Article 14 of Indian Constitution

India is a welfare country, hence it ensures the development of all. For the development of all, equality among all is necessary. Our Constitution makers had realised this fact and made provisions in the Constitution ensuring equality among all. 

Article 14: Right to Equality 

The state shall not deny to any person 'equality before the law' Or the 'equal protection of law' within the territory of India. 

Notable points:

Available to every person i.e., citizens as well as non-citizens.

Available against the State.

Within the territory of India. 

Lays down two principles :

(1) Equality before law. 

(2) Equal protection of law. 

(1) Equality before law-

Originated from the British concept "Rule of law" 

It is a negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege in favour of individuals and the subject of all classes to the ordinary law. 

AV Dicey profess this concept. 

 Equality before law and Rule of law -

The guarantee of equality before law is an aspect of what Dicey calls the Rule of law in England. 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. 

Rule of law requires that no person shall be subjected to harsh, uncivilised or discriminatory treatment even when the object is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law and order. 

Prof. Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of law - 

(1) Supremacy of the law - It means "a man maybe punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else".

(2) Equality before the law- No one is above the law and equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts. 

(3) Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land - It means that the source of the rights of individuals or not the written Constitution but the rules as define and enforced by court. 

The first and second aspects apply to Indian system but the third aspect of the Dicey's Rule of law doesn't apply to Indian system as the source of rights of individuals is the Constitution of India. 

The Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 is the basic structure of the Constitution hence can't be destroyed by amendment in Constitution. 

Exceptions to the 'Rule of Law' -

(1)Equality before law doesn't mean that the powers of private citizens are equal to the powers of public officials. 

(2)Rule of Law doesn't prevent certain classes of person being subject to special rules. 

e.g. Members of armed forces are governed by military laws, Article 361 etc. 

(3) Minister maybe allowed by law 'to act as he things fit' or 'if he is satisfied'. 

(2) Equal protection of law -

Equal protection of law is a positive concept implying 'Equality of treatment in equal circumstances'. 

'Equal protection of law' was firstly expressed in Constitution of USA. Introduced in USA Constitution by 14th Amendment Act,  which provides "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law".

Case- State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SC

Held- The second expression (Equal protection of law) is corollary of the first (Equality before law ) and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which violation of the equal protection of law will not be the violation of equality before law. Thus, in substance the two expressions mean one and the same thing.

Excess to justice-

Case- Anita Kushwaha vs pushap sudan , 2016 SC 

Held - SC held excess to justice a facet of rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 

Case- National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India, 2014 SC

 Held - SC held that Article 14 doesn't restrict the word 'person' and it's application only to male or female and hijras/transgender person who are neither male nor female fall within the expression 'person'. 

Class Legislation -

"Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class Legislation".

The equal protection of law guaranteed by Article 14 doesn't mean that all laws must be general in character. 

Case- Chiranjit Lal vs Union of India, 1951 SC

Held - The varying means of different classes of persons often require special treatment. 

Case- Jagjit Singh vs State, 1954 hyd. 

 Held- A reasonable classification is not only permitted but also necessary if society is to progress.

Case- RK Garg vs Union of India, 1981 SC

Held- Article 14 forbids class legislation but it doesn't forbid reasonable classification. The classification, however, must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" But must be based on some real and substantial distinction. 

Test of reasonable classification-

The classification to be reasonable must fulfill the following two conditions-

(i) the classification must be founded on  'intelligible differentia', ( intelligent reason for classification) 

(ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 

   Both conditions means there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification. 

New concept of equality-

Case- EP Royappa vs State of Tmilnadu 1974 SC 

Held - Equality is a dinamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it can't be 'cribbed, cabined and confined' within traditional and doctrinaire limits. 

Case - Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 SC 

Held - Bhagwati J. Quoted with approval the new concept of equality propounded bye him in the EP Royappa case. He further added Article 14 stikes at arbitrariness in state action and insures fairness and equality of treatment. 

Case - RD Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India, 1979 SC 

Held -the doctrine of classification which is involved by the court is not a paraphrase of Article 14 nor it is 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. 

Case -Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib, 1981 SC

Held-  the court struck down the rule prescribing high percentage of marks for oral test i.e., allocation of one third of total marks for oral interview was plainly arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

Case - KA Abbas vs Union of India ,1971 SC 

Held - the classification of films into two categories 'U' films and 'A' films is a reasonable classification. 

Case - Air India vs Nargesh Meerza, 1981 SC

Held - SC struck down the Air India and Indian Airlines regulations of the age of retirement and pregnancy bar on the services of Air hostesses as unconstitutional 

On the ground that the condition laid down therein were manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary and clearly violative of Article 14.

Case - Randhir singh vs Union of India, 1982 SC

Held. - equal pay for equal work though not a fundamental right is clearly a constitutional goal under Articles 14 , 16 and 39c of the constitution. 

Case - Novtej singh johar 🆚 Union of India ,2018 SC

Held - LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender ) individuals were legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. Section 377 of IPC was held to be violative of Right to equality for same sex couples. 

Limit in the effectiveness of Article 14 :

(1) Article 31C added by constitutional 42th amendment Act 1976 provides that laws made by State for implementing the directive principal contained in clause 'b' or clause 'c' of Article 39 can't be challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14 . 

(2) Article 359(1) provides when there is proclamation of Emergency is in operation president may, by order , declare that the right to move any court for enforcement of such rights conferred in part III (except Article 20 &21) shall remain suspended.

 

(3) under Article 361 , the President and the Governor 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 proceeding. 

          

                       - Anjali singh &

                        - Deepak kumar 

                (University of Allhabad)