It can be argued that section 21 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 may cause inconvenience, potential prejudice and embarrassment to a solvent spouse. These consequences can be categorised as being drastic. Some academics are of the view that the effects of section 21 can be deemed as arbitrary and irrational.

Against this backdrop, do you think there is a rational differentiation between solvent spouses and other persons in section 21? Furthermore, do you think that the legislation purpose of section 21 is to prevent collusion between spouses to the disadvantage of the creditors of the insolvent spouse? Lastly, whether such differentiation amounts to "discrimination", but is the discrimination "fair discrimination"?

Analyse with reference to the Harksen v Lane 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC) and other relevant cases.