27-07-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

14. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

• THE STATE SHALL NOT DENY TO ANY

ARTICLE 14: EQUALITY
PERSON EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OR
BEFORE LAW
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

1 2

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION PERSON
• THE UNDERLYING OBJECT OF ARTICLE 14 IS - •RIGHT- AVAILABLE AGAINST THE STATE
• TO SECURE TO ALL PERSONS, CITIZENS OR NON-CITIZENS,
• THE EQUALITY OF STATUS AND OPPORTUNITY REFERRED TO IN THE •AVAILABLE TO :
PREAMBLE TO OUR CONSTITUTION
–ALL PERSONS
• ARTICLE 14 OUTLAWS DISCRIMINATION IN A GENERAL WAY AND •INCLUDING ARTIFICIAL PERSONS LIKE A COMPANY
GUARANTEES EQUALITY BEFORE LAW TO ALL PERSONS.
•FOREIGNERS- WHILE THEY ARE RESIDING IN INDIA

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

3 4
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

• •REMINDS US OF A.V. DICEY’S DISCUSSION OF THE ‘RULE • HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM SEC 1 OF THE XIV
OF LAW’ AMENDMENT OF US CONSTITUTION
•DD BASU: • DD BASU:
–‘EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW’ HAS A NEGATIVE • THE PHRASE HAS A POSITIVE CONTENT AND
CONNOTATION IMPLYING EQUAL SUBJECTION OF ALL TO DENOTES EQUALITY OF TREATMENT IN EQUAL
THE LAW AND THE ABSENCE OF PRIVILEGES CIRCUMSTANCES
• •JEEVAN REDDY, J. (MORE RADICAL VIEW) • IT IS NOW FASHIONABLE TO USE BOTH PHRASES
–IN SRI SRINIVASA THEATER V. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU, TOGETHER E.G.
(1992) 2 SCC 643 • THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
•WORD ‘LAW’ IN THE EXPRESSION MEANT LAW IN GENERAL 1948
SENSE WHEREAS THE SAME WORD IN ‘EQUAL PROTECTION
OF LAWS’ DENOTED SPECIAL LAWS • THE COVENANT ON POLITICAL AND CIVIL
RIGHTS, 1976
•

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

5 6
 27-07-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DOCTRINE OF CLASSIFICATION TEST FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION

•ART. 14 FORBIDS CLASS LEGISLATION, BUT DOES NOT FORBID • IT MUST BE REASONABLE AND SATISFY THE FOLLOWING
CLASSIFICATION OR DIFFERENTIATION WHICH RESTS UPON REASONABLE TWO CONDITIONS:
GROUNDS OF DISTINCTION 1. THE CLASSIFICATION MUST BE FOUNDED ON AN
•PUBLIC WELFARE REQUIRES THAT PERSONS, PROPERTY AND OCCUPATIONS INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA
» WHICH DISTINGUISHES PERSONS OR THINGS THAT ARE
BE CLASSIFIED AND BE SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT AND APPROPRIATE GROUPED TOGETHER FROM OTHER LEFT OUT OF THE
GROUP
LEGISLATION . (LAWYERS, DOCTORS, MINORS ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL
2. THE DIFFERENTIA MUST HAVE A RATIONAL RELATION
LEGISLATION) » TO THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE
STATUTE IN QUESTION

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

7 8
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

APPLICATION OF ART. 14 2. CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT A

(1) SINGLE PERSON LAWS: DIFFERENCE:
• Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India, • THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE LAWS HAVE BEEN HELD VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14
AIR 1951 SC41 BECAUSE EITHER THERE WAS A CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE OR THE
BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.
SC- dismissed the petition and held the legislation valid.
• Law may be constitutional even though it applies to a single • P RAJENDRAN V. STATE OF MADRAS, 1968 SC 1012
individual • THE COURT STRUCK DOWN A PROVISION WHICH LAYS DOWN THE DISTRICT-
• if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS IN THE STATE MEDICAL COLLEGES ON THE BASIS
applicable to him and not applicable to others,
OF THE PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION OF A DISTRICT TO THE TOTAL
• That single individual may be treated as a class by itself
• and that unless it was shown that there were other POPULATION OF THE STATE.
companies similarly circumstanced, the legislation could be • FOR CLASSIFICATION TO BE VALID UNDER ARTICLE 14, THERE MUST BE A NEXUS
presumed to be constitutional BETWEEN THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

9 10
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

3. SPECIAL COURTS AND PROCEDURAL

4. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS:
INEQUALITY:
IN SPECIAL COURTS BILL, 1978, RE, AIR 1979 SC 478 • APART FROM GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT PROCEDURAL DISCRIMINATION
THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 14 WAS CONSIDERED, EXPLAINED VIOLATES ARTICLE 14, THE COURTS HAVE ALSO EVOLVED SOME GENERAL
AND EXAMINED BY THE SC AND IT WAS STATED-
• IF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY IS CLEAR AND DEFINITE AND PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PROCEDURE FROM ARTICLE 14.
IS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT THAT
POLICY, • IN ERUSIAN EQUIPMENT & CHEMICALS LTD. V. STATE
• A DISCRETION IS VESTED BY THE STATUTE UPON A BODY OF W.B., AIR 1975 SC 226
OF ADMINISTRATORS OR OFFICERS TO MAKE SELECTIVE
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO CERTAIN CLASS OR
GROUPS OF PERSONS, • SC QUASHED THE ORDER OF BLACKLISTING THE PETITIONER WHOSE
• THE STATUTE ITSELF CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS A NAME APPEARED ON THE APPROVED LIST OF D.G.S. & D (DIRECTORATE
PIECE OF DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION. GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND DISPOSALS) WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

11 12
 27-07-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

5. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 6. TAX LAWS AND EQUALITY
• A LEGISLATION MAY EITHER ITSELF MAKE A CLASSIFICATION FOR ITS – A STATUE IS NOT OPEN TO ATTACK ON THE GROUND THAT IT TAXES
APPLICATION OR NON-APPLICATION OR MAY LEAVE THE SOME PERSONS OR OBJECTS AND NOT OTHERS.
CLASSIFICATION TO BE MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE. •
• LEGISLATION MOSTLY FOLLOWS THE LATTER COURSE. • R.K.GARG V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1981 SC 2138
(BEARER BONDS CASE)
• VALIDITY OF SUCH LEGISLATION?
• THE SPECIAL BEARER BONDS IMMUNITY AND EXEMPTIONS ACT
– THE COURT WILL EXAMINE AND ASCERTAIN IF THE STATUTE HAS 1981, WHICH IN ORDER TO CANALISE BLACK MONEY FOR
LAID DOWN ANY PRINCIPLE OR POLICY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF PRODUCTIVE PURPOSES, AUTHORISED INVESTMENT OF SUCH
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE EXECUTIVE, OR FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION IN THE MATTER OF SELECTION OR MONEY IN BEARER BONDS WITH FULL IMMUNITY AND
CLASSIFICATION. EXEMPTION UNDER THE INCOME TAX, WEALTH TAX AND GIFT
TAX ACTS AS WELL AS FROM DISCLOSURE OF SOURCES FOR THE
INVESTORS IN SUCH BONDS, WAS UPHELD.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

13 14
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

THE NEW DOCTRINE OF EQUAL E P ROYAPPA V. STATE OF TN, (1974) 2

PROTECTION ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION SCR 348
• THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE IS TRACED TO CERTAIN
OBSERVATIONS MADE BY BHAGWATI J, IN
• E P ROYAPPA V STATE OF TN, (1974) 2 SCR 348
• A CONSTITUTION BENCH REJECTED THE PETITION
UNANIMOUSLY,
• HOWEVER THE BENCH WAS NOT UNANIMOUS IN
GIVING REASONS FOR THE REJECTION
• RAY, C.J. AND PALEKAR, J. GAVE ONE JUDGEMENT
WHERE THEY DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO
TALK ABOUT ARTICLES 14 AND 16

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

15 16
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

… THE NEW DOCTRINE

(1978) 1 SCC 248
• BHAGWATI J. GAVE ANOTHER JUDGEMENT FOR HIMSELF • THE OBSERVATIONS OF BHAGWATI, J. THAT
AND CHANDRACHUD AND KRISHNA IYER JJ. REASONABLENESS “ LEGALLY AS WELL AS
• ALSO PUT A NOVEL, THOUGH AT THE TIME INNOCUOUS PHILOSOPHICALLY IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF
INTERPRETATION OF THESE ARTICLES. EQUALITY OR NON-ARBITRARINESS”,
– “ EQUALITY IS A DYNAMIC CONCEPT WITH MANY ASPECTS AND • CONTEXTUALLY BECAME MORE IMPORTANT IN
DIMENSIONS AND IT CANNOT BE “CRIBBED, CABINED AND RELATION TO ARTICLE 21, BECAUSE IT BECAME A
CONFINED” WITHIN TRADITIONAL AND DOCTRINAIRE LIMITS. MEANS FOR INJECTING THE ELEMENT OF
– FROM A POSITIVISTIC POINT-OF-VIEW, EQUALITY IS ANTITHETIC REASONABLENESS INTO THAT ARTICLE.
TO ARBITRARINESS.
– IN FACT EQUALITY AND ARBITRARINESS ARE SWORN ENEMIES; … • HENCEFORTH, ARTICLE 21 CAME TO BE HELD TO
– WHERE AN ACT IS ARBITRARY, IT IS IMPLICIT IN IT THAT IT IS REQUIRE OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURAL
UNEQUAL BOTH ACCORDING TO POLITICAL LOGIC AND REASONABLENESS BEFORE SOMEONE WAS DEPRIVED
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IS, THEREFORE, VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE OF HIS RIGHT TO LIFE OR PERSONAL LIBERTY.
14.”

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

17 18
 27-07-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

R.D. SHETTY V. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AJAY HASIA V KHALID MUJIB, (1981) 1
AUTHORITY OF INDIA, (1979) 3 SCC 489 SCC 722 (CONSTITUTION BENCH)
• BHAGWATI, J. WHO DELIVERED THE JUDGEMENT OF 3 JUDGES BENCH REFERRED TO • “IT MUST THEREFORE NOW BE TAKEN TO BE WELL SETTLED THAT WHAT
ROYAPPA AND MANEKA AND SAID
ARTICLE 14 STRIKES AT IS ARBITRARINESS BECAUSE ANY ACTION THAT IS
ARBITRARY, MUST NECESSARILY INVOLVE NEGATION OF EQUALITY. THE
• “ THAT ARTICLE 14 STRIKES AT THE ARBITRARINESS OF STATE ACTION”, AND IN ORDER
DOCTRINE OF CLASSIFICATION WHICH IS EVOLVED BY THE COURTS IS NOT
TO BE NON-ARBITRARY, STATE ACTION, “MUST BE BASED ON SOME RATIONAL AND
PARA-PHRASE OF ARTICLE 14 NOR IS IT THE OBJECTIVE AND END OF THAT
RELEVANT PRINCIPLE WHICH IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY” AND SHOULD “NOT BE GUIDED
BY ANY IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. ARTICLE. “
• BHAGWATI, J., INDICATE TWO THINGS
1. DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IS ONLY A FACET OF THE WIDER
PRINCIPLE OF NON-ARBITRARINESS.
• OUTCOME - COURT INTERACTED WITH ENOUGH EMPHASIS THAT “IN THE MATTER OF 2. JUST A CONVENIENT FORMULA TO FIND OUT WHETHER IN A GIVEN CASE THE
STATE HAS ACTED ARBITRARILY OR NOT.
GRANT OF LARGESSE INCLUDING THE AWARD OF JOB, CONTRACTS, QUOTAS, • TO BHAGWATI, J., THE FORMULA OF CLASSIFICATION APPEARED TO BE
LICENCES ETC. THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO CONFORM TO THE NORMS OF EQUALITY INADEQUATE.
• THE NEW DOCTRINE CAN BE CRITICIZED FOR CONCEDING TO THE COURT
AND NON-ARBITRARINESS. AN UNDEFINED POWER OF REVIEW.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

19 20

21