Right to Equality under Article 14

Article 14 of the constitution states that:

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

 Right to Equality refers to the equality in the eyes of law, discarding any

unfairness on grounds of caste, race, religion, place of birth and sex. It
also includes equality of prospects in matters of employment, the
abolition of untouchability and abolition of titles.

 Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Constitution of India highlight the
Right to Equality in detail.

 The doctrine of equality before the law is a necessary corollary of Rule of

Law which pervades the Indian Constitution.

Article 14 is the embodiment of equality which has been provided in the

Preamble. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes
a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a
positive duty to take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged
between the people.

Rule of Law

Dicey had given the concept of the rule of law. Rule of law means that no
person is above the law. Equality of law is part of the Rule of Law which has
been explained by Dicey. The rule of law embodied in Art 14 is a ‘basic
structure’ of the constitution.

Dicey had given three meanings to this term:

1. The supremacy of law: It means that the law is supreme and the
Government cannot act arbitrarily. If a person has violated any law, he
can be punished but he cannot be punished for anything else at the
whim of the Government.
 2. Equality before Law: It means that all the people should be subject to
the same provisions of law which is administered by the ordinary
courts of the land. Thus, no person is above the law and has to follow
the law. Dicey had given an exception to the Monarch under this rule
because in England it is believed that the King can do no wrong.
3. Constitution originates from the ordinary law: It means that the
rights of the people is not granted by the constitution but instead it is
the result of the law of the land which is administered by the courts.

In India, the first and second rule has been adopted but the third rule has been
omitted because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the rights of
the people originate from it and all the other laws which are passed by the
Legislature should not violate the provisions of the Constitution.

The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of what Dicey calls the
rule of the law in England. 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. Rule of law requires that no person shall be subjected to harsh,
uncivilized or discriminatory treatment even when the object is the securing of
the paramount exigencies of law and order. 

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW (ARTICLE 14)

Article 14 uses two expression “equality before the law” and “equal
protection of the law”.

The article 14 constitutes of 2 phrases:

1. Equality before law, and
2. Equal protection of the laws.

The phrase "equality before law" occurs in almost all written constitutions that
guarantee fundamental rights. It ensures that all are equal before law. Equality
before law is an expression of English Common Law while "equal protection of
laws" owes its origin to the American Constitution. Both the phrases aim to
establish what is called the "equality to status and of opportunity" as embodied
in the Preamble of the Constitution.
“While equality before law is a somewhat ‘negative’ concept implying the
absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual and the equal
subjection of all classes to the ordinary law, equal protection of laws is a more
‘positive’ concept employing equality of treatment under equal circumstances.”
It is a guarantee of equal treatment. The rule is “like should be treated like.” The
term is ‘positive’ as it expects a positive action from the State.

Actually “equal protection of law” is a corollary of the “equality before law”. It

is difficult to imagine that equality before law can be maintained without
maintaining equal protection of laws.

Interpreting the scope of the Article, the Supreme Court of India held in
Charanjit Lal Choudhury vs. The Union of India that: (a) Equal protection
means equal protection under equal circumstances; (b) The state can make
reasonable classification for purposes of legislation; (c) Presumption of
reasonableness is in favour of legislation; (d) The burden of proof is on those
who challenge the legislation.

Thus both these expressions make the provision of equal treatment binding on
the State. In the case of Sri Srinivas Theatre v. Government of Tamil
Nadu, the Supreme Court explained that both these expressions may appear to
be same but they have different meanings. The term equality before the law is a
dynamic concept with many aspects, one such aspect being that there should be
an absence of any privilege or a person being above the law.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the court held that
the term ‘equal protection of law’ is a natural consequence of the term ‘equality
before law’ and thus it is very difficult to imagine a situation in which there has
been a violation of equal protection of law is not a violation of equality before
law. So, while they have different meanings, both the terms are interrelated. The
question of whether the Right to Equality is absolute or not was raised. Here
Supreme Court held that the Right to equality is not absolute. In this case, the
State of Bengal was found to use its power arbitrarily to refer any case to the
Special Court which was made by them. It was thus held that the Act of State of
Bengal violates the Right to Equality.

EXCEPTIONS to Equality before Law

 There is some exception to the rule of equality which has been provided
under the Indian Constitution. Under Articles 105 and 194, the Members
of the Parliament and the State Legislatures respectively are not held
liable for anything which they say within the House.
  Under Article 359 when there is a proclamation of Emergency, the
operation of Fundamental Rights including Article 14 can be suspended
and if any violation of this right is done during such proclamation, it
cannot be challenged in the Courts after the proclamation ends.
 Under Article 361 the President and the Governors are not liable to any
court for any act which is done by them in exercising their power and
duties of the office.

LIMITATIONS OF DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY

There are two limitations or exceptions to Doctrine of Equality which are:

1. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification

2. Doctrine of Anti-Arbitrariness

1. DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

(TRADITIONAL APPROACH)

Article 14 has provided the provision for equality of all people before the law
but every person is not the same and therefore it is not practically possible to
have a universal application of equality. Thus, the laws cannot be of a general
character and some classification is permitted under Article 14.

Thus, the legislature has been allowed to identify and classify different people
in groups because it has been accepted that treating the unequal in the same
manner is likely to cause more problems instead of preventing them. So for the
society to progress, classification is important.

This classification cannot be done arbitrarily because in such case, there will be
no justification, so even though Article 14 allows for classification such
classification should not confer special privileges to any group arbitrarily and
such a classification has to be done on a rational basis. For e.g. the Legislature
cannot pass a law which favours a particular caste of people without any
rational basis for it and if such a law is passed, it is bound to be held
unconstitutional by the Judiciary.

Such arbitrary classification by the legislature is known as class legislation and

it is forbidden by the Constitution but it allows for reasonable classification in
which the legislation is passed on a rational basis for the purpose of achieving
some specific objectives.

Tests for Reasonable Classification

Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification. The

two tests of classification are as follows:

(i) Inteligible Differentia: The classification must be founded on an

intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped
together from other.

(ii) Rational Relation: That differentia (selection) must have a rational

relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. It is necessary
is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the
object of the act which makes the classification.

In the case of State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318, these ‘two
tests’ were evolved and hence, this constituted the Old Doctrine.

But the Supreme Court in case of  Re Special Courts Bill, had warned against
overemphasizing the classification. The court observed that the doctrine of
classification is a subsidiary rule which has been used by the court to facilitate
the doctrine of equality. If there is an overemphasis on the doctrine of
classification it would inevitably result in the doctrine of equality under Article
14 to erode and will lead to the substitution of equality by classification.

2. DOCTRINE OF ANTI-ARBITRARINESS (NEW APPROACH)

In mid-1970’s and more fully after 1980, the ambit and scope of Article
14 has been enlarged and expanded by the SC by introducing a new
approach under the contour of Article 14, by bringing the executive
discretion within its fold.

In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 the SC in its

3 Judge Bench (Chandrachud, Krishna Iyer and Bhagwati, JJ) gave a new
dimension to Article 14 and evolved the New Doctrine. The court held
that Article 14 embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness and has a
highly activist magnitude. Article 14 is one of the pillars of the Indian
Constitution and hence cannot be bound by a narrow and inflexible
interpretation. Article 14 should thus be given the widest interpretation
possible, which also includes reasonableness and arbitrariness of certain
provisions of the legislations.
“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 a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic
to arbitrariness.”

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 the Supreme

Court clearly ruled out the room for arbitrariness. ‘Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment. The principle of ‘reasonableness’, which logically as well as
philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness,
pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.’ Rule of law which
permeates the entire fabric of the Indian Constitution excludes
arbitrariness. Wherever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is
denial there is denial of rule of law. The conclusion is that if the action of
state is arbitrary, it cannot be justified even on the basis of doctrine of
classification.

The full impact of doctrine of Anti-Arbitrariness(New Doctrine) as

evolved in E.P. Royappa case came to be realised and recognized in Ajay
Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722, where for the first time, the
Court talked of the new emerging doctrine in juxtaposition with the
traditional doctrine of reasonable classification. Bhagwati J., observed
that:-
(i) That the doctrine of reasonable classification is only a facet of the
wider principle of non-arbitrariness: and
(ii) Doctrine of reasonable classification provides a convenient formula
to determine whether in a given case the state has acted arbitrarily
or not.
Doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is basically not a legal right but rather it
is a moral obligation on the part of the administration to look and make laws
that provide equality to all people in a territory. It gives the right of judicial
review in administrative law to protect the interest of people when public
authority fails to do so (or when public authority rescinds from the
representation made to a person). It acts as a bridge between the expectation of
individuals and any act of authority. However, these expectations needed to be
reasonable and logical that’s why they are called legitimate expectations.

There are several instruments provided by the court for achieving the motive of
authoritative law (here motive is to meet the legitimate expectation). These
instruments are provided to prevent everyone against the misuse of power by
the organs of the state. It put a type of restriction (although it is a moral
restriction) on a state to use its power arbitrarily.

The New Concept of Equality

After several cases, the concept of equality under Article 14 has gone through
many changes and now the present concept of equality has a greater scope as
compared to its scope at the time of Constitution’s enactment.

In the case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, the regulation of the Indian

Airlines provided that an Air Hostess had to retire from their services on
attaining the age of 35 or if they married within 4 years of their service or on
their first pregnancy whichever occurred earlier. The court held that terminating
the services of an air hostess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to
discrimination as it was an unreasonable ground for termination. The
regulations provided that after 4 years of service the air hostess could marry
therefore the grounds of pregnancy was not reasonable. Thus, it was held that
this regulation flagrantly violated Article 14 and such termination would not be
valid.
The validity of Special Courts which were established under the Special Courts
Act has been questioned in   The Special Courts Bill v. Unknown case. It was
questioned whether the formation of special courts under this Act was not
violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It was held that as there was
reasonability and logicality information of these special courts so these courts
are constitutionally valid.

Similarly in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, Rule 34 of the Central

Services rules was held to be violating Article 14 and thus unconstitutional.
Under this rule, a classification was made between the pensioners who retired
before a specific date and those who retired after that date. Such classification
was held irrational by the Court and it was arbitrary. Thus it was an
infringement of Article 14 and as a result, was set aside.

In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, explaining the new dimensions

of Article 14, Justice Bhagwati had observed that Rule of law permeated the
entire fabric of the Indian Constitution and it excludes arbitrariness. According
to him whenever there is arbitrariness, there is a denial of Rule of Law. So,
every action of the State should be free from arbitrariness otherwise the Court
will strike the act as unconstitutional.

The scope of the new concept of Article 14 is far greater than just being equated
with the principle of reasonable classification. It guarantees against any
arbitrariness which may exist in the actions of the State and the doctrine of
classification is merely a subsidiary to this Article.

Concluding, under Article 14 the concept of Rule of law has been adopted under
which no person can be said to be above the law and every person has to abide
to the provisions of law. But the equality which has been provided for under
Article 14 is not universal and the principle of equality among the equals is
followed. This is the reason why many laws are made which some people such
as laws for the benefit of children. Such classification is reasonable and not
arbitrary.
The new dimensions of Article 14 have been developed by the judiciary and the
main purpose of Article 14 is to remove any arbitrariness which may exist in the
actions of the State and thus this Article has a much wider scope in the present
time as compared to its scope at the time of enactment of the Constitution. Thus,
the scope of this article has been enlarged by various judicial pronouncements.