions thus the assumption that this practice treats certain races or classes as inferior is wrong. Furthermore, municipal officials are given power to make byelaws as they are the voice of the legislature and can pass any legislation as long as it aligns with the legislature's intention.

Respondent’s argument 

Discrimination on the grounds of race is prima facie wrong regardless of the quality of service each group receives. The legislature had not sanctioned the postmaster-general to discriminate on race or class lines and hence he did not have the authority to pass such byelaws and his actions are ultra vires.

Judgements (majority)

The appeal should be allowed as they interpreted discrimination not as a mere division on racial lines but rather as a difference in the way one treats different race groups. The quality of services rendered to both groups was of an equal standard.

Judgement (minority)

The post office act does not confer the power upon the postmaster-general to make racial distinctions. The postmaster-general differentiated the races and this kind of differentiation has to be enforced by the governor-general in council under s147 of the South African Act.