Jurisprudence of Differential Equality

Article 14 prescribes equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal
by nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical equality before the law
may result in injustice. Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law
does not mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons
in spite of difference in circumstances or conditions. 1 The varying needs of different classes
or sections of people require differential and separate treatment. The Legislature is
required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations. It
must, therefore, necessarily have the power of making laws to attain particular objects and,
for that purpose, of distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and things upon which
its laws are to operate.2

Article 14 means that ‘equals should be treated alike’; it does not mean that ‘unequals ought
to be treated equally’.3 Persons who are in the like circumstances should be treated equally.
On the other hand, where persons or groups of persons are not situated equally, to treat them
as equals would itself be violative of Art. 14 as this would itself result in inequality. As all
persons are not equal by nature or circumstances, the varying needs of different classes or
sections of people require differential treatment. This leads to classification among different
groups of persons and differentiation between such classes. Accordingly, to apply the
principle of equality in a practical manner, the courts have evolved the principle that if the
law in question is based on rational classification it is not regarded as discriminatory.4

A Legislature is entitled to make reasonable classification for purposes of legislation and treat
all in one class on an equal footing. The Supreme Court has underlined this principle thus:
"Art. 14 of the Constitution ensures equality among equals: its aim is to protect persons
similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It does not however operate against rational
classification. A person setting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by law must
establish that between persons similarly circumstanced, some were treated to their prejudice

1
Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
2
Equality before law: Article 14, M P Jain: Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition.
3
M. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 1596
4
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34
and the differential treatment had no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the law."5

Differential treatment does not per se amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
and it violates Article 14 only when there is no reasonable basis and there are several tests to
decide whether a classification is reasonable or not and one of the tests will be as to whether
it is conducive to the functioning of modern society.6

The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents distinctions that are not
properly justified. Justification needs each case to be decided on a case to case basis.7

Test of Reasonable Classification:

The Supreme Court laid two conditions for classification of reasonable in the case of Saurabh
Chaudhari v. Union of India8 –

“In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be
fulfilled, namely, (i) that 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 and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question.”

The use of the words “any person” in Article 14, in the context of legislation in general or
executive action affecting group rights, is construed to mean persons who are similarly
situated. The classification of such person for the purpose of testing differential treatment
must, of course, be intelligible and reasonable, the reasonableness being determined with
reference to the object for which the action is taken.9

Burden of Proof:

A mere plea that he has been treated differentially is not enough. He must produce necessary
facts and figures to establish, that he has not only been treated differently from others, but
that he has been so treated from persons similarly situated and circumstanced without any
reasonable basis and that such differential treatment has been made unjustifiably. The initial
presumption is in favour of the validity of the law, and if the person fails to adduce sufficient
5
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kamla Palace, AIR 2000 SC 617
6
National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shikha Prakashan Sansthan, (2011) 3 SCC 238.
7
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
8
Saurabh Chaudhari v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146.
9
T.M.A Pai Foundation & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
evidence in support of his challenge to the law in question, his plea of the provision in
question being violative of Art. 14 cannot be entertained. The state can lean on the initial
presumption of validity of the law.10

Illustration of Differential Treatment:

1. Differential treatment by way of a provision saving proceedings in execution and those

pending execution has been held to be violating Art. 14.11
2. Geographical considerations may form a valid basis of classification for purposes of
legislation in appropriate cases. In this connection, the Supreme Court has observed in
Clarence Pais v. Union of India12:

"Historical reasons may justify differential treatment of separate geographical regions

provided it bears a reason and just relation to the matter in respect of which differential
treatment is accorded. Uniformity in law has to be achieved, but that is a long drawn
process."

3. In the case of St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi, 13 the admission process of
college was checked and the main issue raised was the validity of preference given to
Christian students in the admission process. Here the Supreme Court held that minority
institution which is receiving aid from state funds is entitled to grant preference or to
reserve seats for the students of its community.
The Supreme Court held that differential treatment of candidates in the admission
programme does not violate Article 14 of Indian Constitution and it is needed for the
minority section.
4. The clubbing of those dealers against whom there was no allegation with the handful of
those against whom there were allegations of political connection and patronage, results
in treating unequals as equals.14
5. Differential treatment in standards of selection are within the concept of equality:

In State of Kerala and Ors. v. N.M. Thomas and Ors.,15 the Supreme Court held that –

10
G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1975 SC 583.
11
Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481.
12
Clarence Pais v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1151
13
St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630
14
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673
15
AIR 1976 SC 490
Our Constitution aims at equality of status and opportunity for all citizens including those
who are socially, economically and educationally backward. The claims of members of
backward classes require adequate representation in legislative and executive bodies. If
members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, who are said by this Court to be backward classes,
can maintain minimum necessary requirement of administrative efficiency, not only
representation but also preference may be given to them to enforce equality and to eliminate
inequality. Preferential treatment for members of backward classes with due regard to
administrative efficiency alone can mean equality of opportunity for all citizens. Equality
under Article 16 could not have a different content from equality under Article 14. Equality
of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality. Equality of opportunity
admits discrimination with reason and prohibits discrimination without reason.
Discrimination with reasons means rational classification for differential treatment having
nexus to the Constitutionally permissible object. Preferential representation for the backward
classes in services with due regard to administrative efficiency is permissible object and
backward classes are a rational classification recognised by our Constitution. Therefore,
differential treatment in standards of selection are within the concept of equality.