Contents 

 hide 
1. Introduction
2. 1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India[4]
3. 2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[8]
4. 3. Indian Young lawyers association and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.[11]
5. 4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [12]
5.1. Role of enabling provisions in the context of Article 14
6. 5. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar[14]

Introduction
In this article I have talked about the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which gives
every citizen of India a Fundamental Right to Equality as it reads “The State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India.”

Article 14 when read with other Articles as stated by the Supreme court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India[1], where it was said that “various fundamental rights
must be read together and must overlap and fertilize each other”, following this
Article 14 along with Article 15 of the Indian Constitution provides fundamental Right
to Protection against “discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place
of birth” to Indian Citizen, when read with Article 16 it provides fundamental “Right
to Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment”, when read with Article
17 of the Indian Constitution it provides for right against ‘Untouchability’, when read
with Article 18 it provides fundamental right of “Abolition of titles” by the state
unless academic or military.

Article 14 can be said to confer two types of individual rights on the citizens. First is
Positive right of equal protection of law as derived from American Constitution and
negative right of equality before law as derived from British Constitution as was
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India[2].

Further Article 14 can be said to be founding principle in enabling the concept of

Justice. Thus in this Article I have tried to explain what Article 14 actually means and
its practical application through various Case laws and as decided by the
Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme court.

Moreover as said by B.R. Ambedkar “Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless

one must accept it as the governing principle.[3]” Article 14 is its constitutional
epitome.

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India[4]

Coram- 5 Judges
Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali
Nariman, Justice Uday Lalit, Justice J.Abdul Nazeer.

Facts: In this case a Muslim woman named Shayara Bano was married to a Muslim
man named Rizwan Ahmed for fifteen years. In 2016 Rizwan Ahmed divorced
Shayara Bano by invoking talaq-e-biddat, popularly known as triple talaq. She
challenge his act in the Supreme court through a writ petition through which she
urged that Talaq e biddat, polygamy and Nikah Halala, three acts legalized by
Muslim Personal law should be declared as unconstitutional as they are violative of
Fundamental rights of Muslim Women as grated to them under Article 14 and Article
15. Her petition was taken up by a constitutional bench of five judges by the
Supreme court and it was supported by the Union of India, several Women Rights
organizations and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan. The Opposite party in this case
was The All India Muslim Personal Law Board which said that Uncodified Personal
laws are not subject to Constitutional Judicial review.

Issue: Whether the practice of Talaq-e-biddat is violative of Fundamental rights such

as Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Muslim women?

Arguments :

Petitioner  (Represented by Senior Advocate Amit Chadha.):

1. Quran permits dic=vorce for reasonable cause however Triple Talaq was being
abused by Muslim men and thus has no Quranic sanction.

2. An uncodified power allocating arbitrary pwers to Muslim men is against Justice

and Articlee and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.

Respondent  (Represented by Mr. Kapil Sibal.):

1. Muslim marriage is a private contract and hence can’t be changed by the State
government.

2. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) application act, 1937 doesn’t codify its customary
laws but only provides for its application as a rule of decision in cases where parties
are Muslim and hence are not subject to Judicial review or State legislation.

3. It would be violation of freedom to practice religion under Article 15 clause 2 if a

Personal customary practice of a particular religion was to be abolished while
allowing other religions to materialize their own.

4. Personal laws doesn’t come under the definition of law of Article as it in’t expressly
mentioned there however it has been expressly mentioned in Concurrent list thus
showing the mindset of our constitutional faters whon wanted to exclude Personal
laws from ambit of Article 13.

Judgment: By a 3:2 majority, the practice of triple talaq was declared

unconstitutional.

While reaching the above Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case
gave a in depth analysis of Article 14 stating:

 “Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a facet of equality of status and

opportunity spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Article
naturally divides itself into two parts—(1) equality before the law, and (2) the
equal protection of the law.”
 Also talked about “intelligible classification” of subjects under Article 14 as
was discussed in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya[5]
 However Lachhman Dass v. State of Punjab[6] was also noted which satted
that “overemphasis on Reasonable classification” will subdue Article 14’s
glorious contentand hence referred to it as a “subsidiary rule.”
 “If an action is found to be arbitrary and, therefore, unreasonable, it would
negate the equal protection of the law contained in Article 14 and would be
struck down on this ground.”
 Along with many other cases Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[7]  was also
referred to where it was observed that “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in
State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.”

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[8]

Facts: In 2009 in NAZ foundation v. N.C.T of Delhi[9] – Delhi High court declared
Section 377 of IPC as unconstitutional which was challenged in 2014 In Suresh Kumar
Kaushal v. NAZ foundation[10] in Indian Supreme Court (SC) which was overturned
by a two Judge bench. The SC judgment was again challenged in 2016 in Navtej
Singh Johar v. UOI and was presided over by a five Judge bench of SC. In this case
the petitioner, Navtej Singh Johar was a dancer who belonged to LGBTQ community
who filed a writ petition in SC under Article 32.

Issue: Constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC and its application in consensual
sexual conduct of adults of the same sex in private and whether it is violative of right
of equal protection by law under Article 14?

Law: Indian Constitution

Article 14= Right to equality before the law.

Article 21 = Right to life.

Article 15= Right to protection from discrimination on the ground of sex.

Article 19= Freedom of Expression.

Article 25= Freedom of conscience and religion.

Indian Penal code:

Section 377

Analysis: Section 377 of IPC was found to be violative of Article 21, 14, 15, 19 and 25
of Indian constitution by relying on principle of Transformative Constitutionalism and
Progressive realization of rights.

Judgment: Section 377 was declared Unconstitutional by a bench of then acting

Chief justice Dipak Mishra, J. Khanwilkar, J. Nariman, J. Chandrachud and J. Malhotra.
Five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decriminalized Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code, to the extent that it criminalized same-sex relations between
consenting adults. The LGBT community has a choice of choosing the same sex
partner legally. The above segment of Section 377 was held to be unconstitutional
and violative of Article 14 and Article 15 -right to equality in law and right to equality
on the ground of sex. 

3. Indian Young lawyers association and ors. v. State

of Kerala and ors.[11]
 Facts: This case was filed in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyer’s Association through
public interest litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The case
deals with the Entry of menstruating women between the age of 10 years to 50 years
in the Sabarimala Temple. The petitioners claimed that the practice was violative of
Equal protection of law under Article 14 and there was discrimination on the basis of
sex and hence was violative of Article 15. The Sabarimala Temple is situated in the
Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta
District, Kerala. This temple is famous for Lord Ayyappa.

 
Issue: Whether the exclusionary practice based on biological factor of different sex
against females amount to “discrimination” and if it is violative of Article 14, Article
15 and Article 17 of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment: By a majority of 4:1, of the 5 judge constitutional bench, the Supreme

Court declared the Sabarimala Temple’s custom of not allowing mensurating women
from entering the temple premises as unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi:

“Having guaranteed equality before the law and the equal protection of laws in
Article 14, the draftspersons specifically continued the theme of an equal entitlement
as an intrinsic element of the freedom of conscience and of the right to profess,
practice and propagate religion.”

“While guaranteeing equality and the equal protection of laws in Article 14 and its
emanation, in Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth, the Constitution does not condition these basic norms of
equality to the other provisions of Part III.”

Thus clearly stating that rights under Article 25(1) is not an absolute right and can be
practiced but in conferment and confirmation of equal treatment of every individual
without discrimination.

4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [12]

Facts: This case was dealt with by a five judge constitutional bench by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on the issue of “reservation in promotion” in light of
principles of Constitutional law. In this case the insertion of Arts. 16 (4A) and 16 (4B)
by the Indian Parliament via Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which
inserted Article 16 (4A) retrospectively for being against the rule of equality, the basic
structure doctrine and the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney and Ors v. U.O.I.
[13]

Issue:  Whether Article 16(4A) and 16(4 B) were violative of Article 14 and thus the
basic structure doctrine?

Judgment:  The constitutional validity of arts. 16 (4A) and (4B) were upheld and thus,
77th, 81st, and 85th amendments were upheld to be constitutional. The Court
observed that while the doctrine of equality was a part of the basic structure
doctrine, the rule that prevented conferring seniority was not one and thus, the
doctrine of basic structure could not be attracted.

The Court stated that State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in
promotion but if it intends to do so, it must provide relevant data.

While coming to the above conclusion Hon’ble Supreme court in detail speculated
and discussed Article 14 in the Obiter dicta and Ratio Decidendi of this case and it
was stated as-

Role of enabling provisions in the context of Article 14

In Para 106- “The gravamen of Article 14 is equality of treatment. Article 14 confers
a personal right by enacting a prohibition which is absolute. By judicial decisions, the
doctrine of classification is read into Article 14. Equality of treatment under Article 14
is an objective test. It is not the test of intention. Therefore, the basic principle
underlying Article 14 is that the law must operate equally on all persons under like
circumstances. (emphasis added) Every discretionary power is not necessarily
discriminatory. According to the Constitutional Law of India, by H.M. Seervai, 4th
Edn., p. 546, equality is not violated by mere conferment of discretionary power. It is
violated by arbitrary exercise by those on whom it is conferred. This is the theory of
“guided power”. This theory is based on the assumption that in the event of arbitrary
exercise by those on whom the power is conferred, would be corrected by the courts.
This is the basic principle behind the enabling provisions which are incorporated in
Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B). Enabling provisions are permissive in nature. They are
enacted to balance equality with positive discrimination. The constitutional law is the
law of evolving concepts. Some of them are generic, others have to be identified and
valued. The enabling provisions deal with the concept, which has to be identified and
valued as in the case of access vis-à-vis efficiency which depends on the fact
situation only and not abstract principle of equality in Article 14 as spelt out in detail
in Articles 15 and 16. Equality before the law, guaranteed by the first part of Article
14, is a negative concept while the second part is a positive concept which is enough
to validate equalising measures depending upon the fact situation.”

In Para 118. “The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents

distinctions that are not properly justified. Justification needs each case to be
decided on case-to-case basis.

5. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar[14]

Facts: In this case, in the State of West Bengal by the West Bengal Special Courts Act,
1950 enacted by State legislature special Courts were set up by the State
government Under Section 3 and Section 5 provided these courts power to try
certain class of offences for achieving speedier trial. Through this act the State
Government arbitrarily tried any individual as it deemed fit and advantageous for its
party.

Issue: Whether Section 5 is violative of Article 14 in the absence of any prescribed

grounds for classification of such offence which are to be tried by these Special
Courts?

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950,
was unconstitutional as it conferred arbitrary power to the state government to
classify classes of offences or any offence as it pleased because there was no specific
guideline for classification of such offence. This Act was in violation of Article 14
which grants fundamental right of equality before law to every citizen as this Act
enabled the State government to try any individual for any offence through this
special court as it pleased.