Introduction:The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality

through Article 14 to 18. In the series of Constitutional

provisions from Article 14 to 18, Article 14 is the most
significant.
Right to Equality has been declared as Basic Feature of Indian
Constitution by the Supreme Court.

Article 14
Right to Equality
Article 14 declares that the State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws within the territories of India.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: All
are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Article 14 uses two expressions:1) Equality before the law English Origin
2) Equal protection of the law American Origin
Both Equality before law and Equal protection of law aim to
establish the Equality of Status and Opportunity as embodied
in the Preamble of the Constitution.
Further, because all persons are not, by nature, attainment or
circumstances in the same positions; article 14 provides that
State can treat different persons differently if circumstances
justify such treatment. This is called Doctrine of Reasonable
Classification and it says that protective discrimination is also a
facet of equality.

1) Equality before the Law

Equality before the law is a concept implying absence of any
special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like in favour of
any individual, and also the equal subject of all individuals and
classes to the ordinary law of the land.
Equality before law means that no one is above the law of the
land.
It means that law does not discriminate on the basis of birth,
position, gender or other personal attributes.
Equality before the law is a negative concept which ensures
that there is no special privilege in favour of any one, that all
are equally subject to the ordinary law of the land and that no
person, whatever be his rank or condition, is above the law.
Dr. Jennings: Equality before the law means that among
equals the law should be equal and should be equally
administered, that like should be treated alike. The right
to sue and be sued, to prosecute and be prosecuted for
the same kind of action should be same for all citizens
of full age and understanding without distinctions of
race, religion, wealth, social status or political
influence.
Rule of Law
It means that no man is above the law and that every person,
whatever be his rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction
of ordinary courts.
Dicey: With us, every official from the Prime Minister
down to constable or a Collector of taxes is under the
same responsibility for every act done without legal
justification as any other citizen.

Prof. Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law:1) Absence of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy of the Law
It means the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to the
arbitrary power of the Government. A man may be punished for
a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else.
2) Equality before the Law
It means subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land
administered by ordinary law courts. This means that no one is
above law with the sole exception of the monarch who can do
no wrong.
3) The Constitution is the Result of the Ordinary Law of the
Land
It means that the source of the right of the individuals is not the
written Constitution but the rules as defined and enforced by
the courts.

2) Equal Protection of the Laws

The 14th Amendment of the American Constitution says that:
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Equal protection of Laws is a positive concept. It does not mean
that identically the same law should apply to all persons, or
that every law must have a universal application within the
country irrespective of differences of circumstances.
What it postulates is the application of the same laws alike and
without discrimination to all persons similarly situated.
It implies that among equals the law should be equal and
equally administered, that the like should be treated alike
without distinction of race, religion, wealth, social status or
political influence.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR
1952 SC 75, it was held that equal law should be applied to all
in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination
between one person and another.
In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC
2299, it was held that the Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 is
the basic feature of the Indian Constitution and hence it
cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the
Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution.

Exceptions to the Rule of Law:1) The scope of right to equality under Article 14 has been
considerably restricted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
The new Article 31-C added by the Amendment Act
provides that the laws made by the State for
implementing the Directive Principles contained in clause
(b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the
ground that they are violative of Article 14.
2) Article 359 (1) provides that where a proclamation of
emergency is in operation the President may, by order,
declare that the right to move any court for the
enforcement of such rights conferred by Part III (except
Arts. 20 and 21) shall remain suspended.
Thus, if the president of India issues an order, where a
proclamation of emergency is in operation, enforcement of
Article 14 may be suspended for the period during which
the proclamation is in force.
3) Article 361 lays down that the President and the
Governors are exempted from any criminal proceeding
during the tenure of their office.
4) Under International law, foreign sovereign and
ambassadors enjoy full immunity from any judicial
process. This is also available to enemy aliens for acts of
war.

Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class

legislation
Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable
classification.
In the case of R. K. Garg v. union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138, it
was held that the classification, however must not be
arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on some real
and substantive distinction bearing a just and reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.
In other words, Article 14 applies where equals are treated
differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and
unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply.
Test of Reasonable Classification
Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two
conditions:
1) The Classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group.
2) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act.
Case: State of Bihar v. Bihar 10+2 Lecturers
Associations
Citation: AIR 2007 SC 1948

Facts:Advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment

of lecturers in Secondary Schools. The qualification prescribed
in the Advertisement was Post-Graduate Degree in II Class.
There was no requirement of having training for appointment to
the said post. The controversy raised in the present matter
relates to difference of pay scales between lecturers who are
trained and lecturers who are untrained.
Held:Since Article 14 does not forbid classification but prohibits
discrimination, hence it was held that there is clear distinction
between a trained lecturer and an untrained lecturer. Such a
distinction is valid, rational and reasonable.
New Concept of Equality
Protection against Arbitrariness:In the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974
SC 555, the Supreme Court has challenged the traditional
concept of equality which was based on reasonable
classification and has laid down a new concept of equality.
Justice Bhagwati: 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
antithesis to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belong to the rule
of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and
caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is
arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal in both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is
therefore violative of Article 14.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC
597, Justice Bhagwati said: Equality is a dynamic concept
with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits.

Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and

ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The
principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as
philosophically, is an essential element of equality or
non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding
omnipresence.
In the case of International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC
1628, Justice Bhagawati said: The doctrine of
classification which is involved by the Court is not
paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end
of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for
determining whether the legislative or executive action
in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial
of equality.

Prior to these decisions, the view was that Article 14 forbade

discrimination and not classification provided the classification
fulfilled the two tests:
1) That it was based on intelligible differentia
2) That the differentia has a rational nexus with the object
which the law seeks to achieve.
However by these decisions it can be concluded that if the
action of State is arbitrary it cannot be justified even on the
basis of doctrine of classification. Where an act is arbitrary, it is
implicit in it that it is unequal and therefore violative of Article
14. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and
ensures fairness and equality of treatment.
Case: R. K. Ghosh v. J. G. Rajput
Citation: (1996) 6 SCC 744
Facts:-

In the recent case, the respondent who was an employee of the

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition in the
Gujarat High Court challenging his suspension. Mr. B. L.
Shethana, who had argued his case and obtained a stay order
was later appointed a Judge of the same High Court. In 1993,
the respondent was served with another charge sheet for theft
of some municipal property. This charge was not connected
with the earlier dispute. However, he filed a writ petition saying
that the said charge sheet be stayed and the appellant
municipal corporation be punished for contempt of the court
and two earlier orders be restored.
Held:The Supreme Court held that by the action of the Judge the rule
of law was violated and quashed the order of the High Court
and sent the matter for fresh hearing in accordance of law.

Reservation???
Reservation is a policy designed to redress past discrimination
against lower classes and minority groups through measures to
improve their economic and educational opportunities.
Reservation is an attempt to promote equal opportunity. It is
often instituted in government and educational settings to
ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all
programs. The justification for reservation is to compensate for
past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling
class of a culture or to address existing discrimination. The
principle of affirmative action is to promote social equality
through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically
disadvantaged people. Moreover the basic aim of reservation is
to create social equality. Social equality is a social state of
affairs in which all people within a specific society or an isolated
group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very
least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such

as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and

the extent of property rights. However, it also includes access
to education, health care and other social securities. It also
includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves
the whole society.

In the case of Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana, (1984) 4 SCC

296, the reservation of 25 seats for admission to M.B.B.S. and
B.D.S. course for students who were educated from classes I to
VIII in the common rural schools was held to be violative of
Article 14 and invalid as the classification between the rural
educated and urban educated students for this purpose was
wholly arbitrary and irrational having no nexus to the object
sought to be achieved of providing extra facilities to the
students coming from rural schools to enter medical college.
Hence the reservation based on such classification was held to
be constitutionally invalid.

Censorship???
In the case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481,
the validity of Cinematograph Act, 1952 was challenged on the
ground that it makes unreasonable classification. Under the Act,
cinema films are classified into two categories, viz. U films
and A films according to their suitability for adults or young
people. It was argued that motion picture is a form of
expression and, therefore, entitled to equal treatment with
other forms of expression.
Since the motion picture is able to stir up emotions more
deeply than any other product of art. Its effect particularly on

children and adolescent is very great since their immaturity

makes them more willingly suspend their disbelief than mature
men and women. Thus it was held by the Court that the
treatment of motion picture must be different from that of other
forms of art and expression.

Admissions???
In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487, the
Regional Engineering College made admissions of candidates
on the basis of oral interview after a written test. The test of
oral interview was challenged on the ground that it was
arbitrary and unreasonable because high percentage of marks
were allocated for oral test, and candidates were interviewed
only 2 or 3 minutes.
The Court held that allocation of high percentage of marks for
oral interview was plainly arbitrary and unreasonable and
violative of Article 14. The Court said that the oral interview
test is subjective and its result is influenced by many uncertain
factors and it is capable of abuse.
The Court also held that in absence of better test for measuring
characteristics and tracts, the oral interview test must be
regarded as rational or relevant. An oral interview test cannot
be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be used as an
additional or supplementary test.

However, in the case of D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India, (1993) 3

SCC 662, the Supreme Court held that the same test/decision
which was evolved in the case of Ajay Hasia and Ashok Kumar
Yadav v. State of Haryana cannot be applied in every case and
particularly in selection of professionals.