PART III

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ARTICLE 14

ARTICLE 14: Equality before law

Article 14 states, “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

INGREDIENTS
(I) Sate (as under Article 12)
(II) Any person
(III) Equality before law
(IV) Equal protection of law
(V) Territory of India

Let’s analyze these ingredients in an elaborative manner:

 Any person
The expression “any person” indicates towards the status of “a citizen of
India” or a “non-citizen”.
The reason why there is a need of understanding the expression “any person”
is the ‘protections’ and ‘privileges’ that have been conferred upon them by
the constitution of India.
‘Protections’ are those rights which are specifically conferred upon the
citizens of India as well as the non-citizens as provided under Article
14,20,21,22.
‘Privileges’ are conferred in the form of freedoms and some special rights,
which are specifically reserved for the citizens of India as provided under
Article 19.
Therefore, we can say that the expression “any person” as mentioned under
Article 14, incorporates in its ambit both citizens of India as well as non-
citizens.

 Equality before law:

In this Article, there are two parts, first says State (as defined in Article 12)
not to deny to any person ‘equality before law’, taken from the UK
Constitution, which means every person, whether citizen or not, shall not
be discriminated against by the State. It is a negative concept.
The expression ‘equality before law’ implies absence of any special privilege
in favor of individuals and that all are equally subjected to the ordinary law
of land.
Equality before Law is an aspect of A.V. Dicey RULE OF LAW in England
which has three meanings as follows:
 1. Absence of arbitrary power and supremacy of law
2. Equality before law; and
3. Constitution is a result of ordinary law of land

The first and second aspect of Rule of law applies to Indian system but the
third one does not apply to Indian system as in India the constitution is the
supreme law of land and not the ordinary law of land.
In the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) the SC observed that the
RULE OF LAW as incorporated under Article 14 is the basic feature of the
Constitution and cannot be destroyed even by an amendment under Article
368.

 Equal protection of laws:

The concept of ‘equal protection of the laws’, as borrowed from the US

Constitution (Article 1, 14th Amendment) which is positive in character.
This concept requires the State to give special treatment to persons in
different situations in order to establish equality amongst all.
Therefore, the necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be
treated equally, whilst un-equals would have to be treated unequally.

 Territory of India
Article 1(3) mentions that the “territory of India” comprises of the
(a) State territories,
(b) Union territories, and
(c) Such other territories as may be acquired by the Government of India
at any time.
(Article 1(3)(c) does not expressly confer power on the government of
India to acquire new territories, but it is the inherent right of a sovereign
state to acquire a foreign territory and no parliamentary legislation is
required for this purpose).
Section 4 of Indian Penal Code,1860; deals with the extension of the
code to the extra-territorial offences as well which further enhance the
scope and ambit of expression ‘territories of India’, which means that any
ship or aircraft registered in India shall also be considered as territory of
India for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Formal equality v. Substantive quality:

A formal approach to equality is premised on treating everyone alike or the same. Under
this approach, any differential treatment as between individuals or groups who are the same
would constitute discrimination.
In contrast, the focus of a substantive equality approach is not simply with the equal
treatment of law but rather with the actual impact of the law. This approach recognizes
that treating unequals as equals only serves to widen the disparity between the two
contesting categories.
In the case of Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1952), SC held that the ‘equal
protection of law’ is corollary to ‘equality before law’ and it is difficult to imagine a situation
in which the violation of ‘equal protection of law’ will not be a violation of ‘equality before
law’.
As Dr. Jennings rightly said: “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 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.”

OBJECT OF ARTICLE 14:

The aim or the object of this Article to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary
discrimination shall not be made by the state between the citizens.
Article 14 provides that the state shall not deny to any person whether citizen or not,
equality before the law and equal protection of law. It does not mean that same law
must be applicable to all but the law should deal alike with all in one class; there shall
be equality of treatment under equal circumstances. So, the object is that “equals
should be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated alike. Likes should be
treated alike. The object of Art. 14 is wider and is to ensure fairness and equality of
treatment.

DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY
The concept of equality embodied in Article 14 is described as Doctrine of equality in the
Indian context. Equality basically means access or provision of equal opportunities, where
individuals are protected from being discriminated against.
In Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287, it was held by the
Supreme Court that the doctrine of equality means that there should be no discrimination
between one person and another, if having regard to the subject-matter of legislation, their
position is the same.

The plain language of Article 14 suggests that all are equal before the law and State cannot
discriminate between similarly situated persons.

Whereas, Article 14 also ensures that no person shall be denied equal protection of laws,
irrespective of his religion, cast, language, sex etc. Thus, the principle of equality does not
mean that every law must have universal application to all the persons who are not by nature,
attainment or circumstances in the same position. The varying needs of different classes of
persons require different treatment. Thus, the principle which works to determine this
permissibility known as Reasonable Classification, discussed as follows:

REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION:
Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid classification or differentiation which
rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. However, such classification must not be
“arbitrary, artificial or evasive”.
● Class Legislation:
Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring
particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily and in which no reasonable
distinction and classification can be found by applying the test of Intelligible
differentia.

● Reasonable Classification Test (Nexus Test):

In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled
viz.
a. that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the
group, and
b. that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be
achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and
the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be
nexus between them.

● Class Legislation v. Reasonable Classification:

Article 14, permits Reasonable Classification but prohibits Class Legislation. The equal
protection of laws as guaranteed under Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be
general in character. The varying need of different classes of persons in a society often
require separate treatment. Hence, a reasonable classification is not only permitted but is also
necessary for a progressive society.

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, 7 Judges Bench of
the Supreme Court said that “Article 14 is designed to prevent a person or class of
persons from being singled out from others similarly situated for the purpose of being
specially subjected to discriminating and hostile legislation, it does not insist on an
‘abstract symmetry’ in the sense that every piece of legislation must have universal
application. All persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances, equal and the
varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment."\

Later, Supreme Court further well elaborated it in Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen

v. Union Of India, 2006 8 SCC 399, 5 Judges Bench by saying that Article 14
 forbids class legislation in the sense of making improper discrimination by conferring
privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large
number of other persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be
conferred or the liability proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid classification for
the purpose of legislation, provided such classification is not arbitrary but must be
rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics
which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are
left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the
object of the legislation.

● Example of Reasonable Classification:

In Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191, 7 Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court said, "the classification may be founded on different bases; namely,
geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is
that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act
under consideration

● New dimension to EQUALITY:

The doctrine of Reasonable classification evolved in realizing the rule of equality has
been for long undisputed touchstone to determine the scope and content of Article 14.

The SC in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) challenged the
traditional concept of Equality which was based on reasonable classification and has
given a dynamic connotation to Article 14. Justice P.N. Bhagwati pronounced a new
concept of equality by observing that Equality is a dynamic concept with many
aspects and dimensions and cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within the
traditional limits. Equality is anti-thesis to arbitrariness. In fact, Equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to rule of law in a republic while the
other belongs to the whims and aspirations of an absolute monarch.
The above concept has been approved in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India(1978) 1 SCC 248.

NON-ARBITRARINESS (PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLENESS):

Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse,

and not by necessity, reason, or principle". The basic requirement of Article 14 is
fairness in action by the state and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is
the heartbeat of fair play. At any point of time, where the state acts in an arbitrary
manner, the action of the state will be amenable to judicial review to ensure that it
was not whimsical and was not meant for any ulterior purpose.

In Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188 the Supreme

Court said that “expression ‘arbitrarily’ means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or
 done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded
in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason judgment,
depending on the will alone.”

Negation of Arbitrariness is the principle of non-arbitrariness. Non-arbitrariness can

be ensured if there is the existence of sufficient necessity, reason or principle
whether it is legislative or executive action.

● Introduction of principle of non-arbitrariness:

The Supreme Court evolved the principle of non-arbitrariness to fulfill the loopholes
which were unable to be fulfilled by the Reasonable Classification.
In E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3, it was observed that
"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the
positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is
unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore
violative of Article 14." Therefore, the principle of non-arbitrariness was evolved
which became a new ground to check whether the action, legislative or executive, is
in violation of Article 14 or not.

● Development of this Principle:

This principle was further strengthened by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, by 7 Judges Bench it was
said "Article 14 strikes, at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness is omnipresent in Article 14."

In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, 9 (1979) 3 SCC 489 it was said
by the Supreme Court, "the principle of reasonableness and rationality which is
legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness
is protected by Article 14 and it must characterize every State action, whether it be
under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law."
Unlike the nexus test, to check arbitrariness there is no particular formula. It is being
developed by the time. Due to its uncertainty it has been criticized by several Jurists
including HM Seervai.

● Courts in secondary role to check arbitrariness of Administrative Authority:

In Om Kumar v. Union of India, 2001 (2) SCC 386, the Supreme Court observed,
"where, an administrative action is challenged as ‘arbitrary’ under Article 14, the
question will be whether the administrative order is ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ and the
test then is the Wednesbury test. In such case the Courts would then be confined only
to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the administrator has done well
in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from
consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or whether his view is
 one which no reasonable person could have taken. If his action does not satisfy these
rules, it is to be treated as arbitrary.

● Reasonable Classification was insufficient to ensure equality:

The nexus test was, by the time, emerging unsatisfactory to fulfill the equality as
provided in Article 14. The Reasonable Classification test had its own limitations
which were described by the Supreme Court, in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981)
1 SCC 722, wherein it was said that the doctrine of classification which is evolved by
the courts is not a 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. But this formula doesn’t cover the whole
purpose of Article 14.

Exception of Article 14: In Indian Constitution there are some expressed exceptions of
Article 14 are present. E.g.: Article 31B, Article 31C, Article 361 etc.

RULE OF LAW vis-à-vis ARTICLE 14:

Rule of Law is a principle which means that all people and institutions are subject to and
accountable to the law of land, that is fairly applied and enforced. It means that no man is
above law and also that every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law
irrespective of their position and rank.

A.V. Dicey, the great expounder of the rule of law, had given a distinct meaning to
this concept and explained that it was based on three kindred features, which are as
follows:

1. Supremacy of law: As per the first postulate, rule of law refers to the lacking of
arbitrariness or wide discretionary power. In order to understand it simply, every man
should be governed by law. No man could be lawfully interfered or punished by the
authorities except for breaches of law established in the ordinary manner before the
courts of land.
2. Equality before Law: According to the second principle of Dicey, equality before
law and equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of land to be administered
by the ordinary law courts and this principle emphasizes everyone which included
government as well irrespective of their position or rank. But such element is going
through the phase of criticisms and is misguided. As stated by Dicey, there must be
equality before law or equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of land. No
man is above the law and everyone, whatever his condition or rank is, is subject to the
ordinary laws of the land.
 3. The Constitution is the result of ordinary law of land. (although this concept is not
applicable in the Indian context as the Indian constitution is basically a supreme law
of land).

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1, it was said that "If a decision is
taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision is the
antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law." The rule of law excludes
arbitrariness; whenever there is arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of rule of
law. Whereas, Article 14 of the Constitution is also enriched by the same principles.
Justice HR Khanna said, "Rule of law postulates that the decisions should be made by the
application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable
and the citizen should know where he is."

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer, (1967) 3 SCR

525, the Supreme Court Rightly said, "Doctrine of equality before law is necessary corollary
to the high concept of the rule of law accepted by our Constitution." Therefore, the right to
equality provided under Article 14 of the Constitution establishes rule of law in the context of
the Indian Constitution.

Exceptions to rule of law:

Despite provisions of equality in our Constitution, there are some exceptions to the Rule of
Law in public interests:

1. The President or the Governor of a State shall not be answerable to any court for the
exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office.
2. No criminal proceeding whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President
or a Governor in any Court during his term of office.
3. No civil proceeding 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, until the expiration of two
months after a notice is served on him. These immunities shall not bar impeachment of the
President or suits or other proceedings against the Government of India or State.
4. Exception in favor of foreign sovereign and ambassadors.

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

Doctrine of natural justice means fairness in action. It means Right to be heard before
adverse action is taken.
Principle of Natural Justice is an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Art.14.
Natural Justice is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative orders affecting
prejudicially unless the said rule is expressly excluded.
Principle of Natural Justice is an essential requirement of Art.14.
IMPORTANT PAST YEAR QUESTIONS ON ARTICLE 14

1. "Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation not reasonable

classification". Examine and also discuss how far equality of status and opportunity are
achieved by this Constitutional provisions.
[2015 1(c)]

2. Do you agree with the view that "Equality is antithesis of arbitrariness? In fact equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies"? Comment critically.
[2013 2(a)]

3. Doctrine of equality under the Constitution cannot be applied to legitimize an illegal act.
Can equality be invoked to justify another wrong? Critically examine with reference to cases.
[2013 1(e)]

4. 'Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be
cribbed, cabined or confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. 'Explain, how the
judiciary has widened the scope of the right to equality by various decisions.
[2011 2(a)]

5. Define and distinguish between 'formal equality' and 'substantive equality’ as interpreted
by the Apex Court of the country.
[2009 1(c)]

6. "Equality is the basic feature of the Constitution of India and any treatment of equals
unequally or unequals as equals will be violation of basic structure of the Constitution of
India." Explain. [2008 3(b)]

7. Rule of Law' does not mean rule according to statutory law, pure and simple, because
such a law may itself be harsh, inequitable, discriminatory or unjust, Rule of law' connotes
some higher kind of law which is reasonable, just and non-discriminatory. Explain.
[2008 1(a)]

8. "In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in
republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch," Elucidate with the
help of constitutional provisions and judicial decisions.
[2006 1(a)]

9. "The extensive use of the device of reasonable classification' by State and its approval by
the Supreme Court has rendered the guarantee of 'fair and equitable treatment' under Article
14 largely illusory." Discuss making clear the constitutional and popular concepts of 'right to
equality' in India.

[2004 1(c)]

10. The Civil Surgeon had issued an advertisement for a training course in midwifery at the
District Hospital. The advertisement had a clause "Married women candidates must enclose
along with their application their husband's written permission for pursuing the course." The
wife got the letter of consent from her husband and Joined the course. The husband,
however, had second thoughts and wrote to her and the authority saying she should return
as her not being there would disturb the family life immediately and hence she would not be
permitted to join. Thereafter the authority asked her to produce another letter of "No
objection" from the husband. Examine with reference to the relevant provisions of the
Constitution the validity of the order of the authority. [2000 4(b)]

11. What is prohibited is hostile discrimination, and not reasonable. classification? I(*)I 6661)
(1992 1(b)| arbitrariness but since the right to equality has very wide application there has
been steady enlargement of the scope of state for th (1991 2(a)|

12 'Arbitrariness is the very antithesis of equality'. Discuss.

[1992 1(a)]

13. Right to equality is available only against state actions and arbitrariness but since the
right to equality has very wide application there has been steady enlargement of the scope
of state for the benefit of people. Discuss.
[1991 2(a)]

14. Discuss the basic conditions for making constitutionally valid classifications under the
doctrine of 'equality before law'. Illustrate your answer particularly with reference to validity of
such enactments which apply to an individual only.
[1990 2(a)]
15.’The right to equality of people in India requires a judicious exercise of legislative and
executive powers.' Discuss and evaluate the development of constitutional law in India on
this aspect.’

[1989 2(a)]

16. It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification.' Discuss.
[1987 1(b)]

17. The rule of law permeates the entire fabric of the Constitution and indeed forms one of
its basic features.' Justice Bhagwati in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC
1325. Discuss.

[1986 1(c)]
18. An act passed by a State Legislature empowered the State Government to establish
special tribunals and to transmit to them any case or class of cases to be tried by a summary
procedure 'X, who is accused of a murder with a political motive, is ordered by the State
Government to be tried by a special tribunal with the declared objective of a speedy trial.
Can the accused challenge the order before Court? If, so, on what grounds?
[1980 5(b)]