NOIDA INTERNATIONAL

UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

(ARTICLE 14)

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR JATIN SHARMA

SUBMITTED BY SHALOM MANAMELA
BA LLB (HONS)
ROLL NUMBER 10001

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this assignment required

alot of guidance and assistance from many people and I am
extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion
of my assignment . All that I have done is only due to such
supervision and assistance and I would not forget to thank
everyone who helped.

I would like to thank Professor Razia as she gave me a hint on

what is article 14, furthermore l would also love to thank
Professor Jatin Sharma who has been teaching us after
Ma’am Razia left and l really appreciate the help they have
put for me to complete this assignment. Finally l would also
love to thank all my peers,classmates and all the members
from the faculty room as they have also played a big role on
the completion of my assignment.

2
Table of content

Introduction…………………………………………….04
What is article 14……………………………………..05
Article 14 according to the bare act………….06
History of article 14………………………………….07
Effectiveness…………………………………………….08
Non effectiveness……………………………………..10
Landmark cases………………………………………..12
Conclusion………………………………………………..20

3
INTRODUCTION
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental and pivotal
provision that forms the bedrock of equality before the law. It
reads as follows:

"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."

This article is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and

embodies the principle of equality, a fundamental pillar of a
democratic and just society. It declares that every person in India,
regardless of their background, caste, religion, gender, or any
other attribute, is entitled to equal treatment before the law and
equal protection of the laws.

Article 14 ensures that the Indian legal system must treat all
individuals equally and impartially, preventing any form of
discrimination. It is not only a safeguard against arbitrary and
discriminatory state actions but also extends its protection to
actions by private individuals or entities that might infringe upon
an individual's right to equality.

This principle of equality before the law is essential in upholding

the values of justice, fairness, and inclusivity in Indian society,
and it serves as the foundation for various other provisions and
legal principles within the Indian Constitution that further
promote and protect the rights and dignity of all citizens.

4
WHAT IS ARTICLE 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that

ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws
to all individuals within the territory of India. It states:

"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."

In essence, Article 14 guarantees that every person in India,

regardless of their background, caste, religion, gender, or any
other characteristic, is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
It prohibits discrimination and ensures that individuals are
treated fairly and impartially by the legal system. This article is a
fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution and plays a
crucial role in upholding the values of justice and equality in
Indian society.

5
ARTICLE 14 ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BARE
ACT

Right to equality
14.Equality before the 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

Comments
I. Declaring a piece of legislation as arbitrary and thereby
unconstitutional implies value judgement. It has no
application under the Indian const; Rajbala v. State of
Haryana, AIR 2016 SC 33.
II. Concept of equality is a positive concept. Court can
command the state to give equal treatment to similarly
situated persons but cannot issue a mandate that the state
should commit illegality or pass wrong order because in
another case such an illegality has been committed or
wrong order has been passed. Article 14 cannot be invoked
for perpetuating irregularities or illegalities, Usha Mehta v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 (11) JT 154: 2012 (10)
SCALE 468: 2012 (8) SLT 101.
III. The vires of any subordinate legislation can be challenged
that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and offends article 14 of
the constitution; Sudhir Kumar Consul v. Allahabad Bank,
(2011) 3 SCC 486: JT 2011 (2) SC 418: (2011) 2 SCALE 661
IV. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is
meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without
any rational basis or relationship in that behalf; Bondu
Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7
SCC 129: JT 2010 (6) SC 57: (2010) 5 SCALE 70.
V. A person is treated unequally only if that person is treated
worse than others and those others (the comparison group)

6
 must be those who are similarly situated to the
complainant; Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2010) 10 SCC 96:JT 2010 (9) SC 568: (2010) 9 SCALE 270

HISTORY OF ARTICLE 14

The history of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution can be traced

back to the drafting and framing of the constitution, which took
place between 1947 and 1950. This article, along with other
fundamental rights, was envisioned by the framers of the
Constitution to be a cornerstone of India's democracy and a
means to ensure justice, equality, and the protection of
individual liberties.

BRIEF OVERVIEW ON THE HISTORY OF ARTICLE 14

1. Constituent Assembly: The drafting of the Indian Constitution

was carried out by the Constituent Assembly of India, which was
composed of representatives from diverse backgrounds and
regions. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting
Committee, played a significant role in shaping the fundamental
rights, including Article 14.

2. Influence from International Sources: The framers of the

Indian Constitution drew inspiration from various international
sources, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which emphasized the principle of equality before the law.
Article 14 was crafted in line with these principles.

3. Debates and Discussions: There were extensive debates and

discussions within the Constituent Assembly regarding the
wording and scope of Article 14. The assembly members

7
deliberated on how to ensure equality and non-discrimination in
a diverse and pluralistic society like India.

4. Final Adoption: Article 14, as it appears in the Indian

Constitution today, was ultimately adopted and became a part of
the Constitution when it was ratified on January 26, 1950,
marking the commencement of the Republic of India.

Article 14, along with other fundamental rights, serves as a

fundamental principle of Indian democracy and has been upheld
by the Indian judiciary as a powerful tool to protect the rights of
citizens and ensure that they are treated equally before the law.
Over the years, the courts have interpreted and expanded the
scope of Article 14 to address various forms of discrimination and
inequality in society.

EFFECTIVENESS OF ARTICLE 14 IN INDIA

The effectiveness of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the
laws, is a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny in India. While
the provision is a vital safeguard for ensuring equality and non-
discrimination, the practical implementation and realization of
these principles can vary across different aspects of Indian
society. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Legal Framework:Article 14 provides a strong legal foundation

to challenge discriminatory practices, laws, and policies. Indian
courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have played a crucial role
in interpreting and upholding the principles of equality enshrined
in Article 14.

2. Challenges: Despite the constitutional guarantee, India faces

various challenges related to equality and discrimination. Issues

8
such as caste-based discrimination, gender inequality, religious
tensions, and economic disparities persist and continue to be the
subject of legal and social debates.

3. Affirmative Action: India has implemented affirmative action

policies, including reservations in education and public
employment, to address historical injustices and promote social
equality. These policies aim to bridge disparities and provide
opportunities to marginalized groups.

4. Legal Battles: Many legal battles in India involve claims of

violations of Article 14. These cases often revolve around issues
like discrimination in access to public services, educational
institutions, and employment.

5. Societal Progress: While legal provisions like Article 14 are

essential, societal attitudes and progress also play a significant
role in achieving true equality. Progress in education, awareness,
and social reforms can contribute to reducing discrimination and
promoting equality.

In summary, Article 14 serves as a vital tool in addressing

discrimination and inequality in India, but its effectiveness
depends on a combination of legal enforcement, government
policies, and broader societal changes. There are ongoing efforts
and debates surrounding its implementation, as India strives to
live up to the ideals of its constitution and ensure equality for all
its citizens.

9
NON EFFECTIVENESS OF ARTICLE 14

While Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision

that guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of
the laws, there are instances where its effectiveness has been
questioned due to various challenges and issues in India:

1. Discrimination Based on Caste and Religion: India has a long

history of caste-based discrimination and religious tensions.
Despite constitutional guarantees, caste-based discrimination
continues to be a pervasive issue, affecting millions of citizens.
Similarly, incidents of religious discrimination and communal
tensions raise concerns about the effective enforcement of
Article 14.

2. Gender Inequality: Gender-based discrimination and violence

against women are prevalent in India. Despite legal protections,
gender inequality persists in various aspects of society, including
unequal access to education, employment, and healthcare.

3. Economic Disparities: India grapples with significant economic

disparities, with a large population living in poverty. Ensuring
equal protection of the laws and opportunities for all, regardless
of economic status, remains a challenge.

4. Unequal Access to Justice: Access to justice is not uniform

across all sections of society. Marginalized and vulnerable
populations often face barriers in accessing the legal system and
receiving fair treatment.

5. Implementation Challenges: The effectiveness of Article 14

also depends on the proper implementation of laws and policies.
There have been instances of uneven enforcement and a backlog

10
of cases in the Indian legal system, which can hinder access to
justice and equal protection.

6. Affirmative Action Disputes: While affirmative action policies

like reservations aim to address historical injustices, they have
also been a subject of debate and contention, with concerns
about their impact and fairness.

7. Legal Challenges:Many legal cases in India involve claims of

violations of Article 14, reflecting the challenges and disputes
related to its implementation.

It's important to note that addressing these issues and ensuring

the effective application of Article 14 is an ongoing process.
India's legal system, civil society, and government institutions
continue to grapple with these challenges and work toward a
more just and equitable society. While Article 14 provides a
foundation for achieving equality, achieving its full potential
requires sustained efforts at multiple levels of society and
governance.

11
LANDMARK CASES ON ARTICLE 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality

before the law and equal protection of the laws, has been the
subject of several landmark judicial cases in India. These cases
have played a significant role in interpreting and defining the
scope and application of Article 14. Here are a few notable
landmark cases:
1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
3. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
6. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India
(2011)

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

1. Background: The case was heard by the Supreme

Court of India in 1973. It revolved around the Kerala
Government’s attempt to implement land reform laws, which
involved placing restrictions on the management and ownership
of agricultural land.
2. Challenge: Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a
math in Kerala, challenged the state’s attempt to amend the
Indian Constitution through the 29th Amendment Act, 1972. He
argued that this amendment violated his fundamental rights
under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to
manage religious affairs).
3. Basic Structure Doctrine: The most significant aspect
of this case was the introduction of the “Basic Structure
Doctrine.” The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that while
Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot

12
alter its basic structure or framework. This doctrine essentially
acts as a limitation on the amending power of the Parliament.
4. Judgment: The Supreme Court, in a 7-6 majority
decision, ruled in favor of Swami Kesavananda Bharati. The
majority held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution
in a way that destroyed or abrogated its basic structure. This
meant that certain fundamental features of the Constitution,
such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of
powers, and the federal structure, were beyond the reach of
amendments.
5. Impact: The Keshavananda Bharati case has had a
profound impact on Indian constitutional law. It has been cited in
numerous subsequent cases to determine the validity of
constitutional amendments. It is the reason why certain
amendments, like the 42nd Amendment Act, which sought to
expand the amending power of Parliament, were struck down.
6. Legacy: The case is considered a significant moment in
the development of the Indian Constitution and the
jurisprudence surrounding it. It upheld the principle that while
the Constitution can be amended, its core principles and values
must remain intact.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Background: The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India
in 1978 and revolved around the issuance of a passport to
Maneka Gandhi, an Indian citizen, who had her passport
impounded by the government. She was seeking to travel abroad
but was denied a passport without a reasonable opportunity to
be heard.
2. Challenge: Maneka Gandhi challenged the
government’s decision to impound her passport, arguing that it
violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality
before law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 21

13
(protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian
Constitution.
3. Judgment: The Supreme Court, in this case, delivered
a landmark judgment that expanded the scope and
interpretation of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty.
The court ruled that the right to life and personal liberty is not
limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to live
with dignity and the right to travel abroad.
4. Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process of Law:
The court held that the procedure established by law, as
mentioned in Article 21, must be fair, just, and reasonable. This
marked a departure from the earlier position that as long as a
law existed, it was sufficient, and the courts would not question
its fairness.
5. Reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard: The judgment
emphasized that any action that affects the personal liberty of an
individual must adhere to the principles of natural justice, which
includes giving the person a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
6. Impact: The Maneka Gandhi case is considered a
significant development in the protection of fundamental rights
and personal liberty in India. It led to a broader interpretation of
Article 21 and established the principle that laws and procedures
must be fair and just.
7. Legacy: This case laid the foundation for subsequent
cases where the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of
Article 21 to include various aspects of human rights and
personal liberty.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

1. Background: The case was heard by the Supreme

Court of India in 1992 and revolved around the implementation
of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which

14
proposed reservations for socially and educationally backward
classes in government jobs.
2. Challenge: The petitioners, including Indira Sawhney,
challenged the implementation of the Mandal Commission
recommendations, arguing that it violated the principle of
equality enshrined in Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16
(equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Indian
Constitution.
3. Judgment: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld
the implementation of reservations for Other Backward Classes
(OBCs) in government jobs but with certain restrictions and
clarifications. The key points of the judgment include:
a. Reservation was capped at 27% for OBCs in central
government jobs and educational institutions.
b. The creamy layer within OBCs (those who were relatively more
affluent) was excluded from the reservation benefits to ensure
that the most disadvantaged among them received the benefits.
c. The judgment clarified that the total reservation (including
SC/ST and OBC quotas) should not exceed 50% to maintain the
principle of equality.
4. Impact: The Indira Sawhney case has had a significant
impact on the policy of reservation in India. It provided legal
clarity on the reservation system and led to the introduction of
similar policies at the state level.
5. Legacy: This case is often cited in discussions related to
affirmative action, social justice, and the rights of historically
disadvantaged communities in India. It continues to shape
debates and policies concerning reservation in education and
employment.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

15
Background: The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India
in 2015 and revolved around the constitutional validity of Section
66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Challenge: Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a Public Interest

Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A.
This section allowed the arrest of individuals for posting allegedly
offensive or harmful content online.

Judgment: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, declared Section

66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, unconstitutional.
The key points of the judgment include:

1. The Court held that Section 66A was vaguely worded

and could be misused to curb freedom of speech and expression
on the internet.
2. It emphasized that the freedom of speech and
expression includes the freedom to receive and impart
information, and this freedom extends to the internet.
3. The judgment underlined that restrictions on speech
on the internet must meet the same constitutional standards as
those applied to traditional forms of media.
4. The Court clarified that certain categories of speech,
such as hate speech and incitement to violence, could still be
regulated under the law, but any restrictions must be in the
interest of public order and must be narrowly tailored.

Impact: The Shreya Singhal case had a significant impact on

freedom of speech and expression on the internet in India. It led
to the removal of Section 66A, which was widely criticized for its
potential misuse and chilling effect on online expression.

16
Legacy: This case set an important precedent in Indian
jurisprudence, reaffirming the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression, especially in the digital age. It clarified
the limitations on the government’s power to restrict online
speech and underscored the need for clear and narrowly defined
restrictions to protect citizens’ constitutional rights.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Background: The case revolved around the constitutionality of

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized
consensual sexual activities between adults of the same gender.

Challenge: Navtej Singh Johar and other petitioners, including

LGBTQ activists, challenged the validity of Section 377 on the
grounds that it violated fundamental rights, including the right to
equality and the right to live with dignity under Articles 14
(equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal
liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment: In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India

unanimously declared that Section 377 of the IPC, insofar as it
criminalized consensual sexual activities between adults of the
same gender, was unconstitutional. The key points of the
judgment include:

1. The Court held that consensual sexual acts between

adults are a matter of personal liberty and autonomy and are
protected under Article 21.
2. It recognized that discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation is a violation of the right to equality under Article 14.

17
 3. The Court emphasized the need to respect the rights
and dignity of LGBTQ individuals and to strike down laws that
stigmatize and criminalize them.
4. The judgment marked a significant step toward
recognizing and protecting the rights of LGBTQ individuals in
India and fostering inclusivity and equality.

Impact: The Navtej Singh Johar case had a profound impact on

LGBTQ rights in India. It effectively decriminalized same-sex
relations, removing a significant legal barrier to LGBTQ
individuals’ rights, including their right to privacy and dignity.

Legacy: This judgment is a historic milestone in the fight for

LGBTQ rights in India and has paved the way for greater
acceptance and legal recognition of LGBTQ individuals and
relationships. It has also had ripple effects in various aspects of
Indian society, including healthcare, education, and employment,
where LGBTQ rights and inclusivity have gained increasing
attention and importance.

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

Background: The case revolved around Aruna Shanbaug, a
former nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, who
had been in a vegetative state for over 37 years following a brutal
sexual assault.

Challenge: In 2009, journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition on

behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, seeking the permission of the
Supreme Court to withdraw life support, arguing that Aruna was
in a condition of irretrievable brain damage and was being kept
alive against her will.

18
Judgment: In its judgment in 2011, the Supreme Court of India
addressed the issue of passive euthanasia. The key points of the
judgment include:

1. The Court acknowledged that Aruna Shanbaug had

been in a persistent vegetative state for a long period and that
there was no hope of her recovery.
2. It allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment,
such as the feeding tube, but only with the approval of the High
Court.
3. The Court laid down guidelines for the process of
seeking permission for passive euthanasia, including the
requirement of a petition to the High Court and the appointment
of a medical board to assess the patient’s condition.
4. The judgment distinguished between active
euthanasia (intentionally causing the patient’s death) and passive
euthanasia (withdrawal of life support when there is no hope of
recovery) and permitted the latter under certain circumstances.

Impact: The Aruna Shanbaug case set a precedent in India

regarding the legal aspects of euthanasia and the right to die
with dignity. It provided clarity on when and how passive
euthanasia can be permitted in the country.

Legacy: This case laid the groundwork for subsequent discussions

and legal developments related to end-of-life decisions and the
right to die with dignity in India. It also prompted discussions on
the need for a comprehensive law on euthanasia and advance
medical directives.

19
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution stands as a cornerstone of India's
democratic framework, embodying the
principles of equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws. Through a series of
landmark cases and ongoing legal
interpretations, Article 14 has evolved to
address complex issues of discrimination, social
justice, and fundamental rights. While
challenges persist in achieving its full potential,
the judiciary's role in upholding the principles of
Article 14 and expanding their application
cannot be understated. This constitutional
provision remains a powerful tool for
safeguarding the rights and dignity of all Indian
citizens, striving to create a more equitable and
just society.

20
21