Law and You > Constitutional Law > Equality Before Law (Article 14)

Part III of the Constitution is said to contain the Bill of Rights available to the people of India. This chapter of the Constitution has been described as `Magna Carta’ of India. The inclusion of a Chapter of Fundamental Rights (Chapter III) in the Constitution of India is in accordance with the trend of modern democratic thoughts. Fundamental Rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachment of the power delegated by them to their government. In this Article we shall discuss the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law as mentioned in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fundamental Rights mentioned under Article 14-35 of the Constitution of India can be categorized as follows: 

• Right to Equality (Article 14-18): Right to equality including equality before the law, the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment.
• Right to Freedom (Article 19-22):  Right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association or union, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or Occupation.   Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended during the National Emergency.   It also recognized under the United Nations-Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.
• Right against Exploitation (Article 23-24):  Right against exploitation prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and traffic in human beings.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25-28):  Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practise, and propagation of religion.
• Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30):  Right of any section of citizens to conserve their culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32-35):  Right to Constitutional remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Right to Equality:

Right to equality is very important in a society like ours. Right to Equality means that all citizens enjoy equal privileges and opportunities. The purpose of this right is to establish the rule of law where all the citizens should be treated equal before the law. It has five provisions (Articles 14-18) to provide for equality before law or for the equal protection of law to all the persons in India and also to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Right to Equality includes five types of equalities.

1. Equality before law (Article 14)
2. Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15)
3. Equality of opportunities in matters of public employment (Article 16)
4. Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)
5. Abolition of titles (Article 18)

Equality Before Law:

The Constitution guarantees that all citizens will be equal before law. It means that everyone will be equally protected by the laws of the country. No person is above law. It means that if two persons commit the same crime, both of them will get the same punishment without any discrimination.

Article 14:

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.

Important Facts about Article 14:

• Art. 14 is taken from the concept of equal protection of laws from the Constitution of the USA and English Common Law.
• Article 14 says that state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Art. 14 is available to any person including legal person viz. statutory corporation, companies, etc. including foreign nationals (excluding enemy aliens) on the soil of India.
• The concept of the rule of law is a negative concept while the concept of equal protection of laws is a positive concept.
• The concept of equality before the law is equivalent to the second element of the concept of the ‘rule of law’ propounded by A.D. dicey, the British jurist. But certain exceptions to it are, the President of India, State Governors, Public Servants, Judges, Foreign Diplomats, etc., who enjoy immunities, protections, and special privileges.

Dicey’s Doctrine of Equality Before Law:

The principle of equality before the law owes its origin to the doctrine of Rule of Law propounded by Prof. Dicey in his book The Law of the Constitution (1885). Prof. Dicey gave three implications of the doctrine of Rule of Law-

• Supremacy of Law/Absence of Arbitrary Power: It means no man is above law. No man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law established in an ordinary legal manner before ordinary courts. The government cannot punish any one merely by its own fiat. Persons in authority do not enjoy wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers. Dicey asserted that wherever there is discretion there is room for arbitrariness.
• Equality Before the Law: It implies equal subjugation of all citizens to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts of law. Thus, every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law and jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. No person should be made to suffer in body or deprived of his property except for a breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.
• Primacy of The Rights of The Individual: Constitution is the result of the rights of the individuals rather than being the source of them. The general principles of the British Constitution, especially the liberties and the rights of the people must come from traditions and customs of the people and be recognized by the courts in administration of justice from time to time.

Meaning of Equality Before Law:

This concept is taken from English Common Law. ‘Equality before law’ means that no person is above law and all are equal before the law, every individual has equal access to the courts. The Article, commands the State not to deny to any person ‘equality before law’. ’. Equality before law prohibits discrimination.

Thus, the equality before the law connotes equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land. Every person, whatever be his rank or position, is subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. It means no man is above the law and that every person, high or low, is subject to the ordinary law of the land. Prof. Dicey in explaining the concept of legal equality, as operating in England, said: “With us, every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every Act done without any legal justification as any other citizen.”.

In Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh, AIR 1999 SC 1160 case, the Court observed that equality clause in Constitution does not speak of mere formal “equality before law” but embodies the concept of real and substantive equality which strikes of the inequalities arising on account of vast social, economic differentiation and is thus consequently an essential ingredient of social and economic justice…….”

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, 7 November, 1975 case,the Supreme Court held that that “rule of law” enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution is a part of the basic structure of the constitution. It cannot be curtailed or destroyed even by an amendment to the constitution.

Meaning of Equal protection of Laws:

The expression, “equal protection of laws”, is a corollary of the first expression “equality before the law”, and is based on the last clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the American Constitution. It directs that equal protection shall be secured to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union in the enjoyment of their rights and privileges without favouritism or discrimination. ‘Equal protection of laws’ means that if two persons belonging to two different communities commit the same crime, both of them will get the same punishment. It positive in concept because it expects a positive action from the state.

In Probhudas Morarjee v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1044 case, the Court observed that to make out the case of denial of equal protection of the law under Article 14 of the Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not sufficient. An applicant pleading that Article 14 has been violated must make out that not only he had been treated differently from others but he has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis and such differential treatment is unjustifiably made.

In Chiranjitlal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 case, The court held that equal protection of the laws means right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges conferred as well as in the liabilities imposed by the law.

In Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602 case, the Supreme Court while interpreting the expression “equal protection of the law” as embodied in Article 14 has laid down following rules of guidance to check whether any enactment passed by State is violative of Article 14 or not:-

1. If the statute itself or the rule made under it applies unequally to persons or things similarly situated it would be an instance of direct violation of Constitutional guarantee.
2. The enactment or the rule might not in terms enact a discriminatory rule of law but might enable an unequal or discriminatory treatment to be accorded to persons or things similarly situated. The very provision of the law which enables or permits the authority to discriminate in certain circumstances offends the guarantee of equal protection afforded by Article 14.
3. The above rule would not apply to cases where the legislature lays down the policy and indicates the rule or line of action which should serve as guidance to the authority. Where such guidance is expressed in the statutory provision conferring the power no question of violation of Article 14 could arise.
4. For the legislation to comply with the rule as to equal protection, it is not essential that the rules for the guidance of the designated authority should be laid down in express terms.

In Shivshankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh I.L.R. (1851) Nag 656 case, the Court observed that the expression “Equality before law” is somewhat negative concept, implying absence of any special privilege in favour of individuals, while the expression “Equal protection of law” is more positive concept, implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances.

In State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1955) 1 S.C.R. 568 case, the Court approved the test for determining whether an impugned law violates Article 14. The test is that the effect of the impugned Act on the right conferred by Article 14.

In P. Sarita v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1124, case the Court held that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. (Equal pay for equal work).

In Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. T.N., AIR 1992 SC 999 case, the Supreme Court explained that the two expressions equality before the law and equal protection of law do not mean the same thing even if there may be much in common between them. Equality before the law is a dynamic concept having many facets. One facet is that there shall be no privileged person or class and that none shall be above law. Another facet is the obligation upon the State to bring about, through the machinery of law, an equal society or, equality before the law can be predicated meaningfully only in equal society. The Court also opined that the equality before law can be predicated meaningfully only in an equal society i.e. in society contemplated by Article 38 of the Constitution.

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 case, the Court observed that the second expression is the corollary of the first and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the violation of equal protection of laws will not be the violation of the equality before the law. Thus, in substance, the two expressions mean one and the same thing.

In Stephens College v. The University of Delhi, 6 December, 1991 case, the admission quota involved a specific percentage of reservations for Christian students. It was challenged on the ground of equality. The Supreme court held that this treatment doesn’t violate the principle of equality and minority institutions that receive aid from the state can reserve some seats for their particular community.

In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829 case, a regulation provided that an air hostess would retire from the service attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage within 4 years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurred earlier. The regulation authorized the Managing Director to extend the age of retirement to 45 years at his option if an air hostess was found medically fit. The Regulation did not contain any guidelines or the policy according to which the discretion conferred on the Managing Director was to be exercised. The regulation conferred on the Managing Director was unguided and uncontrolled discretion. The termination of the service of an air hostess on pregnancy was unreasonable and arbitrary. The regulation was held to be violative of Article 14 as it was unreasonable and arbitrary.

Exceptions to Article 14:

It should be noted that there are no such things as absolute equality. Law should be equal among equals. In other words, like should be treated alike

• Under Art. 359, when the proclamation of emergency is in operation, the enforcement of Article 14 may be suspended during that period. Article 361 provides that president and governors shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office. They also enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings until certain conditions are fulfilled.
• Members of Parliament and of State Legislature are not liable in respect of anything done or said within the House (Arts. 105 and 194). Foreign Diplomats are immune from the jurisdiction of Courts. Art. 31 C forms an exception by excluding some laws [for implementing any of the directive principles specified in Art. 39(b) or (c)] from the purview of Art. 14.
• The rule of law does not prevent a certain class of persons being subject to special rules. Thus, members of armed forces are controlled by military rules. Certain members of society are governed by special rules in their profession i.e. lawyers, doctors, nurses, members of armed forces and police. Such classes of people are treated differently from ordinary citizens.

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 case, the Supreme Court held that the right to equality is not absolute and it includes some meaningful exceptions.

In the Re: The Special Courts Bill, … v. Unknown, AIR 1979 SC 478 case, the validity of the establishment of special court was challenged before the hon’ble supreme court on the ground of violating Article 14 of the constitution. The court held that there was reasonability and rationality behind the motive of the establishment of these courts, thereby it is not in violation of Article 14 of our Constitution.

Reasonable Classification:

Article 14 has provided the provision for equality of all people before the law but every person is not the same and therefore it is not practically possible to have a universal application of equality. Thus, the laws cannot be of a general character and some classification is permitted under Article 14.

As we already discussed, the right to equality is not absolute and some special treatment may be provided to an individual as per the circumstances. Thus, the doctrine of reasonable classification was derived by our hon’ble Supreme Court. This doctrine permits the reasonable classification of individuals, things, etc for achieving a particular objective in society. However, it is important to note that this doctrine also forbids “class legislation”.

The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from other. Arbitrariness is an anti-thesis to the right to equality. Hence, there should be no scope of arbitrariness in classification. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. It is necessary that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act which makes the classification. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory.

Class Legislation refers to making improper discrimination and conferring special privileges to a certain class of person which is arbitrarily selected. In other words, the people who are at the receiving end are equal in status with other people and there is no special need for that provision. So, we can say that class legislation makes unreasonable discrimination between various classes which all are on equal footing.

Examples of Reasonable Classification:

Special Provisions for Women and Children and SC, ST & Backward Classes:

Article 14 of Indian constitution law says that all are equal in the eye of law. No one can prevent the state from making any special provisions for women and children. For a examples, special seating arrangement for women in buses, trains, metros trains is not unconstitutional. There are seat reservations in educational institutes for SC/ST and women. There is reservation for women in Panchayats and Municipal bodies.

In Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Mr. Justice S. R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 case, The Supreme Court did following observations:

• The principle to mind when deciding whether the statute is legal or in violation of Article 14 is that nothing in Article 14 prohibits any reasonable classification. It does, however, ban discrimination in both substantive and procedural law.
• Matters of common knowledge, matters of common respect and history of the times may be taken in consideration by the court so as to sustain the presumption of constitutionality.
• Although the presumption of constitutionality is necessary, it cannot be expanded to the point where it is assumed that there must be some secret and anonymous motives for subjecting some individuals or organizations to antagonistic or discriminatory legislation.

On the issue of reasonable classification, the Apex Court made following observations:

• A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself.
• That there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles.
• That it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;
• Classification need not be specifically perfect. Equal treatment – not identical treatment.
• Discrimination can be in substantive and procedural laws.

In Saurabh Chaudhari v Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212 case, the Supreme Court laid down the test that determines whether the special treatment is based on reasonable classification or not. The classification will be considered reasonable if 2 conditions are satisfied which are described below –

• The classification must be based on reasonable differentia. It means that the people who are selected must be different in status or position from those who are left out. In simple words, the statute or the Act must demonstrate that there are some special or considerable grounds of difference between both groups.
• There must be sufficient nexus between the differential classification and the object sought with the act. In simple words, it is essential to demonstrate that the classification is necessary for achieving a particular objective

Doctrine Of Non-Arbitrariness

In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 23 November, 1973 case, where the doctrine of reasonable classification was challenged before the hon’ble supreme court. In this case, a new doctrine was evolved. This was known as the doctrine of non-arbitrariness. The court held that equality is a very dynamic concept and cannot be confined to the existing limit. As per this doctrine, equality is the antithesis to arbitrariness. So, any form of arbitrariness in political, social or administrative action will make the entire Act unconstitutional as it will violate the principle of equality.

Case laws:

• Lachmandas v State of Bombay (1952) (Substantive as well as procedural laws)
• Pradeep Jain v U.O.I. 1984 (Reservation of seats in M.B.B.S.& B.D.S.)
• K. Nagraj v St. of A.P. 1985 (Age of retirement)
• Air India v Nargesh Mirza 1981 (Retirement of airhostesses)
• N. John Vallamattom v Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 2902) (Indian Succession Act)
• Javed v State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 3057) (Election of persons having more than 2 children)

Conclusion:

The right to equality is an integral element of our Constitution and it is the most commonly used mechanism to assess the legality of the act of the legislature or the executive body. Article 14 encompasses the concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The former state that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and the latter states that the like should be treated alike and allowed positive discrimination for the benefit of society.

For More Articles on Constitutional Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here