1.

INTRODUCTION

In every modern democratic society, having a just and impartial judicial system is crucial.
The law must be upheld without favoritism towards any individual based on factors such as
class, status, or gender. If the law shows bias in any form, it fails in its fundamental duty of
ensuring justice. All individuals within a state should be seen as equals under the law,
without any special treatment based on unreasonable grounds like gender, race, or religion.
parts of the concept of the rule of law, as described by A.V. Dicey. These notions are
enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, guaranteeing that no citizen will face
discrimination due to unreasonable factors when applying or enforcing the law. Similarly,
Article 7 of the UDHR addresses this fundamental right.

2. Rule of Law
The concept of the rule of law has its origins in the French phrase „la principe de
legalite‟, which translates to the principle of legality. Initially introduced by Sir Edward
Coke, this principle signifies a government governed by laws rather than the discretion of
those in power. A.V. Dicey expanded upon this idea in his work „The Constitution of
England,‟ outlining three fundamental principles that constitute the concept of the rule of
law.

1. Supremacy of law

2. Equality before law

3. The predominance of legal spirit

As stated by Dicey, the idea of the rule of law necessitates equality in the eyes of the law
and the equal submission of all individuals to regular jurisdiction. According to A.V.
Dicey, no group of individuals should be under a distinct or special legal system. He
disapproved of the French legal framework of Droit Administrative, which created
separate courts to resolve disputes between government officials and civilians. The
foundation of the Indian Constitution lies in the rule of law, which is considered
paramount, with no one permitted to act against it.
 3. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution : equality before law’ and ‘equal
protection of law’

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures that every individual on Indian soil, regardless
of citizenship, is entitled to equality before the law and the equal protection of the law. This
key right comprises two components: 'equality before law,' reflecting English common law,
and 'equal protection of law,' drawn from the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The
notion of legal equality is integral to the broader idea of status equality outlined in the Indian
Constitution's preamble. Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi v. the Union of India1 (1978)
emphasized that equality is a dynamic principle beyond traditional boundaries. By preventing
arbitrary state actions, Article 14 promotes fairness and uniform treatment for all.

4. Meaning of ‘equality before law’

As per Dr. Jennings, equality before the law entails the fair and uniform enforcement and
application of laws among individuals considered equals. Every adult subject should have
an equal right to bring a legal claim or be sued for the same offense, regardless of factors
like race, religion, caste, social status, wealth, or influence. Article 14 ensures fairness in
treatment, emphasizing "equality under the law," which means that no special privileges
based on birth, class, or any other preferences should benefit any individual. It also
signifies that all individuals should be held accountable under the same legal system.

5. Exceptions to equality before law

 Some particular cases specified under Article 361 of the Indian Constitution include the
following circumstances:
 The President or a Governor of any state cannot be held accountable to any Court for
their official duties or powers.

1
1978 SCC (1) 248
 The President or a Governor of a state is exempt from facing any criminal charges
brought against them.
 Courts are prohibited from issuing any arrest or imprisonment orders for the President or
the Governor of a state while they are in office.
 No legal action seeking relief can be initiated against the President or the Governor of a
state without a prior notice of 2 months during their term.
 Moreover, under Article 361 A, members of Parliament or State Legislature are not
required to attend Court proceedings for criminal or civil cases when the legislative
session is ongoing.
 Articles 105 and 194 also declare that members of Parliament or State Legislature cannot
be held accountable in court for their speeches, opinions, or votes made in the legislative
bodies.
 Furthermore, foreign sovereigns, diplomats, and ambassadors are immune from any civil
or criminal proceedings as recognized globally.

6. Meaning of ‘equal protection of law’

The concept of „equal protection of the law‟ is a favorable one compared to „equality
before the law‟. It signifies that all individuals facing similar circumstances should
receive identical rights and responsibilities. This principle emphasizes treating equals
equally without any discrimination. It's crucial to ensure that individuals of the same
standing are treated fairly and without bias. Unequal individuals should not be treated on
the same level and should not face discrimination.

7. Distinction between equality before law and equal protection of law

The following are the differences between the expressions „equality before law‟ and
„equal protection of law‟:

1. The idea of 'equality before the law' focuses on the absence of special privileges
that may benefit any individual. In contrast, 'equal protection of the law' emphasizes
the fair treatment of individuals in similar circumstances.
 2. 'Equality before the law' originates from English Common Law, while 'equal
protection of the law' comes from the American Constitution.

3. The principle of 'equality before the law' stresses the application of ordinary laws to
all individuals through regular courts, ensuring that nobody is exempt from the law.
On the other hand, 'equal protection of the laws' requires that individuals facing
similar circumstances be treated equally under the law, emphasizing consistency in
legal application to like individuals.

In addition, this distinction has also been clarified in several cases. For instance, in the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America in the case of Sri srinivasa theatre v. government of tamil Nadu2 (1992),
the Court held that the terms 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of law' do not
mean the same thing, even though there are many similarities between them. The
meaning of the word 'law' in the first expression is more general, whereas the meaning
of the second expression is more specific. The Court held that 'equality before the law'
is a dynamic concept with multiple aspects. One aspect indicates the absence of a
privileged class or a person who is above the law, while the other indicates the duty of
the state to bring the society more into line with the principles of equality laid down in
the Constitution of India (Preamble) and Part IV of the Constitution (Anwar Ali
Sarkar v. State of West Bengal3 (1952)

8. Reasonable classification – an exception to Article 14

Class is a term used to describe a homogeneous group of persons who are brought
together because they possess certain characteristics. Article 14 prohibits any legislation
that classifies people. However, in certain circumstances, reasonable objects can be

2
1992 SCC (2) 643

3
1952 AIR 75
 subject to class legislation. The criteria for class legislation are set out in the judgments in
and vajravellu mudaliar vs. special deputy collector for land acquisition4 [1965].

1. The classification must not be arbitrary. There has to be some rational or substantial
reasoning behind the distinction drawn between the people who fall into the class and
the people who do not.

2. There has to be some rational object behind the classification that the legislation seeks
to achieve. The classification can be on the basis of various factors like geography,
age, or occupation. It is only required for the object of the legislation to match with
the classification.

9. The following are some of the grounds that are deemed to be reasonable in many
class legislations:

Geography

Sometimes geographical or territorial boundaries can be found to be the basis of

classification in many reasonable class legislations. In the case of Clarence Pais v. the
Union of India5 (2001), the Supreme Court held that “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”.

Under the provisions of the 1878 Arms Act, it is mandatory to apply to the Central
Government for authorisation to try the offence under the law. However, it is not

4
1965 AIR 1017

5
Writ Petition (civil) 137 of 1997
 compulsory to apply to the central government to try the offence in the north of the
Ganges river and the Yamuna river. This distinction is due to the political situation
prevailing in the year 1857. However, in 1962 in Jia Lal vs. Delhi Administration, it was
observed that this distinction is no longer applicable in the present circumstances.

Age

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 for instance, does not permit individuals below the age of
eighteen to enter into contracts. This is to protect minors from being bound by contractual
obligations which they may not have the capacity to understand.

In the case of Gautam Kapoor v. the State of Rajasthan6 (1987), the Court held that the
criteria that a candidate must be at least 17 years old to get entry into medical colleges are
reasonable as a certain amount of maturity is necessary.

Sex

For legitimate reasons, the State may enact laws that discriminate against men and
women. For example, adultery is punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, but only men are subject to this law; women are not. The constitutionality of this
section was contested in Yusuf v. the State of Bombay7 (1954). Because the provision
was based on a legitimate classification, it was deemed to be valid. In the Joseph Shine
v. Union of India 8(2018) case, the adultery provision was later decriminalized on the
grounds that it presumes the husband has control over his wife's sexuality. The Court

6
AIR 1987 RAJ 174

7
1954 AIR 321

8
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 194 OF 2017
 further stated that women have their own identities and stand on the same footing as men.
As a result, it was held that the classification made by this provision is arbitrary and
unreasonable and hence violates Article 14.

Single body or individual

It was decided in P.V. Sastri v. Union of India (1974) 9that the prime minister's position
is a class unto itself. Therefore, it was determined that allowing the Prime Minister to
utilise Indian Air Force planes for non-official events like elections does not violate
Article 14.

Nature of occupation

For justifiable reasons, the government may occasionally pass legislation restricting
particular industries or professions. This also applies to laws that grant the government
monopolies in particular industries. In the case of Amarchandra v. Excise
Collection10 (1972), the law that imposed some restrictions on liquor business was held to
be valid.

10.Other grounds

In addition to the reasons listed above, there are a few other valid categories as well, like citizens
and non-citizens, minors who have committed crimes and those who have not, regular suits and
suits on negotiable instruments, etc.

11. Important Cases on Article 14 of Constitution of India

9 AIR 1974 DELHI 1

10 1972 AIR 1863

  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India11

Facts: In the 2009 case NAZ Foundation v. N.C.T of Delhi12, the Delhi High Court ruled
that Section 377 of the IPC was unconstitutional. This ruling was contested in the 2014
Indian Supreme Court (SC) case Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. NAZ Foundation, and was
ultimately overturned by a two-judge bench. In Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2016), the SC
ruling was once more contested, this time before a five-judge bench. In this instance, Navtej
Singh Johar, a dancer who was a member of the LGBTQ community, filed a writ petition in
the SC pursuant to Article 32.

Issue: Is Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code constitutionally valid, and does it violate
Article 14's right to equal protection under the law when it comes to the consenting sexual
conduct of adults of the same sex in private?

Analysis: Using the principles of transformative constitutionalism and progressive

realisation of rights, it was determined that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code violated
Articles 21, 14, 15, 19, and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment: A bench consisting of J. Khanwilkar, J. Nariman, J. Chandrachud, J. Malhotra,

and then-acting Chief Justice Dipak Mishra ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The
Indian Penal Code's Section 377, which outlawed same-sex relationships between
consenting adults, was unanimously decriminalised by the Supreme Court's five-judge
bench. The legal option to choose a same-sex partner is available to the LGBT community.
The aforementioned portion of Section 377 was ruled to be unconstitutional and to violate
the rights to equality under the law and on the basis of sex, namely Articles 14 and 15.

11 AIR 2018 SC( CRI) 1169

12
2009 (6) SCC 712
  M. Nagaraj v. Union of India13

Facts: A five-judge constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

considered the M Nagraj case, addressing the question of "reservation in promotion" in
the context of constitutional law. The Indian Parliament inserted Arts. 16 (4A) and 16
(4B) through the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. This action
retroactively inserted Article 16 (4A), which was deemed to be against the fundamental
structure doctrine, the rule of equality, and the ruling in the Indra Sawhney and Ors v.
U.O.I. case.

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

Judgment: The constitutionality of arts. 16 (4A) and (4B) was maintained, so upholding
the constitutionality of the 77th, 81st, and 85th amendments. The Court noted that
although the basic structure theory included the doctrine of equality, it could not be
invoked since it did not contain the rule that forbade seniority from being conferred.
According to the Court, the State is not required to reserve seats for SCs and STs in
promotions, but if it does, it must submit the necessary information.
In reaching the aforementioned ruling, the Honourable Supreme Court carefully
considered and deliberated over Article 14 in the Obiter dicta and Ratio Decidendi of this
case, stating as follows:

 Indian Young lawyers association and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.14

Facts: The Indian Young Lawyers Association brought this matter before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in 2006 through a public interest litigation (PIL). The dispute
concerns the entry of women who are menstruation and between the ages of 10 and 50
into the Sabarimala Temple. The petitioners argued that the practice violated Article 14's

13 2006 (8) SCC 212

14
AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 243
 guarantee of equal protection under the law and that it violated Article 15 since it
discriminated against women. The Sabarimala Temple is located in Kerala's
Pathanamthitta District's Western Ghat Mountain Ranges, within the Periyar Tiger
Reserve. Lord Ayyappa is the reason for this temple's fame.

Issue Is the exclusionary practice against females based on the biological difference in
sex considered "discrimination" and is it against Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Indian
Constitution?

Judgment: The Sabarimala Temple's tradition of prohibiting menstruating women from

visiting the temple premises was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court by a vote of 4:1
among the five judges on the constitutional bench.

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.

 Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau Investigation15

15 2014 (8) SCC 682

There was debate over the legitimacy of Section 26(6) of the Central Vigilance
Commission Act and Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1964. In
cases where allegations concerned officials at the rank of Join Secretary or higher, the
provision required prior Central Government approval before conducting any inquiry or
investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court, sitting
in a five-judge panel, ruled that the provision was unconstitutional because it
discriminated against corrupt public servants because it could not be said that the
classification of these individuals was based on discernible differences. It is not
acceptable to justify the classification established by Section 6A by claiming that certain
officials have decision-making authority while other officers do not.

There is no consideration of decision-making competence when accusations are made

against a public official that would constitute an infraction under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The contested measure violates Article 14 of the Constitution due to the
vice. Furthermore, as a result of the contested legislation, a particular set of people—
high-ranking bureaucrats—whose wrongdoings and illegalities may require examination
would determine whether or not the CBI should launch an inquiry or probe into them.
The CBI is unable to even gather the necessary evidence to establish the validity of the
accusations at first glance.

Therefore, Section 6's goal is discriminatory in and of itself. The justification of

discrimination cannot be based on a logical classification that makes sense in respect to
the desired outcome. It is not possible to differentiate between public servants who are
accused of violating the Prevention of Corruption Act based on their status or position
within the organisation. The classification process fosters public harm and deters
criminal activity rather than eradicating it or accomplishing any positive public gain.

Conclusion

Equality before the law and equal protection under the law are phrases that can be found
in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. There is a small distinction between equal
protection under the law and equality before the law. But the latter is a component of the
 former. Equality before the law does not exist anywhere there is not equal protection
under the law. It's also important to highlight that this idea is not absolute because it only
applies to equals and not to unequals. The Constitution also gives the State the authority
to pass laws that exclusively affect specific groups of individuals in order to accomplish
specific justifiable goals.

References

 Dr. JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 59th Edition, Central Law Agency.
 MP Jain , Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, LexiNexis
 Adhila Muhammed Arif, “Equality before law and equal protection of law”,
ipleader.com (Accessed on 15 , March, 2024)