Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Art. 14 is the embodiment of the idea of equality envisaged in the Preamble to the Constitution.
2. While Art. 14 is the general clause, Articles 15, 16 and 17 are the specific application instances of
Article 14. Therefore, Article 14 encompasses the core idea or the fundamental of EQUALITY while
the other clauses are instances of its application.
3. In Indira Sawhney v. U.O.I. AIR 1993 SC 477, the court held that Art 14 is a part of Basic structure of
the Constitution.
4. Article 14 contains two facets of Equality: a). Equality before Law (owes its origin from the British
concept of Rule of Law propounded by A.V. Dicey) & b) Equal protection of the law (is borrowed
from the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment)
5. Equality before Law: is a negative concept i.e. it denies (abstains the State from giving) any special
protection or privilege to any person irrespective of his/her status, class, background, etc. Thus, it
ensures that no one is above the Law of the land and therefore it is the law that rules (Rule of law).
6. Equal protection of law: is a positive concept i.e. it provides (empowers the State to act so as to
ensure) equality of treatment in equal circumstances. It means that only such persons are to be
treated alike (i.e. governed by same set of rules/principles of law) who are in the same circumstances.
Thus, like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.
7. Therefore the underlying principle of Art. 14 is that all persons similarly circumstanced should be
treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
8. The right is available to all persons i.e. natural as well as artificial/juristic.
9. Certain Exception to Equality: After a proclamation of Emergency under Article 359, the enforcement
of Article 14 may be suspended (please keep in mind that Article 14 is not suspended but its
enforcement only till the operation of Emergency) ; The President as well as Governor of a State shall
not be answerable in a court of law in matters relating to anything done in exercise of their powers and
duties (article 361); Under Article 105 and 194 of Constitution the M.P.(s) and M.L.A.(s) cannot be
questioned in any court of law for anything done or said within the House (i.e. Parliament and
Legislature); Foreign Diplomats, ambassadors, etc are also granted immunity from court proceedings in
our country, etc.
10. Reasonable Classification vs Class Legislation under Art 14: Classification means segregation in
classes which has a systematic relation. By employing the process of classification the State is allowed
under Article 14 to determine who shall be regarded as a class (i.e. having common properties or
characteristics). However, this classification should be made on a rational basis and should not be done
arbitrarily. Class legislation is prohibited. Article 14 empowers the State to subject persons in similar
circumstance or situation to same law but does not allow the State to universally apply, to all persons,
every law. Thus article 14 allows the State to treat different persons differently if circumstances so
justify. In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. Therefore, the
State has power to club/group persons, objects, transactions, etc., with a view to attain specific
objectives/goals. Hence, a reasonable classification is permitted (as it is necessary) if society is to
progress.
Class Legislation is not allowed as the discrimination is arbitrary and unreasonable. When any law
purports to confer specific privileges on a group to the exclusion of others, then selection of members to
such a group must be based on reasonable distinction which justifies the inclusion of the members or
non inclusion of the others. Thus, what Art. 14 prohibits is class legislation & not classification for the
purpose of legislation.
11. Tests of Reasonable Classification : The classification must not be arbitrary or artificial and should also
fulfil two essential criterias:
It must be based on an intelligible differentia which clearly brings forth the basis of
differentiation/distinction between those grouped as a class and others left out;
Such differentia must have a rational relation or rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the legislation.
12. Thus these two tests establish the reasonable basis for a classification.
13. Various Court decisions have further clarified or highlighted the concept, scope and limit of reasonable
classification :
A. A single individual may also constitute a class if there exist such special and extra ordinary
circumstance (Chiranjit L. Choudhary v. UOI)
B. The presumption is always towards or in favour of the constitutionality of the legislation and
therefore the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the law is devoid of any reasonable
classification and hence violative of Article 14.
C. This presumption of constitutionality of the legislation is based on several factors, for example,
the necessity to do away with historical injustices, to provide for a common/level playing field
to all, the Law as need of the hour, legislature as a reflection of peoples will and needs acts to
their betterment, Legislature can make discrimination to ensure cumulative and holistic
development of society, etc.
D. Mere inequality cannot be the parameter to decide the constitutional validity of any Act because
the very idea of classification.
E. The classification made need not be scientifically perfect by all means. Article 14 provides for
Equal treatment and not identical treatment. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment
does not, per se, amount to discrimination. Discernible classification based on reasonable
differentia is allowed.
F. Substantive law and procedural law are both subject to the mandate of Article 14.
14. The basis of classification may be different depending upon the objective sought to be achieved.
15. Leading Case laws :
A. A single individual as a Class: Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. UOI
Facts: Acquisition or takeover of a company functioning in Sholapur by the Government by passing
the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. (Emergency Provision) Act A shareholder of the
company challenged the constitutional validity of the Act arguing that the Act denies him and the
company the right to equality before law as the Act only applied to one particular company (and
therefore also to its shareholders) and took away their right to manage their own affairs while
leaving out all other companies or their shareholders from its application- thus the treatment is not
identical
Observation and Decision: The apex court upheld the validity of the Act observing that a law may
be valid even if applies only to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances
which are applicable to him and not to others, that single individual may be treated as a class itself
unless it is shown that there are others who are in similar circumstance as him. The legislature is
free to recognize the degree of harm and it may confine its restriction to those cases where the need
is deemed to be the clearest.
The court said that in the present case, the Sholapur Company formed a class by itself because the
mismanagement of the companys affairs prejudicially affected the production of an essential
commodity and had caused a serious unemployment amongst labourers. Therefore, in the larger
interest of all the stakeholders the Legislature has treated the company as a class by itself and made
special legislation applicable to it alone.
B. Special Courts and Procedural Inequality: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Facts: In this case, the validity of trial of Anwar Ali and others by a special court established
under section 5(1) of West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1850, was at issue. The Act was passed to
provide for speedier trial of certain offences. It also provided for a special procedure for the
courts to follow in the trial of cases referred to it.
Observation and Decision: The Supreme court observed that if the Act clearly laid down or
classified what kind of offences , class of offences or cases or class of cases are to be tried by
special courts, then it will not be violative of Article 14. Moreover, the special procedure so
prescribed under it must also not be contrary to the procedure under ordinary law (i.e. CrPC,
IPC,etc.).
The court further explained that the differentia (in the present case, certain kind of offences like
dacoity, communal riots, gang rape, etc., which due to their peculiar quality, are distinguished from
other ordinary and not so violent crimes like theft, battery, defamation, etc. and therefore require a
speedier trial, which is the basis of a classification is different and distinct from the object (speedier
trial of offences) of the Act. The object by itself cannot be the basis of classification.
Without such a differentia, the object of speedier trial would be desirable in disposal of all offences
or cases.
The Act did not lay down any basis for classification of offences or cases nor did it mention clearly
what kind of cases were to be directed for trials by special courts. The object speedier trial of
certain offences is too vague, uncertain and illusive to be a basis for any reasonable classification.
Moreover, section 5(1) of the Act authorises the Govt. to direct cases to be tried by the special
court, allows violation of Article 14 as it confers arbitrary powers on the Govt. to classify offences
or cases at its pleasure. Also, the special procedure varied substantially from the procedure laid
down in CrPC for trial of offences. The Act held to be unconstitutional.