01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ARTICLE 14: EQUALITY

BEFORE LAW

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

1
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

14. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW.—THE STATE

SHALL NOT DENY TO ANY PERSON EQUALITY
BEFORE THE LAW OR THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OF INDIA.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

1
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION

• ARTICLE 14 OUTLAWS DISCRIMINATION IN A GENERAL WAY

• SEPARATE PROVISIONS TO COVER SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATORY
SITUATIONS
• ART. 15 PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION
• SPECIFIC GROUNDS - RELIGION, RACE, CASTE, SEX OR PLACE OF BIRTH.
• ARTICLE 16 : EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.
• ARTICLE 17 ABOLISHES UNTOUCHABILITY, AND
• ART. 18 ABOLISHES TITLES

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

3
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PERSON

• THE RIGHT- AVAILABLE AGAINST THE STATE

•AVAILABLE TO :

–ALL PERSONS

•INCLUDING ARTIFICIAL PERSONS LIKE A COMPANY

•FOREIGNERS- WHILE THEY ARE RESIDING IN INDIA

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

2
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

• A.V. DICEY’S DISCUSSION OF THE ‘RULE OF LAW’

•DD BASU:

•JEEVAN REDDY, J. –

IN SRI SRINIVASA THEATER V. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU,

(1992) 2 SCC 643

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

5
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

•SEC 1 OF THE XIV AMENDMENT OF US CONSTITUTION

•DD BASU:
- POSITIVE CONTENT AND

- DENOTES EQUALITY OF TREATMENT IN EQUAL CIRCUMSTANCES

–FASHIONABLE TO USE BOTH THE PHRASES

• THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 1948

• THE COVENANT ON POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 1976

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

3
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DOCTRINE OF CLASSIFICATION

•ART. 14

• FORBIDS CLASS LEGISLATION, BUT

• DOES NOT FORBID CLASSIFICATION OR DIFFERENTIATION
• WHICH RESTS UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS OF DISTINCTION

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

7
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

TEST FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION

1. IT MUST BE REASONABLE
2. THE CLASSIFICATION MUST BE FOUNDED ON AN INTELLIGIBLE
DIFFERENTIA WHICH DISTINGUISHES PERSONS OR THINGS THAT ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER FROM OTHER LEFT OUT OF THE GROUP
3. THE DIFFERENTIA MUST HAVE A RATIONAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT
SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

4
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY APPLICATION OF ART. 14

(1) SINGLE PERSON LAWS:
•CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHURY V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1951 SC41
• PETITIONER SOUGHT PROTECTION U/A 14 AND 31 AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE SHOLAPUR SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1950
• THE ACT DECLARED THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS COULD NEITHER APPOINT A NEW
DIRECTOR, NOR COULD THEY TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE WINDING UP OF THE CO.
• SC- DISMISSED THE PETITION AND HELD THE LEGISLATION VALID.
• SINGLE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE TREATED AS A CLASS BY ITSELF AND THAT UNLESS IT
WAS SHOWN THAT THERE WERE OTHER COMPANIES SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED, THE
LEGISLATION COULD BE PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

9
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2. CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT A
DIFFERENCE

• P RAJENDRAN V. STATE OF MADRAS, 1968 SC 1012

• THE COURT STRUCK DOWN PROVISION WHICH LAYS DOWN

• DISTRICT WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS IN THE STATE MEDICAL COLLEGES

• ON THE BASIS OF THE PROPORTION OF POPULATION OF A DISTRICT TO THE TOTAL

POPULATION OF THE STATE.

• IT IS, IN FACT, DISCRIMINATORY AS A BETTER QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FROM ONE

DISTRICT MAY BE REJECTED

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

10

5
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY 3. SPECIAL COURTS AND
PROCEDURAL INEQUALITY

• THE CONSTITUTIONALITY FOR CREATING THE SPECIAL COURT

• TO TRY PERSON HOLDING HIGH PUBLIC OFFICES
• FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THEM
• DURING THE PERIOD OF EMERGENCY I.E. 1975 - 1977,
• CAME UP BEFORE A SEVEN JUDGE BENCH OF THE SC.

• IN SPECIAL COURTS BILL, 1978, RE, AIR 1979 SC 478

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

11
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

... SPECIAL COURTS BILL, 1978, RE,

• SC HELD:

• THE CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED IN THE BILL WAS VALID.

• THE OFFENCES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED DURING THE PERIOD OF

EMERGENCY CONSTITUTED A CLASS BY THEMSELVES

• THE BILL DID NOT LEAVE IT TO DISCRETION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO

PICK AND CHOOSE PERSONS FOR TRIAL BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

12

6
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY 4. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

• THE COURTS HAVE ALSO EVOLVED SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PROCEDURE
FROM ARTICLE 14.

• ERUSIAN EQUIPMENT & CHEMICALS LTD. V. STATE OF W.B., AIR 1975 SC 226

• SC QUASHED THE ORDER OF BLACKLISTING THE PETITIONER WHOSE NAME APPEARED

ON THE APPROVED LIST OF D.G.S. & D (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND
DISPOSALS) WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE.

• AS IT HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING A PERSON OF EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

13
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

5. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

• A LEGISLATION MAY EITHER ITSELF MAKE A CLASSIFICATION FOR ITS APPLICATION OR

NON-APPLICATION, OR
• MAY LEAVE THE CLASSIFICATION TO BE MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE.
• LEGISLATION MOSTLY FOLLOW THE LATTER COURSE.
• VALIDITY OF SUCH LEGISLATION?
– THE COURT WILL EXAMINE AND ASCERTAIN IF THE STATUTE HAS LAID DOWN ANY
PRINCIPLE OR POLICY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE
EXECUTIVE, OR FOR THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE MATTER OF SELECTION OR
CLASSIFICATION.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

14

7
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

6. TAX LAWS AND EQUALITY

• THE POWER TO IMPOSE AND COLLECT TAXES IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT SOVEREIGN POWER AND FUNCTION OF THE STATE.
– IT MAY SELECT THE PERSONS OR OBJECTS TO BE TAXED
– A STATUE IS NOT OPEN TO ATTACK ON THE GROUND THAT IT TAXES SOME PERSONS OR
OBJECTS AND NOT OTHERS.
• R.K.GARG V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1981 SC 2138 (BEARER BONDS CASE)
• THE SPECIAL BEARER BONDS IMMUNITY AND EXEMPTIONS ACT 1981, WHICH IN
ORDER TO CANALISE BLACK MONEY FOR PRODUCTIVE PURPOSES, AUTHORISED
INVESTMENT OF SUCH MONEY IN BEARER BONDS WITH FULL IMMUNITY AND
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 BY THE COURT.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

15
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

THE NEW DOCTRINE OF EQUAL

PROTECTION ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
• E P ROYAPPA V STATE OF TN, (1974) 2 SCR 348
• FACTS: THE PETITIONER WAS BEING KEPT OUT OF THE OFFICE OF
CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE STATE TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN APPOINTED
IN AN ACTING CAPACITY.
• THIS PROMPTED TO ROYAPPA TO APPROACH THE SC.
• THE BASIS OF THE PETITION WAS THE ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF
POWER FOR MALAFIDE REASONS. ALL THIS RESULTED IN VIOLATION
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
• A CONSTITUTION BENCH REJECTED THE PETITION UNANIMOUSLY,
• HOWEVER THE BENCH WAS NOT UNANIMOUS IN GIVING REASONS
FOR THE REJECTION

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

16

8
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

… THE NEW DOCTRINE

• BHAGWATI J. GAVE JUDGEMENT FOR HIMSELF AND CHANDRACHUD

AND KRISHNA IYER JJ. AND THEREIN,
• HE PUT A NOVEL, THOUGH AT THE TIME INNOCUOUS INTERPRETATION
OF THESE ARTICLES.
– “ EQUALITY IS A DYNAMIC CONCEPT WITH MANY ASPECTS AND
DIMENSIONS AND IT CANNOT BE “CRIBBED, CABINED AND CONFINED”
WITHIN TRADITIONAL AND DOCTRINAIRE LIMITS. FROM A 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 IN IT THAT IT IS UNEQUAL BOTH ACCORDING TO
POLITICAL LOGIC AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IS, THEREFORE,
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14.”

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

17
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA

(1978) 1 SCC 248

• THE PETITIONER INVOKED ARTICLE 14 FOR CHALLENGING THE VIRES

OF SECTION 10(3)(C) OF THE PASSPORTS ACT 1967

• BHAGWATI, J. - REASONABLENESS “ LEGALLY AS WELL AS

PHILOSOPHICALLY IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF EQUALITY OR NON
ARBITRARINESS

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

18

9
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
R.D. SHETTY V. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY OF INDIA, (1979) 3 SCC 489
• THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY WAS FREE
TO ACCEPT THE TENDER OF SOMEONE FOR PUTTING UP AND RUNNING A
RESTAURANT AND TWO SNACK BARS AT BOMBAY AIRPORT
• EVEN THOUGH THAT PERSON DID NOT FULFILL THE REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY
CONDITIONS?
• BHAGWATI, J. SAID “ THAT ARTICLE 14 STRIKES AT ARBITRARINESS OF STATE
ACTION”, AND IN ORDER TO BE NON-ARBITRARY, STATE ACTION, “MUST BE
BASED ON SOME RATIONAL AND RELEVANT PRINCIPLE WHICH IS NON-
DISCRIMINATORY” AND SHOULD “NOT BE GUIDED BY ANY IRRELEVANT AND
EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS .
• OUTCOME - COURT INTERACTED WITH ENOUGH EMPHASIS THAT “IN THE
MATTER OF GRANT OF LARGESSE INCLUDING AWARD OF JOB, CONTRACTS,
QUOTAS, LICENCES ETC. THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO CONFIRM TO THE NORMS
OF EQUALITY AND NON ARBITRARINESS.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

19
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

AJAY HASIA V KHALID MUJIB, (1981) 1

SCC 722 (CONSTITUTION BENCH)
• BHAGWATI, J., “IT MUST THEREFORE NOW BE TAKEN TO BE WELL
SETTLED THAT WHAT ARTICLE 14 STRIKES AT IS ARBITRARINESS BECAUSE
ANY ACTION THAT IS ARBITRARY, MUST NECESSARILY INVOLVE
NEGATION OF EQUALITY. THE DOCTRINE OF CLASSIFICATION WHICH IS
EVOLVED BY THE COURTS IS NOT PARA-PHRASE OF ARTICLE 14 NOR IS
IT THE OBJECTIVE AND END OF THAT ARTICLE. “
• BHAGWATI, J., INDICATE TWO THINGS
• DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IS ONLY A FACET OF THE
WIDER PRINCIPLE OF NON ARBITRARINESS.
• JUST A CONVENIENT FORMULA TO FIND OUT WHETHER IN A GIVEN CASE
THE STATE HAS ACTED ARBITRARILY OR NOT.
• TO BHAGWATI, J., THE FORMULA OF CLASSIFICATION APPEARED TO BE
INADEQUATE.
• THE NEW DOCTRINE CAN BE CRITICIZED FOR CONCEDING TO THE
COURT AN UNDEFINED POWER OF REVIEW.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

20

10
 01-09-2022

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RECENT CASES

Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 (9) SCALE 178 (articles 14, 15 and 21)

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321 (Art 14, 15)

Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898 (Art 14, 15 & 21)

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1650

(Art 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e))

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narayan Gupta, AIR 2018 SC 4729 (Articles 14 and 16(1))

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

21

11