It has been held by the courts consistently that presumption of constitutionality is always in favour of a legislation unless the contrary is shown.
Parliament and the Legislatures comprising the representatives of the people are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them.
The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom, particularly where they have stood the test of time, unless it is established that the impugned provision suffers from the vice of legislative competence or impinged the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
The mere fact that there is some inconvenience arising from the language of a statutory provision and its due implementation cannot be a ground for declaring the same violative of fundamental rights [vide State of AP v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673 and K.B. Nagur v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 483].