This article is submitted by Rashika R. , 4th year B.A., LL.B., Government law college Ramanathapuram
Introduction
Equality is the most essential concept and basic structure of our constitution of India. It was held by Supreme Court of India in Kesavanantha Bharathi v. State of Kerala.[1] Everyone has to take efforts to achieve equality. Preamble of our constitution assure us equality as “Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all. Ernest Barker, an eminent English political scientist, observed that the Preamble serves as the keynote of the Constitution. Therefore, Equality is a vital aspect of the Constitution that precedes the interpretation of its articles.
Scope and Concept of Article 14:
Article 14 stands for EQUALITY BEFORE LAW. It deals with the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.[2] Article 14 mainly deals with two phenomenon namely, Equality before law and Equal protection of laws. Equality is the fundamental concept of Indian democracy which was proposed by Jawaharlal Nehru in the objective resolution of the preamble of Indian constitution.[3] The words ‘any person’ in this provision denotes human beings irrespective of citizenship and gender. The Supreme court held that Article 14 does not restrict the word ‘person’ and its application only to male or female and hijras or transgenders who are neither male nor female within the expression ‘person’ and they are entitled to legal protection of laws in all spheres of state activity.[4] Equality exists in almost all popular constitutions of the world and it is also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law, All are entitled toequal protection against any discrimination in violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.[5]
Equality before law:
Equality before law is a negative concept which ensures nobody can claim special treatment or special privilege on the eye of the law. This principle corresponds to the second corollary of Dicey’s doctrine of the Rule of Law as recognised in Britain. However, this rule is not absolute in nature and is subject to several well-established exceptions.
Equality before law means subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts. This means that no one is above the law.[6] The court found that right to equality and the equality code to be a part of the basic structure of the constitution.[7] Equality is a dynamic concept and equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies.[8]
Equal Protection of Laws:
The second concept, “Equal protection of laws,” is positive in content. It does not imply that the same law must apply identically to all persons, nor that every law should have uniform application throughout the country irrespective of differing circumstances. Equal protection of laws does not require equal treatment of all persons without distinction. Rather, it mandates that the same laws be applied alike and without discrimination to persons who are similarly situated. It signifies equality of treatment under similar circumstances and implies that among equals, the law must be equal and equally administered.
This principle means that equals should not be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated alike, Likes should be treated alike.[9]
Reasonable Classification under Article 14:
It is a legal principle under Article 14 of the Indian constitution that guarantees fairness by allowing the classification of individuals or entities on the basis of intelligible differences that have a rational nexus with the object of the law. It prohibits arbitrary discrimination while recognizing that all cases are not identical. The provisions of Article 14 of the constitution have come up for discussion before the court in number of cases.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)[10] stands as a seminal decision of the Supreme Court of India, wherein the court laid down the foundational framework of the doctrine of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the constitution. In 1950, Anwar Ali Sarkar was convicted by Alipore Sessions Court under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950. The Supreme Court invalidated the impugned law on the ground that it permitted arbitrary reference of cases to special courts, holding that classification lacked a rational nexus with a legitimate legislative objective.
In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar[11] the Supreme court held that Article14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. For a classification to be considered reasonable, two essential requirements must be satisfied, namely,
- The classification should rest on an intelligible differentia that clearly distinguishes the persons or objects included in one group from those placed in a separate category.
- The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical or according to objects or the like and there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.[12]
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003)[13] in this case the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the above two conditions constituting the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the constitution.
Modern Dimensions of Article 14:
The interpretation of Article 14 has progressed beyond a rigid notion of identical treatment and now embraces substantive equality, acknowledging that differing social and economic circumstances may justify distinct treatment in order to attain genuine equality. The judgments interpreted modern aspects of Article 14 as follows:
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[14]
This case marked a turning point in the interpretation of article 14. The supreme court held that equality is closely connected with fairness and reasonableness, and that arbitrariness in state action is incompatible with the guarantee of equality.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[15]
The court expanded the reach of article 14 by linking it with Articles 19 and 21. It ruled that any law affecting personal liberty must satisfy standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness. This decision strengthened the idea that equality permeates all State action impacting fundamental rights.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India[16]
The court applied the doctrine of arbitrariness to invalidate the practice of instant triple talaq.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[17]
The Supreme Court recognised that equality under Article 14 must reflect contemporary constitutional values. It held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is incompatible with the guarantee of equality, thereby reinforcing the idea of substantive equality.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India[18]
In striking down adultery as a criminal offence, the court ruled that laws based on outdated and unequal assumptions violate Article 14. The judgment highlighted dignity, autonomy, and equal treatment as essential elements of modern equality jurisprudence.
Exceptions under Article 14:
Althoughthe constitution of India guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the law under article 14, this right is not absolute. The principle of equality permits certain constitutionally sanctionable exceptions where differential treatment is justified in the interest of governance, public order or international obligations.
Article 361[19] of the constitution confers certain immunities upon the President of India and the governors of states.
Article 361-A [20] provides that no person shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in any court in respect of the publication whether in a newspaper or through radio or television, of a substantially true report of the proceedings of parliament or a state legislature.
Article 105[21] guarantees parliamentary privileges to the members of parliament and similarly Article 194[22] safeguards the privileges of members of state legislature in relation to proceedings within the legislature or any committees.
Under Article 31 C the Supreme Court held that where this provision, applies, Article 14 stands excluded.[23]
Diplomatic immunity extends to foreign sovereigns and diplomatic representatives granting them immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings. Additionally, the United Nations Organisation and its specialized agencies enjoy diplomatic immunity.
Conclusion:
The judicial interpretation of Article 14 has substantially widened its ambit, reshaping it from a limited notion of formal equality into a comprehensive doctrine grounded in fairness and justice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the guarantee of equality excludes arbitrariness and mandates reasonableness in all State actions. This progressive interpretation enables Article 14 to evolve with societal changes and ensures its continued role as a crucial protection against unjust and discriminatory use of power. By rejecting arbitrary State action and mandating rational decision-making, the courts have elevated Article 14 into an effective constitutional shield against discrimination and abuse of authority.
This article is submitted by Rashika R. , 4th year B.A., LL.B., Government law college Ramanathapuram
[1] AIR 1973 SC 1461.
[2] The Constitution of India, art. 14.
[3] 1, Constituent Assembly Debates, 85
[4] National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863
[5] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, art. 7.
[6] Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 83, Central Law Agency, Prayagraj 60th edition
[7] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 2 SCC 159.
[8] E.P. Royappa v. State of Madras
[9] Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 55.
[10] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75
[11] AIR 1958 SC 538
[12] Ibid
[13](2003) 11 SCC 146
[14] 1974 AIR 555
[15] 1978 AIR 597
[16]AIR 2017 SC 4609
[17] AIR 2018 SC 4321
[18] AIR 2018 SC 4898
[19] The Constitution of India, art 361
[20] The Constitution of India, art 361-A
[21]The Constitution of India, art 105
[22] The Constitution of India, art 194
[23]Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983 AIR 239)