“ARTICLE 14 PROHIBITS CLASS LEGISLATION BUT ALLOWS

CLASSIFICATION”
FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE
‘CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I’ FOR OBTAINING THE DEGREE B.B.A.,LL.B(Hons.)
DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21.

SUBMITTED TO
Prof. (Dr.) ANIRUDH PRASAD
PROFESSOR OF LAW
SUBMITTED BY
GAURAV DEEP RAJAN
ROLL NO: 2018
SEMESTER: 5TH
COURSE: B.B.A.,LL.B(Hons)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I

OCTOBER 2020

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

SESSION: 2018-23
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project entitled “Article 14 prohibits class legislation but allow
classification” submitted by me at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY is a
record of bonafide project work carried out by me under the guidance of our mentor Prof.
(Dr.) ANIRUDH PRASAD. I further declare that the work reported in this project has not
been submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the award of any other
degree or diploma in this university or in any other university.

-------------------------

GAURAV DEEP RAJAN

ROLL NO- 2018

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a fact that any research work prepared, compiled, or formulated in isolation is
inexplicable to an extent. This research work, although prepared by me, is a culmination of
the efforts of a lot of people who remained in the veil, who gave their intense support and
helped me in the completion of this project.

Firstly, I am very grateful to my mentor Prof. (Dr.) Anirudh Prasad, without the kind support
and help of whom the completion of this project was a herculean task for me. He donated his
valuable time from his busy schedule to help me to complete this project. I would like to
thank him for his valuable suggestions towards the making of this project.

I am highly indebted to my parents and friends for their kind co-operation and encouragement
which helped me in the completion of this project.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank the Almighty who kept me mentally strong and in
good health to concentrate on my project and to complete it in time.

I thank all of them!

--------------------------

GAURAV DEEP RAJAN

ROLL NO-2018

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................4

AIMS & OBJECTIVE.........................................................................................................6

HYPOTHESIS......................................................................................................................6

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................7

SOURCES OF DATA..........................................................................................................7

LIMITATION OF STUDY..................................................................................................7

RESEARCH QUESTION....................................................................................................7

2. NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF DPSP..................................................................8

3. DPSP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS......................................................................11

4. IDEOLOGICAL AND IN-PRINCIPLE CLASSIFICATION OF DPSP..................14

5. RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY OF STATE IN IMPlEMENTING

DPSP........................................................................................................................................17

6. CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS.............................................................................19

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................20

3|Page
 1. INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India guarantees the Right To Equality through Art 14 to 18.In the series
of Constitutional provisions from Article 14 to 18, Art 14 is the most significant. Situations
not covered by Art15 to 18, the general principle of Equality is embodied in Art14 is attracted
whenever discrimination is alleged. The goal set out in our Constitution regarding status &
opportunity is embodied in Art14 to Art18. Right to Equality has declared as Basic Feature of
Indian Constitution by Supreme Court.

The phrase ‘Equality before Law’ occurs in almost all written Constitution which guarantees
the Right to Equality, the Constitution of United States uses the expression ‘Equal protection
of law’. Our Constitution, on the other hand, uses both expressions that are Equality before
law and Equal protection of law.

The two expressions may seem to be identical, but in fact, they mean different things. As to
their origin, it may be said that ‘Equality before Law ‘1 , while the other expression owes its
origin to the American Constitution. Preamble to the Constitution of India emphasises
principle of Equality as the basic to the Constitution . Even constitutional amendment which
offends basic structure of the Constitution are invalid. The mere fact that Equality which is
part of the basic structure, can be excluded for a limited purpose to protect certain kinds of
law, does not prevent it from being part of the basic feature of Constitution. It was held that
essence of the principle behind Art.14 is part of basic structure. In fact, essence or principle
of the right or nature of violation is more important than equality in the abstract or formal
sense.

Equality is one of the magnificent corner stone’s of Indian

Democracy.2

The doctrine of equality before law is a corollary of Rule of law

which pervades the Indian Constitution.3

Neither Parliament nor any State Legislature can transgress the

principle of Equality.

1
Dicey, Law of the Constitution,10Ed.(1959)
2
Indra sawhney v. Union of India
3
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

4|Page
Meaning of Equality:

The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability
Equality basically means access or provision of equal opportunities, where individuals are
protected from being discriminated against. Discrimination in equality can occur in race, sex,
health, religion, family structure, age, politics, disability, culture, sexual orientation or in
terms of believes.4

• Equality is the basic feature of the constitution of India and treatment of equals unequally
will be violation of basic structure of the constitution of India .5

AIMS & OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study to investigate the “Article 14 prohibits class legislation but allow
classification” .
The researcher objectives are:
 To trace the origin and history of the Article 14.
 To Investigate the enforceability and implementation.
 To analyze the conflict between Equality before law and Equal protection of law.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher hypothesizes that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Taking into consideration the nature of the project topic, the researcher will be relying upon
the doctrinal method of research to complete the project.

4
https://www.article-14.com/aboutus
5
M.G.Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka.

5|Page
 SOURCES OF DATA
The researcher is relying upon both, primary as well as secondary sources to complete the
project.

LIMITATION OF STUDY
Taking into consideration the present situation and due to limitation of time, the researcher is
relying only upon some limited resources.

RESEARCH QUESTION
 What is Article 14?
 What is Equality before law?
 What is equal protection of law?
 What are the test of reasonableness?

6|Page
 2. ARTICLE 14 EQUALITY BEFORE LAW AND EQUAL
PROTECTION OF LAW.
ARTICLE 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

The Right to Equality guaranteed under Art. 14 consists of two parts namely

(a) Equality before Law.

(b) Equal protection of Laws.

Every person is entitled to equality before law and equal protection laws.6

• Article 14 bars Discrimination and prohibits Discriminatory Laws.

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a declaration of equality of civil rights for all
purpose within the territory of India and basic principles of republicanism and there is no
discrimination

• The expression “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” does not mean the
same thing. Meaning of these expressions has to be found and determined having regard to
the context and scheme of our Constitution. The word “Law” in the former expression is used
in a genuine sense – a philosophical sense, whereas the word “Laws” in the latter expression
denotes specific laws in force.

• The benefit of “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” accrues to every person
in India, whether a citizen or not. ”We are a country governed by Rule of Law.

• The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Art. 14 in its proper
spectrum encompass social and economic justice in a political democracy.7

Equality before the Law :

(a) “Equality before Law “only means that amongst the equals, the law should be equal and
should be equally administered, and that the like should be treated alike.8

6
Faridabad Singh v, New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1996 SC 1175 : (1996) 2 SSC 459
7
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. V. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104 (para 15).
8
VENKATARAMAIYA’S LAW LEXICON-Volume 1 (Human Rights)

7|Page
The “equality before the law” owes its origin to the English Common Law. The doctrine of
equality is a dynamic and evolving concept. 9 It is embodied not only Arts. 15-18 as well as in
Arts. 3, 39, 39 A, 41 and 46.

It is a Negative concept because it implies the absence of any privilege in favour of any
individual, and equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law. 10 It means law should be
equal and should equally administered, that is like should be treated alike. In short there shall
not be discrimination. It is a declaration of equality of privilege in favour of every
individual13.it means that no man above the Law of the land and that every person, whatever
is his rank or status is subject to ordinary law of land. The concept of equality before law
does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all, which may be a physical
impossiblity.Art.14, guarantees the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment.

Equal Protection of Law:

a) The phrase “Equal Protection of the Law” owes its origin to the American Constitution.
This is Positive Concept as it implies equality of treatment in equal circumstances both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. So all the persons must be treated alike on
reasonable classification. Among equals law should be equal and equally administered. The
guarantee of equal protection applies against substantive as well as procedural laws.11

b) Limitation of the Doctrine of Equal Protection:

i. Every law cannot be made universally applicable. There are different class of persons who
require special treatment.

ii. State has power to classify persons for legitimate purpose. Every classification is likely to
produce some inequality and mere production of equality is no enough.12

9
Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India, AIR 1993 SC 477
10
DICEY, Law of the Constitution, 10th Ed. (1959)
11
Lachmandas v. State of Bombay, (1952) S.C.R. 710 (726)
12
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1688/Right-To-Equality--A-Fundamental-Right.html

8|Page
 3. ARTICLE 14 RULE OF LAW
Equality before law is co-relative to the concept of Rule of Law for all round evaluation of
healthy social order.

I. Basic Feature of the Rule of Law is that ‘Justice should not only be done but it must
also be seen to be done’.
II. Judicial review of Administration action is an essential part of Rule of Law.13
III. Independence of Judiciary.
IV. Non Arbitrariness.

“A number of distinct meanings are normally given to the provision that there should be
equality before the law. One meaning is that equality before the law only connotes the equal
subjection of all to a common system of law, whatever its content...A second theory asserts
that equality before the law is basically a procedural concept, pertaining to the application
and enforcement of laws and the operation of the legal system....A third meaning normally
borne by declarations that all are equal before the law, perhaps no more than a variant of the
second, is that State and individual before the law should be equal”.

Article 361 of Indian constitution Law14

The President, or the governor or rajpramukh of a state, shall not be answerable to any court
for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or
purporting to be done by him In the exercise and performance of those power and duties.
Provided that the conduct of the president may be brought under review

Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs.-

1) The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any
court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act
done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and
duties:

13
State of Bihar v. Sbhash Singh
14
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1688/Right-To-Equality--A-Fundamental-Right.html

9|Page
Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any court,
tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation
of a charge under article 61: Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as
restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of
India or the Government of a State.15

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President,
or the Governor of a State, in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State,
shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the Governor of a
State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or
purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered
upon his office as President, or as Governor of such State, until the expiration of two months
next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or the Governor, as the case
may be, or left at his office stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action therefor,
the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be
instituted and the relief which he claims.16

In Srinivas Theatre v. state of T.N., Reddy, J., has noted that equality before law is a
dynamic concept having many facets. one of them there is that there shall be no privileged
person of class and name shall be above state law. A fact there of is the obligation upon the
state to bring about, through the machinery of law, a more equal society envisaged by the
preamble and part ivth ( directive principles of state policy ) of the Indian constitution

15
ibid
16
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1688/Right-To-Equality--A-Fundamental-Right.html

10 | P a g e
 4. ARTICLE 14 TEST OF REASONABLENESS AND DOCTRINE OF
ARBITRARINESS

If all men are treated equal and remained equal throughout their lives, then the same laws
would apply to all of them. But we know that men are unequal.Euality does not mean that all
men are protected by the same laws. It is here the Doctrine of classification steps in. All
persons are not equal by nature or circumstances, the varying needs of different classes or
sections of people require different treatment. This leads to classification among different
groups of persons or class. For the purpose of this Article, even a single institution can form a
class by itself and while deciding the question of violation of Article 14, it is to be seen
whether there are any reasonable basis on which a single or group of persons are left out of
the group.17Though discrimination is prohibited, that cannot be applied to nullify a
discrimination recognised by the Constitution itself.

This test was used by the Supreme Court from the very beginning to test the constitutionality
of legislation and State actions impugned based on violating Article 14.

17
Kshetriaya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D. B. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 168:

11 | P a g e
 There are two tests of classification which was stated in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar:

 To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled:

 The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which

distinguishes those that are grouped from others are left out of the group

 The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by
the Act.
The differentia which is of the basis of classification and the object of the Act are distinct and
what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them.18 The test must be reasonable and
not be arbitrary and irrational. The classification is based on geographical, time, nature of
trade, or occupation. There must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object
of the Act. These classic tests of permissible classification were remarked as “they now
sound platitudinous” in 1960.19

Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character or that the same laws
should apply to all persons or that every law must have universal application. This is because
all persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same positions.

Thus, the State can treat different persons indifferently if circumstances justify such
treatment. Further, the identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to
inequality.

Thus, there is a necessity of the “reasonable classification” for society to progress. The
Supreme Court has maintained that Article 14 permits the reasonable classification of
persons, objects, transactions by the State for the purpose of achieving specific ends that help
in the development of the society. However, Article 14 forbids “class legislation”. Class
legislation makes improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of
persons.20

18
 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
19
In Re Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380, 423.
20
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/test-of-reasonable-classification-and-doctrine-of-arbitrariness/

12 | P a g e
DOCTORINE OF ARBITRARINESS

As stated above there were many cases in which the reasonable classification test was used to
test whether the legislation is violating Article 14. But in the case of E.P Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu, the traditional concept of equality i.e. reasonable classification was challenged
in the Supreme Court and a new concept was laid down in the judgment. Bhagwati J.
delivered the judgment on behalf of himself, Chandrachud and Krishna Iyer J.J introduced a
new concept of equality. It was stated that Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects
and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined, and confined with traditional doctrinaire
limits.

Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn, enemies. It is

implicit in that it is unequal both according to political, logic, and Constitutional law and is
therefore violative of Article 14.21 The same judgment was used in another landmark
judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Also, in the case of R.D Shetty v.
International Airport Authority, Bhagwati J. reiterated the same principle stating that Article

21
E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
13 | P a g e
14 at strikes arbitrariness because any arbitrary actions must necessarily involve negation of
equality.

The doctrine of classification which is involved by the Court is not a paraphrase of Article 14
nor is the objective and end of that Article. It is legislative or executive action in question
which is arbitrary and therefore constituting the denial of equity.22 Therefore, where an act is
arbitrary, it is considered as unequal and hence, a violation of Article 14. Article 14 strikes
arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

After the new doctrine was announced in the E.P Royappa case, there were many lawyers,
legal authors who criticized the new doctrine. H.M Seervai was strongly against the new
doctrine and stated that

a) the rejection of traditional doctrine is wrong,

b) the ‘new doctrine’ hangs in the air

c) whatever violates equality is not necessarily arbitrary although arbitrary actions ordinarily
violate equality.23 It was also seen in the case of Malpe Vishwanath v. the State of
Maharashtra, all the precedents were used of the old doGctrine but gave the judgment based
on arbitrariness.

5. ARTICLE 14 PERMITS CLASSFICATION PROHIBITS CLASS

LEGISLATION

Art.14 prohibits class legislation and not classification for purpose of legislation. A
classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is any Reasonable basis
for classification, the legislature would be entitled to make a different legislation. The
legislature is competent to make classification. It is upon the legislature to identify the class
of the people to be given protection and on what basis such protection is given. Court cannot

22
R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628
23
H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th Ed, Vol 1.

14 | P a g e
interfere.24 Art.14 does not require that the Legislative classification should be scientifically
or logically perfect.25 Classification for the purpose of legislation cannot be done with
mathematical precision. The concept of equality permits rational or discriminating
discrimination. Conformity of special benefits or rights or protection to a particular class of
citizens is envisaged under Art.14 and is implicit in the concept of equality 26.Art.14 proceeds
on the premise that equality of treatment is required to be given to persons who are equally
circumstanced. None should be favoured or should be placed under any disadvantage, in
circumstances that do not admit of any reasonable justification for a different.

The two tests of classification are as follows:

1. Ineligible Differentia: The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia

which distinguishes those that are grouped together from other, and

2. Rational Relation: That differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the Act.27

• Where the law is challenged as offending against the guarantee in Art 14, the first duty of
the court is to examine the purpose and policy of the Act and then to discover whether the
classification made by the law has a reasonable relation to the object which the Legislature
seeks to obtain. The object of the Act is to found in its Title, Preamble and Provisions.

• It is not possible to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which may accord a reasonable
basis for classification in all cases. It depends on the object of the legislature. In order to be
‘Reasonable’, a classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational.

Basis of Classification:

1. The basis of classification may be geographical.

2. The classification may be according to difference in time.

3. The classification may be based on the difference in nature of trade, calling or occupation,
which is sought to be regulated by the legislation.28

Classification Authorised by the other provisions of the Constitution:

24
D.C.Bhatia v. Union of India, (1995)1 S.C.C. 104.
25
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34
26
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
27
State of West Bengal v. Anvar Ali, (1952) S.C.R. 289
28
Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 224

15 | P a g e
 1. Any law making special provision for Women (or Children) under Article 15 (3)
cannot be challenged on the ground of contravention of Art. 14.29
2. . Where the Constitution itself makes a classification, the charge of discrimination
cannot be levelled against such separate treatment.30

REASONABLENESS and FAIRNESS is the Heart and Soul of Article 14.31

6. CONCLUSION
Right to equality is a Fundamental Right. It can be enforced in High Court under Article 226
and in Supreme Court under Article 32.Fundamental Rights can be enforced only if the state
violates it. Right to Equality is considered as basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Right to
Equality under Art.14 is vested not only to citizens but to all persons. It includes equality
before Law and Equal Protection of Law. No one is above the law of the land. Everyone is
equal in the eyes of law. There should be no discrimination. Law must be equal and must be
equally administered. So like must be treated alike and unlike. Equality before law is negative
concept and Equal protection of law is positive concept. Reasonable Classification is allowed
in the administration of justice. But it should have some relation to the object of the
legislature.

In every society there are two classes namely upper class and lower class. The standard of
living of the upper class is high but that of lower class is low. As a result it is the duty of the
state to uplift the lower class in the society to bring Equality. Absolute equality is impossible
but there should not be inequality. Discrimination on the basis of caste, sex, race, religion,
language etc must be not there at all. A sense of equality must be there then and then only
then will be unity in any state.

 It provides equality to all the people irrespective of their caste, religion, race, sex, place of
birth. There are two aspects under the Article i.e. equality before the law and equal protection
of the law. Earlier, there was a test to test the constitutionality know as the reasonable
classification test under which it was tested whether there is reasonable classification in the
legislation. Later, a whole new test was announced to test whether it was violating Article 14
29
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, 1954 SCR 930; AIR 1954 SC 321
30
Sianik Motors (M/S) v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1480 (1486):1962 (1) SCR 517
31
Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672 (para 43)

16 | P a g e
and it was known as the arbitrariness test. There was much criticism on this new doctrine and
many legal pieces of literature did not agree with the new doctrine. Though the reasonable
classification test was rejected today also in some cases it is being used.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:
 The Constitution of India By P.M. Bakshi (Universal law Pub.) 14th Edition.
 Constitution of India By V.N. Shukla (EBC Pub.) 13th Edition.
 Subash C. Kashyap, Our Constitution, An Introduction to India’s Constitution and
Constitutional Law.

JOURNAL:
 https://www.icl-journal.com/media/ICL_Thesis_Vol_10_5_16.pdf.

ARTICLES:
 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-meaning-of-article-14-
1581599655-1
 https://www.article-14.com/aboutus
 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-14-protection-
discrimination

WEBSITES:
 https://lexforti.com/legal-news/test-of-reasonable-classification-and-doctrine-of-
arbitrariness/
 https://www.quora.com/Why-article-14-forbids-class-legislation
 https://iitr.ac.in/internalcomplaintscommittee/annexure.pdf
 https://racolblegal.com/article-14-historical-interpretation-and-trace/
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1688/Right-To-Equality--A-Fundamental-
Right.html
 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

17 | P a g e