Introduction:-

The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality through Article 14 to

18. In the series of Constitutional provisions from Article 14 to 18, Article 14 is
the most significant.
Right to Equality has been declared as Basic Feature of Indian Constitution by
the Supreme Court.

Article 14
Right to Equality
Article 14 declares that ‘the State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territories of
India’.

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: ‘All are equal
before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law.’

Article 14 uses two expressions:-

1) Equality before the law – English Origin
2) Equal protection of the law – American Origin
Both Equality before law and Equal protection of law aim to establish the
“Equality of Status and Opportunity” as embodied in the Preamble of the
Constitution.
Further, because all persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in
the same positions; article 14 provides that State can treat different persons
differently if circumstances justify such treatment. This is called Doctrine of
Reasonable Classification and it says that protective discrimination is also a
facet of equality.
 1) Equality before the Law
Equality before the law is a concept implying absence of any special privilege
by reason of birth, creed or the like in favour of any individual, and also the
equal subject of all individuals and classes to the ordinary law of the land.
Equality before law means that no one is above the law of the land.
It means that law does not discriminate on the basis of birth, position, gender
or other personal attributes.
Equality before the law is a negative concept which ensures that there is no
special privilege in favour of any one, that all are equally subject to the
ordinary law of the land and that no person, whatever be his rank or condition,
is above the law.

Dr. Jennings: ‘Equality before the law means that among equals the law
should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be
treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to prosecute and be prosecuted
for the same kind of action should be same for all citizens of full age and
understanding without distinctions of race, religion, wealth, social status or
political influence.’

Rule of Law
It means that no man is above the law and that every person, whatever be his
rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

Dicey: ‘With us, every official from the Prime Minister down to constable or a
Collector of taxes is under the same responsibility for every act done without
legal justification as any other citizen.’
Prof. Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law:-
1) Absence of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy of the Law
It means the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to the arbitrary power of
the Government. A man may be punished for a breach of law, but he can be
punished for nothing else.
2) Equality before the Law
It means subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered
by ordinary law courts. This means that no one is above law with the sole
exception of the monarch who can do no wrong.
3) The Constitution is the Result of the Ordinary Law of the Land
It means that the source of the right of the individuals is not the written
Constitution but the rules as defined and enforced by the courts.
 2) Equal Protection of the Laws
The 14th Amendment of the American Constitution says that: ‘nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.’
Equal protection of Laws is a positive concept. It does not mean that identically
the same law should apply to all persons, or that every law must have a
universal application within the country irrespective of differences of
circumstances.
What it postulates is the application of the same laws alike and without
discrimination to all persons similarly situated.
It implies that among equals the law should be equal and equally administered,
that the like should be treated alike without distinction of race, religion,
wealth, social status or political influence.

In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, it was
held that equal law should be applied to all in the same situation, and there
should be no discrimination between one person and another.

In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, it was held
that the Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 is the ‘basic feature’ of the Indian
Constitution and hence it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the
Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution.
Exceptions to the Rule of Law:-
1) The scope of right to equality under Article 14 has been considerably
restricted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
The new Article 31-C added by the Amendment Act provides that the
laws made by the State for implementing the Directive Principles
contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged
on the ground that they are violative of Article 14.

2) Article 359 (1) provides that where a proclamation of emergency is in

operation the President may, by order, declare that the right to move
any court for the enforcement of such rights conferred by Part III (except
Arts. 20 and 21) shall remain suspended.
Thus, if the president of India issues an order, where a proclamation of
emergency is in operation, enforcement of Article 14 may be suspended
for the period during which the proclamation is in force.

3) Article 361 lays down that the President and the Governors are
exempted from any criminal proceeding during the tenure of their office.

4) Under International law, foreign sovereign and ambassadors enjoy full

immunity from any judicial process. This is also available to enemy aliens
for acts of war.
Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation
Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification.
In the case of R. K. Garg v. union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138, it was held that
the classification, however must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but
must be based on some real and substantive distinction bearing a just and
reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.
In other words, Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without
any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently,
Article 14 does not apply.

Test of Reasonable Classification

Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions:
1) The Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others
left out of the group.
2) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the Act.

Case: State of Bihar v. Bihar 10+2 Lecturers Associations

Citation: AIR 2007 SC 1948
Facts:-
Advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment of lecturers in
Secondary Schools. The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement was
Post-Graduate Degree in II Class. There was no requirement of having training
for appointment to the said post. The controversy raised in the present matter
relates to difference of pay scales between lecturers who are trained and
lecturers who are untrained.
Held:-
Since Article 14 does not forbid classification but prohibits discrimination,
hence it was held that there is clear distinction between a trained lecturer and
an untrained lecturer. Such a distinction is valid, rational and reasonable.
 New Concept of Equality
Protection against Arbitrariness:-
In the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, the
Supreme Court has challenged the traditional concept of equality which was
based on reasonable classification and has laid down a new concept of
equality.
Justice Bhagwati: “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and
dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within
traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is
antithesis to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies; one belong to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the
whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is
implicit in it that it is unequal in both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.”

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Justice
Bhagwati said: “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and
dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire
limits. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness
and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as
well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-
arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.”

In the case of International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628, Justice

Bhagawati said: “The doctrine of classification which is involved by the Court
is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It
is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or
executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of
equality.”
Prior to these decisions, the view was that Article 14 forbade discrimination
and not classification provided the classification fulfilled the two tests:
1) That it was based on intelligible differentia
2) That the differentia has a rational nexus with the object which the law
seeks to achieve.
However by these decisions it can be concluded that if the action of State is
arbitrary it cannot be justified even on the basis of doctrine of classification.
Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal and therefore
violative of Article 14. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and
ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

Case: R. K. Ghosh v. J. G. Rajput

Citation: (1996) 6 SCC 744
Facts:-
In the recent case, the respondent who was an employee of the Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court
challenging his suspension. Mr. B. L. Shethana, who had argued his case and
obtained a stay order was later appointed a Judge of the same High Court. In
1993, the respondent was served with another charge sheet for theft of some
municipal property. This charge was not connected with the earlier dispute.
However, he filed a writ petition saying that the said charge sheet be stayed
and the appellant municipal corporation be punished for contempt of the court
and two earlier orders be restored.
Held:-
The Supreme Court held that by the action of the Judge the rule of law was
violated and quashed the order of the High Court and sent the matter for fresh
hearing in accordance of law.
Reservation???
Reservation is a policy designed to redress past discrimination against lower
classes and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and
educational opportunities. Reservation is an attempt to promote equal
opportunity. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to
ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The
justification for reservation is to compensate for past discrimination,
persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture or to address
existing discrimination. The principle of affirmative action is to promote social
equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically
disadvantaged people. Moreover the basic aim of reservation is to create social
equality. Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a
specific society or an isolated group have the same status in a certain respect.
At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as
security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and the extent of
property rights. However, it also includes access to education, health care and
other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and
so involves the whole society.

In the case of Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana, (1984) 4 SCC 296, the
reservation of 25 seats for admission to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. course for students
who were educated from classes I to VIII in the common rural schools was held
to be violative of Article 14 and invalid as the classification between the rural
educated and urban educated students for this purpose was wholly arbitrary
and irrational having no nexus to the object sought to be achieved of providing
extra facilities to the students coming from rural schools to enter medical
college. Hence the reservation based on such classification was held to be
constitutionally invalid.
Censorship???
In the case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481, the validity of
Cinematograph Act, 1952 was challenged on the ground that it makes
unreasonable classification. Under the Act, cinema films are classified into two
categories, viz. “U” films and “A” films according to their suitability for adults
or young people. It was argued that motion picture is a form of expression and,
therefore, entitled to equal treatment with other forms of expression.
Since the motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any
other product of art. Its effect particularly on children and adolescent is very
great since their immaturity makes them more willingly suspend their disbelief
than mature men and women. Thus it was held by the Court that the
treatment of motion picture must be different from that of other forms of art
and expression.

Admissions???
In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487, the Regional
Engineering College made admissions of candidates on the basis of oral
interview after a written test. The test of oral interview was challenged on the
ground that it was arbitrary and unreasonable because high percentage of
marks were allocated for oral test, and candidates were interviewed only 2 or
3 minutes.
The Court held that allocation of high percentage of marks for oral interview
was plainly arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14. The Court
said that the oral interview test is subjective and its result is influenced by
many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse.
The Court also held that in absence of better test for measuring characteristics
and tracts, the oral interview test must be regarded as rational or relevant. An
oral interview test cannot be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be
used as an additional or supplementary test.

However, in the case of D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCC 662, the
Supreme Court held that the same test/decision which was evolved in the case
of Ajay Hasia and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana cannot be applied in
every case and particularly in selection of professionals.