RIGHT TO EQUALITY: Article 14 TO

18

ARTICLE 14
Article 14 embodies the general principles
of equality before law and prohibits
unreasonable discrimination.
Article 15, 16, 17 and 18 lay down specific
application of general rules laid down in
Article 14.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place
of birth.
Article 16: Equality of opportunity in
matters of Public employment.
Art 17: Abolition of untouchability
Art 18: Abolition of titles

Article 14 declares that State shall not deny

to any person equality before the law or
equal protection of Laws within the territory
of India.
Article 14 consists of two expressions. The
first expression Equality before the Law is
of English origin. The second expression
Equal protection of Law has been taken
from the American Constitution.
Both these expression aims at establishing
Equality of status. Both expressions seem
to be identical; they do not convey the same
meaning.
The Equality before the Law is a negative
concept. It implies the absence of any
special privilege in favour of individuals and
the equal subject of all classes to the
ordinary law.

Equal protection of the Law is more positive

concept. It implies the equality of treatment
in equal circumstances.
But the aim of both expressions is that of
equal justice.
In STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs
ANWAR ALI SARKAR
Chief Justice PATANJALI SASTRI
observed that the second expression is
Corollary (heart) of the first concept and it is
difficult to imagine a situation in which the
violation of the equal protection of laws will
not be the violation of the equality before
law. Thus the expression is one and the same
thing.
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW:
The concept of equality does not mean
absolute equality among human beings
which is physically not possible to achieve.
It implies the absence of any special
privilege by reason of birth, creed or in
favour of any individual and also the equal
subject of all individuals and classes to the
ordinary law of the land.
According to Dr.JENNINGS, Equality
before the Law means that among equals the
law should be equal and should be
administered. 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 without distinction of race, religion,
wealth, social status etc.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS:
It means all persons in similar circumstances
shall be treated alike both in the privileges
conferred and liabilities imposed by the
Laws. Equal Law should be applied to all in
the same situation and there should be no
discrimination between one person and
another. Like should be treated alike and not
that unlike should be treated alike.

INDIRA GANDHI Vs RAJ NARAIN

Article 14 is the basic feature of the Indian
Constitution and it cannot be destroyed even
by an amendment of the Constitution under
Article 368 of the Constitution.
The word any person in Article 14
includes any Company or Association or
Body of individuals.
The protection under Article 14 extends to
both citizens and non-citizens and to natural
persons as well as legal persons.
Corporations being Juristic persons are also
entitled to the benefit under Article 14.

RULE OF LAW :
The Equality before the Law is called as
RULE OF LAW in ENGLAND. It means no
man is above the Law and every person is
subject to the Jurisdiction of ordinary
Courts.
Every official from 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.
A person shall not be subjected to harsh,
uncivilized or discriminatory treatment even
when the object is the securing of the
paramount exigencies of Law and Order.
According to Prof. DICEY, the Rule of
Law has three meanings they are as follows:
1) Absence of arbitrary power or
Supremacy of the Law: A man may be
punished for a breach of Law but he can
be punished for nothing else.
 2) Equality before Law: No one is
above the Law.
3) Constitution is the result of the
ordinary Law of Land: It means source
of right of individuals is not the written
Constitution but the rules as defined and
enforced by the courts.
Exception to Article 14:
The above rule of Equality is not an absolute
and there are number of exceptions to it.
a) Foreign Diplomats are immune from
the Jurisdiction of the Courts.
b) Article 361 affords immunity to the
President of India and State Governors.
Article 361 provides that the President or the
Governor of the State shall not be
answerable to any Court for the exercise and
performance of the powers and duties of the
office or for any act done or purporting to be
done by him in the exercise and
performance of those powers and duties.
No criminal proceeding shall be instituted or
continued against the President or the
Governor of the State in any court during his
return of office. No process for the arrest or
imprisonment of the President or the
Governor of the State shall be issued from
any court during his term of office.
c) Ministers and other executive bodies
are given wide discriminatory powers by
statue. A Minister may be allowed by
Law to act as he thinks fit or if he is
satisfied.

d) Certain members of society are

governed by special rules in their
professions i.e., Lawyers, Doctors,
members of Armed forces and Police.
Such classes of people are treated
differently from ordinary citizens.

e) 42nd Amendment Act 1976:

New Article 31C added by the Amendment
Act 1976 provides that 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.
Such laws will be an exception to Article 14
of the Constitution.
In SANJEEV COKE MGF. CO Vs
BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD.
The Supreme Court has held that where
Article 31 C comes in Article 14 goes out.
Article 14 PERMITS CLASSIFICATION
BUT PROHIBITS CLASS
LEGISLATION
Article 14 (Equal Protection of Laws) does
not mean that all Laws must be general in
character. It does not mean that the same
Laws should apply to all persons.
It does not mean that every Law must have
universal application for all persons.
The varying needs of different classes of
persons often require separate treatment.
Form the vary nature of society there should
be different laws in different places. In fact
identical treatment in unequal circumstances
would amount to inequality. So, reasonable
classification is necessary if society is to
progress.
Thus Article 14 forbids (prevents or
prohibits) class Legislation but it does not
forbid reasonable classification. However,
the classification must not be arbitrary,
artificial or evasive (i.e., intentional
avoidance of something disagreeable but
must be based on some real and substantial
distinction bearing a just and reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the Legislation).

Article 14 applies where equals are treated

differently without any reasonable basis, but
where equals and unequal are treated
differently Article 14 doesnt apply.
TEST OF REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION:
Classification to be reasonable must fulfil
the following two conditions:
1) The classification must be founded
on intelligible (understandable)
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.
Differentia which is the basis of the
classification and the object of the Act are
two distinct things. There must be a nexus
between the basis of classification and the
object the Act which makes the
Classification.
Air India vs Nargesh meerza
In this case air India and Indian airlines
regulations 46, 47 were challenged
Regulation 46 provides that an air hostess
would retire from the service of the
corporation upon attaining the of 35 years,
or on marriage if it took place within four
yrs of service or on first pregnancy which
ever occurred earlier .
Regulation 47 provides that the managing
director has the discretion to extend the age
of retirement by one yr at a time beyond the
age of 45 yrs if she is found medically fit
The court held that termination of service on
pregnancy was manifestly unreasonable and
arbitrary and violation of article 14. Having
taken in service and after having utilized her
services for 4 yrs to terminate her service if
she becomes pregnant amounts to
compelling the poor air hostess not to have
any children and interfere with and divert
the ordinary course of human nature.
Regulation 47 which vests discretionary
power to the managing director to extend the
service of air hostess is also held to be
unconstitutional since it doesnt lay down
any principle or guidelines .
NEW CONCEPT OF EQUALITY:

In E. P. RAYAPPA Vs STATE OF
TAMILNADU
The Supreme Court challenged the
traditional concept of Equality which was
based on reasonable classification and has
laid down a new concept of Equality.
Justice. BHAGAWATI, pronounced the new
concept of Equality in the following words
Equality is a dynamic concept with many
aspects and dimension and it cannot be
cribbed, cabined and confined within
traditional and doctrinaire limits. Form the
positivistic point of view Equality is
antithetic to arbitraries. In fact Equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies. One
belongs to the rule of law in republic while
the other to wimp a fancy caprice of an
absolute monarch where an act is arbitrary it
is implicit in it that unequal both according
to political logic and Constitutional law and
violative of Article 14.
Thus according to this Doctrine that content
and reach of Article 14 cannot be
determined on the basis of the Doctrine of
Classification.
Prior to this doctrine the view was that
Article 14 forbade discrimination and not
classification. Provided the classification
fulfilled the two tests:
1) It was based on intelligible
differentia and
2) The differentia has a rational nexus
with the object which the law seeks to
achieve.

But according to the new doctrine, the

doctrine of classification is merely a judicial
formula for determining whether the
Legislative or the Executive action is
arbitrary and therefore constitutes a denial of
equality. Article 14 has rightly activist
magnitude (importance) and it embodies a
guarantee against arbitrariness.

The conclusion is that if the action of the

state is arbitrary it cannot be justified even
on the basis of doctrine of classification.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LIMITS

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ARTICLE
14:

1) Article 31 C (42nd Amendment Act

1976): laws made by the state to
 implement the Directive Principles of
State Policies (DPSP) contained in
clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39
cannot be challenged on the ground that
they are violative of Article 14. Such
laws will be an exemption to Article 14.
In, SANJEEV COKE Mfg. CO Vs
BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD,
Supreme court held that when Article 31-C
comes in, Article 14 goes out.

2) Article 359: During emergency

period the President may by order
declare that Article 32 for the
enforcement part III except 20 & 21
 shall remain suspended. So Article 14
may be suspended during emergency.

3) Article 361: Exemption of

President or Governors from any
criminal proceedings during the tenure
of their office.

4) Foreign Diplomats.

BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION:
The Constitutionality of every statute
depends upon the basis for the classification
made in the statute. The basis of
classification may be different.
 1) Geographical basis:
A State may be divided into several
geographical regions and a law may be
applicable to one region and not to other
depending upon particular circumstances.

KRISHNA SINGH Vs S. RAJASTHAN

In this case MARWAR LAND REVENUE
ACT 1949 was challenged on the ground
that it applied only to marwar portion of
the state of rasjasthan and not to the
whole state.
The supreme court held that particular
conditions of marwar portion of the state
required a speciallaw to be applied there
hence such law not to be violative of
article 14 .

2) Discrimination by the State in its

own favour:
The State as a person constitutes a different
class as compared with private citizens.
In SAGAR AHMED Vs STATE OF
U.P.

The Supreme Court held that a monopoly

created by the State in its favour was held
not to violate Article 14.
 In BABU RAO Vs BOMBAY
HOUSING BOARD
A law which exempts the factories run by
the Govt. from operation but applied to other
factories or local authorities was held not to
be discriminatory.

3) Article 14 and Taxation law:

The State i.e., Legislative has ample
freedom and wide powers in selecting
persons or objects on which it will tax and a
statute is not open to attack on the ground
that it taxes some persons and objects and
not to others.
But it does not mean that the taxation law
can claim immunity from the equality clause
in Article 14. It has to pass like any other
law the equality test laid down in Article 14.

4) Special Courts and Special

Procedure:
Under Article 246(2) Parliament by Law is
empowered to set up special courts and to
provide special procedure for the trial of
certain offences or classes of offences. Such
laws will not be violative Article 14, if it
lays down proper guidelines for classifying
offences or classes of offences or classes of
cases to be tried by Special Courts.
But special procedure prescribed by such a
law should not be substantially different
from the procedure prescribed under an
ordinary law.
The first leading case on this topic is:

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs

ANWAR ALI SARKAR
Under article 246 (2) parliament by law is
empowered to setup special courts and to
provide special procedure for the trail of
certain offenses, or classes of offences.
Such law will not be violative of article 14,
if it lays down proper guidelines for
classifying offences or classes of offences
to be tried by special court but special
procedure should not be substantially
different from the procedure prescribed
under ordinary law.
In this case, the Court held that sec.5(1) of
WEST BENGAL SPECIAL COURT ACT
1850, contravened Article 14 and was void
since it conferred arbitrary power on the
Govt. to classify the offences or cases as its
pleasure.
The Act didnt lay down any policy or
guidelines for the exercise of discretion to
classify cases or offences.
 But in KATHI RANNING Vs STATE
OF SAURASTRA
The validity of similar Act was upheld on
the ground that it had laid down proper
guidelines for the exercise of discretion by
the executive to refer cases to special court
for trial. The object mentioned in that
ordinance was to provide for public safety
public order and preservation of peace and
tranquility in the state of Saurashtra.

The court said that the main distinction

between the West Bengal case and
Saurashtra ordinance was, while in the
former there was no principle to be found to
control the application of discriminatory
provisions or to correlate these provisions to
some reasonable, tangible and rational
objective.
The latter clearly laid down the guiding
principle that is to provide for public safety,
maintenance of public order and
preservation of peace and tranquility in
State.

5) Single individual may constitute a

class:
In CHIRANJIT LAL Vs UNION OF
INDIA
 (SHOLAPUR SPINNING MILLS
case)
Owing to mismanagement in Sholapur
spinning and weaving company the
management of the company threatened
to close down the mill . the government of
india passed Sholapur spinning and
weaving companies act empowering the
government to take over the control and
management of company and its property
by appointing their directors
The court held that a law may be
constitutional though it applies to a single
individual if on account of some special
circumstances or reasons applicable and not
applicable to others, that single individual
may be treated as a class itself.
6) Education can be the basis of
classification
State of Bihar v/s Bihar 10+2 lectures
association
The classification made between the
teachers as trained teacher and un trained
teacher and fixation of different pay scales
for trained teachers and untrained teachers is
valid and doesnt amounts to violation of
article 14
D.K.YADAV Vs J M A INDUSTRIES
The Supreme Court held that there is no
distinction between a quasi judicial function
and administrative function for the purpose
of application of rules of natural Justice.