Right to Equality - Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Equality clause, embodied in Article 14, does not speak of mere formal equality before the law but embodies the concept of real and substantive equality which strikes at the inequalities arising on account of vast social and economic differentiation and is thus consequently an essential ingredient of social and economic justice.

The concept of equality has been held basic to the rule of law and is regarded as the most fundamental postulate of republicanism. In Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, the majority of the Supreme Court has held that the right to equality conferred in Article 14 if a Basic Structure of the Constitution and an essential feature of democracy or rule of law. 

Article 14 outlaws discrimination in a general way and guarantees equality before law to all persons. In view of a certain amount of indefiniteness attached to general principle of equality enunciated in Article 14, separate provision to cover specific discriminatory situations have been made by subsequent Articles. Thus, Article 15 prohibits discrimination against citizens on such specific grounds as religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees to the citizens of Indian equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, and Article 18 abolishes titles, other than a military or academic distinction. Thus, the Supreme Court has said that the Constitution of Indian lays down provisions both for protective discrimination as also as affirmative discrimination.

    - Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath, (2009) 5 SCC 1.

Article 14 is the genus while Article 15 and 16 are the species. Article 14, 15, and 16 are constituents of a single code of constitutional guarantees implementing each other. Article 14 of the constitution embodies the principle of “non-discrimination”. However, it is not a free standing provision. It has to be read in conjunction with rights conferred by other articles like Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 refers to ‘right to life’ and embodies several aspects of life. 

The Preamble to the Constitution emphasizes upon the principle of equality as basic to the constitution. This means that even a constitutional amendment offending the right to equality will be declared invalid. Neither Parliament nor any State Legislature can transgress the principle of equality. 

Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India, This provision confers rights on all persons whether citizens or foreigners. Moreover, the word ‘person’ includes legal persons, viz, statutory corporations, companies, registered societies or any other type of legal person.

Relying on the judgment and distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in N.H.R.C. v. State of A.P. (1996), the Madras High Court in David John Hopkins v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Mad 366, held that foreign nationals did not have any fundamental right guaranteed for the grant of Citizenship of India, in matters where the Government of India had unrestricted powers under the Citizenship Act, 1955, to refuse citizenship, without assigning any reason whatsoever and that a foreign national could not claim rights under Article 14 with that of the Indian nationals.

Article 14 uses two expressions, namely-a). Equality before law, and b). Equal protection of laws.

Equality before Law:

 The phrase equality before law finds place in almost all written     constitutions that guarantee fundamental rights. It is English in origin. It is a familiar feature of what Dicey called the “rule of Law”. It means that no man is above the law and that every person whatever be his rank or condition, is subjected to the ordinary law of the land and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.

In K.C. Sarkar v. Rajesh rajan, (2005) 3 SCC 307, a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that M.P/Influential politicians were not above the law and while in custody, were to be kept in prison like any other normal prisoner. 

 Equality of law thus means absence of any special privileges to any particular person. It also strikes at arbitrary power on the part of the Government. It is therefore a negative concept.

Equal protection of Laws:

The phrase “equal protection of laws” is based on Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America adopted on July 28, 1868 which runs as: “nor shall the state- deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws”.

It requires that equal laws should be applied to all in the same situation and that there should be no discrimination between one person and another. Thus it lays down the rule that “like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike”. It is known to be positive in content. 

Thus, the former is a negative concept while the latter is a positive concept. However, both of them aim at establishing equality of legal status, opportunity and justice.

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on Dec 10, 1948 uses the both expressions. It says, “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 Sc 999, the Supreme Court held that both the expressions in Article 14 did not mean the same thing, even though there was much in common between them. The court explained that the “Law” in the former expression was used in generic sense, whereas in the latter expression the word “Laws” denoted specific laws in force.

Exceptions: 

The rule of equality before law is not absolute and there are constitutional and other exceptions to it. These are:

1. The President of India and the Governor of States enjoy the following immunities (Article 361)
2. No member of a Parliament or a member of a State Legislature shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or State legislature or any committee thereof. (Article 105 & Article 194)
3. Article 31-C is an exception to Article 14. It provides that the laws made by the State for implementing the D.P.S.P contained in clause (b) or (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court has held that “where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out.”
4. The foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambassadors and diplomats enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings. The UNO and its agencies enjoy the diplomatic immunity.

Article 14 permits “Reasonable Classification” but prohibits “Class Legislation”

Classification is merely a systematic arrangement of things into groups or classes, in accordance with some definite scheme. But, classification permitted by Article 14 must rest upon reasonable grounds of distinction. It must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”. It must be reasonable classification.

In Charanjit Lal Choudhury vs. The Union of India (1951 AIR 41) interpreting the scope of the Article, the Supreme Court of India held that: 

(a) Equal protection means equal protection under equal circumstances; 

(b) The state can make reasonable classification for purposes of legislation; 

(c) Presumption of reasonableness is in favour of legislation; 

(d) The burden of proof is on those who challenge the legislation. 

Article 14 prohibits class legislation. Class legislation means differentiating between same class of persons. When persons belong to same class, they have to be treated equally in such matters. Law would be violative of Article 14 if it treats these persons differently.

In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1883 SC 130, the Supreme Court struck down as violative of Article 14, a Pension Rule classifying between government pensioners retiring before March 31, 1979 and those retiring on or after the due date, since they belonged to the same class for the purpose of computation of their pension.

Tests for Reasonable Classification

The Court in leading judgment R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 laid down the following tests to determine the question of reasonableness of a classification. these have been held to be the central tests for permissible classification. These are-

(a). that, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distnguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and

(b). that, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question.

The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase 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. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached.

Various rules were enunciated by the American Suprme Court in Middleton v. Texas Power & L. Company (248 US 152) which have been consistently adopted and elaborated in Re Special Courts Bill AIR 1978 SC 478, by Justice Chandrachud. The judge explained –

i). That by the process of classification, the State had the power of determining, who should be regarded as the class for purposes of legislation and in relation to a law, enacted on a particular subject,
ii). The classification meant segregation in classes which had a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characterstics. it postulated a rational basis and did not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily,
iii). It could even recognize even the degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
iv). Discretionary power would not necessarily be discriminatory power. Mere assumption that the authority conferred with discretion by law, would act in arbitrary manner in exercising the discretion would not be discriminative of the constitutionality of the law.

v). A rule of procedure laid down by the law came as much within the purview of Article 14 as any other substantive law.

Article 14 strikes at arbitratiness:

In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, the Supreme Court has given a dynamic connotation to the equalising principle as a founding faith, a way of life and for that it must not be subjected to a narrow or pedantic approach. 

Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbled, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs 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 both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.

This vital aspect which was till then lying latent and submerged in the few simple but pregnant words of Article 14 was explored and brought to light in Royappa's case and it was reaffirmed and elaborated by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) where this Court observed: "Now the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14 : what is the content and reach of the great equalizing principle enunciated is this article ? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the constitution. “

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487, the Supreme Court struck down as constitutionally invalid, the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview for admission to the Engineering College and declared it as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness. The court observed that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.

Wherever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action whether it is of the legislature or of the executive or of "authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.