Home All Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

July 26, 2024

38336

This article is written by Aniket Tiwari. This article is about one of the fundamental rights of a citizen of India, i.e., Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Please note that the article has been further updated by Upasana Sarkar and Syed Owais Khadri. This article also provides a detailed understanding of the concept, features, and significance of the right to equality. Additionally, it gives a detailed analysis of the right to equality under Article 14. It also looks into the history, international influence, and incorporation of the right to equality under Article 14.

Table of Contents

Introduction

In a general sense, everybody here is capable of understanding Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, i.e., “Right to Equality.” Even after 76 years of independence, our country is not able to gain actual independence. Evils like discrimination are still prevailing in our country. Even the one who created our Constitution suffered from this anathema. Even now there are some places where people are not treated equally and they are discriminated against on different grounds such as religion, race, sex, caste, place of origin, etc.

Therefore, considering the social realities and circumstances of Indian society, our Constitution-makers added Article 14 in the Indian Constitution as the fundamental right to citizens as well as those who are not citizens of our territory.

The primary objective of this article is to elucidate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Instances of a husband mistreating his wife, a girl unable to finish her education due to family pressure, or a lower caste individual being treated as inferior to upper caste people are clear examples of discrimination. These scenarios highlight the crucial role of the state in upholding equality among its citizens.

Article 14 basically states that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” To treat all citizens equally is the basic concept of liberalism, and Article 14 ensures the same for our citizens. The liberty of any person is directly connected to the equality he/she is getting in society.

Origin of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

The concept of Article 14 has emerged from the English Common Law and the Magna Carta. Article 14 is the first and foremost Article, which restricts discrimination among the members of society and promotes equality among all the people of the state. It has been borrowed, or rather inspired, from the UK and US Constitutions. Professor A.V. Dicey sets forth two important principles in this Article. The first one is the ‘rule of law’, which can be found in the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The second one is ‘equal protection of law’ whose existence can be traced back to the US Constitution, which ensured equality among the millions of people of the state. Equal protection of the law has its foundation in the 14th Amendment clause of the US Constitution. Therefore, these important principles of Article 14 have been drawn from the British and American Constitutions.

If the reader wants to learn more about the historical context of Article 14, please read further. If not, please skip to the scope.

Historical context of Article 14

Discrimination on various grounds has been an indistinguishable part of human civilizations since time immemorial. It was on the basis of race or colour in the west, on the basis of religion or caste in countries like Germany, and on the basis of class all over the world. The social evil of slavery was also a byproduct of such discrimination. Similarly, discriminatory behaviour towards certain people was also a part of Indian society, like the rest of the world. Hence, the constituent assembly felt the utmost need to incorporate a fundamental right that guarantees equality to all citizens into the Constitution to counter and prevent the discrimination that has been prevalent in Indian society for ages. In fact, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who presided over the constituent assembly, was the most significant personality in securing equal rights for all the citizens, particularly because he was well-known for his efforts in securing dalit rights.

Pre-British Era

Discrimination on the basis of caste or religion has been a part of Indian society for ages. Indian society was mostly divided into four castes, or varnas, namely:

Brahmins,
Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas, and
Shudras.

Brahmins were considered to be the most superior caste, whereas Shudras were considered people belonging to the lowest caste. The classification was mainly based on the occupations people from each caste engaged in, and these castes also, in fact, decided the class of the people. The Brahmins were mostly engaged in priestly occupations, performing pujas. Kshatriyas belonged to a class of people who were mostly rulers, administrators, or warriors. Vaishyas consisted of tradesmen, people engaged in business, artisans, etc. Shudras were the labour-class people who engaged in jobs such as cleaning, etc. Shudras were subject to discrimination and, hence, exploitation, as they were considered to be people from the lowest class or caste. Discrimination was to the extent that the Shudras were even not allowed to walk in front of the houses of people who belonged to the higher class or caste.

During British rule

Indian society witnessed several changes during the British period. It was a period that saw attempts to both increase and counter discrimination. The actions and legal frameworks that increased discrimination or were discriminatory in nature on the one hand, whereas a few legislations were enacted to address the issue of discrimination in society.

Britishers considered themselves the superior race or class of people who were masters in every field, rulers, or conquerors. Britishers discriminated against the Indians, claiming racial superiority; there were different clubs, parks, residential areas, railway compartments, etc., for the Europeans where Indians weren’t allowed. Britishers acted as a catalyst for discrimination among Indians by favouring particular groups of people who already belonged to the privileged class and providing reservations in education, jobs, etc., which led to an increase in gaps within different classes of people and thereby increased discrimination, which was already prevalent in society. In addition to the aforementioned discriminations, the divide and rule policy of the British, which was used as an effective tool right from the partition of Bengal in 1905, increased the existing differences or discrimination between various communities and religions to a large extent.

Legislations increasing discrimination or discriminatory legislation

There were various legislations during British rule that were either discriminatory in nature by itself or were exploiting and increasing the existence of discrimination in Indian society by increasing economic disparities or social differences between communities. A few of such acts are discussed below.

Criminal Tribes Act, 1871: The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 was one of the most deplorable acts of the British Period, which was discriminatory in nature in disguise of an act intending to prevent robberies. The worst aspect of this Act is that it not only increased discrimination but also marked a certain community or a group of people as a stigma in society. The Act labelled a few communities as criminal tribes, stating that certain communities or people are born with criminal tendencies, thereby subjecting them to discrimination, constant targeting, and harsh penalties.

Permanent Settlement Act, 1793: The Permanent Settlement Act, 1793 was basically an agreement between the Britishers and the zamindars (landlords). It provided them with ownership of the lands, and peasants in society were expected only to take care of the land. It facilitated the exploitation of peasants by the zamindars. This Act resulted in increasing the economic disparities between the labour class, i.e., the peasants and the zamindars, since the zamindars exclusively had ownership of lands. The Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 was also a similar kind of land revenue legislation that increased the economic disparities in society.

Post Office Act, 1854: This Act was discriminatory towards the Indians, as it charged double the postal charge on the Indigenous papers to that charged on the English newspapers.

Communal Award, 1932: The Communal Award was basically a proposal by the British to constitute separate electorates on the basis of caste, religion, etc. It increased the division within politics, ultimately leading to an increase in differences and discrimination between people of various castes and religions.

Legislations that prevent discrimination

There were a handful of legislations that were enacted during the British period, particularly to prevent the discriminatory practices that existed in society. A few of the important Acts enacted for the purpose of ending discrimination in society are discussed below.

Ilbert Bill, 1883: The Ilbert Bill, 1883, proposed by Viceroy Ripon was a significant attempt to end the discrimination between Europeans and non-Europeans. This Bill allowed the trial of a European to be carried out by an Indian judge, which was not the case prior to this Bill.

Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850: The Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 was enacted with the objective of protecting the rights of people belonging to lower castes and removing the disabilities suffered by such people. It mainly protected the right to property of the people belonging to the lower castes.

Punjab Land Alienation Act, 1900: The Punjab Land Alienation Act, 1900 was enacted to protect the rights of peasants in the province of Punjab. Its main objective was to prevent the exploitation of peasants by landowners by controlling or regulating the alienation of land.

Madras Presidency Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1924: The Madras Presidency Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1924, was a significant step towards protecting the rights of people belonging to a few particular castes, i.e., Scheduled Castes and Tribes. It aimed at criminalising the practice and acts of untouchability such as denial of access to common water resources, public or religious places, etc., which were very prevalent in Indian society.

In addition to the aforementioned Acts, there were legislations such as the Bengal Sati Regulation Act, 1829, and the Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, etc., were enacted with the objective of ending or preventing gender discrimination.

With the historical antecedents that India had witnessed, a right that guaranteed equality for every individual in the nation, irrespective of caste, gender, race, religion, etc., was felt extremely necessary post-independence. Therefore, Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality, was incorporated into the Indian Constitution.

Incorporation of Article 14 into the Indian Constitution

Did you know Article 14 of the Constitution was not introduced as a separate fundamental right in the Draft of the Constitution? It was actually a part of Article 15 of the draft, which is now Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 15 of the draft of the Constitution stated, “Protection of life and liberty and equality before law – No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India.” But during the debate on the instant Article, only discussion with respect to the protection of life and liberty took place, and the latter part of the provision, which spoke about equality before the law, was not discussed during the initial constituent assembly debates. It was later recommended by the Drafting Committee that the proposed Article may be divided into two Articles in which one guarantees protection of life and liberty and the other guarantees equality before the law. Therefore, Article 15 of the proposed draft was later incorporated into the Constitution of India as two separate Articles i.e., Article 14, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law, and Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and liberty.

International influence on the incorporation of Article 14

Though history and the accidents prior to the independence of India played a significant role in the introduction of the right to equality as a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, it is important to consider that the introduction of the right to equality was done after studying various international documents.

The Indian Constitution was drafted after studying the constitutions of various countries and other important international documents. U.S., U.K., Australian, French, Canadian, and Irish are a few of the constitutions that have influenced the drafting of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution has borrowed some of the important features from the aforementioned Constitutions. Features such as Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review, Preamble, etc. are borrowed from the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, the features of liberty, fraternity, and equality in the Indian Constitution have been influenced by the French Constitution.

On that account, considering the historical context of discrimination in the nation, the incorporation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution has been influenced by various international documents that were studied while drafting the Indian Constitution. Some of the important international documents that influenced the incorporation of the right to quality in the Indian corporation are as follows:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
U.S. Constitution,
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was the first and foremost international document in respect of human rights, came into existence in 1948, when the process and discussions regarding the drafting of the Constitution were taking place in India. Consequently, the UDHR had a profound influence on the drafting of the Indian Constitution, especially with respect to the incorporation of fundamental rights in the Constitution.

Article 7 of the UDHR states that everyone is entitled to equality before the law and also to equal protection before the law without being subject to any kind of discrimination. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, is also drafted in a similar fashion. It states that the state shall not deny any person equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Therefore, it is evident that the UDHR influenced the incorporation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution

The American Revolution, the American Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States have also had great influence on not just the incorporation of Article 14 but entirely on the feature of fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. The right to equality was added with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. It states that no state shall deny equal protection of laws, which is similar to what Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states.

Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizens

The French Revolution, which was a remarkable event in world history, was mainly about the ideas of equality, liberty, and fraternity. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens is an important document that came into existence as a result of the French Revolution. This declaration represents one of the fundamental instruments of human liberties; it introduced one of the basic values of human civilizations, which is that all individuals are born free and everyone has equal rights. These ideas of the French Revolution and the provisions of the declaration have had a profound impact on the drafting of the Indian Constitution at large, particularly on the incorporation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Scope of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

The scope of Article 14 is very wide. Both citizens and non-citizens get the benefit of the right to equality under this Article. This right applies not only to natural persons but also to juristic persons within the territory of the state. This right is generally used by individuals against state actions, not private actions. It is applicable at the time when the right to equality of individuals is infringed upon by the state or by any arbitrary action of the executive. Article 14 was incorporated into the Constitution to remove unreasonable discrimination and to provide fair and non-arbitrary treatment in state actions. The principles of Article 14 promote fairness, rationality, and non-arbitrariness for all members of society.

Features of Article 14

Some of the features of Article 14 are as follows:

Article 14 is protected by the Constitution as it is one of the most important fundamental rights of the people: Fundamental rights are those rights that are granted as well as guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality to all the people of the state, is protected by the Constitution, and anyone infringing on this right of others would be punished by the law.
Article 14 is not an absolute right but a qualified one: Fundamental rights are not absolute in nature. Restrictions can be imposed on Article 14 by the state if it deems it reasonable to do so. But the amount of restriction to be imposed on it is generally decided by the courts.
Article 14 is justiciable: It means that if anyone’s right is infringed upon by another person or the state, then he can go to court for protection of his right. He is permitted to move to the courts for the enforcement of Article 14. The Indian Judiciary allows the people of the state to move directly to the Supreme Court if a person’s fundamental rights are violated.
As Article 14 is not permanent or sacrosanct, it can be suspended by the state: Article 14 is one of the fundamental rights that can be suspended by the state at any time during an emergency.

Right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 is the first Article of the Constitution that deals with the right to equality. It states that every individual, irrespective of his or her religion, caste, sex, race, or place of birth, is equal before the law and should get equal protection of the laws within Indian territory. The purpose of this Article is to treat everyone under similar circumstances or situations equally, without any kind of discrimination. In other words, people in a group with similar characteristics will be treated in the same way, but not everyone. It means equitable treatment should be given to every individual without discrimination. This is known as a reasonable classification, which is an exception under this Article. But this does not mean this exception can be misused by anyone by using it in an arbitrary way.

Interpretation of Article 14 over the years

Article 14 has undergone many interpretations time and again. The courts have given a number of interpretations by introducing new concepts and striking down various laws and policies that are arbitrary or discriminatory in nature. It was interpreted as the right of every individual to have the same privileges and responsibilities under the same circumstances and situations without any unreasonable discrimination. This Article has been used not only for state actions and policies but also for any unreasonable actions taken by private individuals that can affect the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

In the landmark judgement of National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (2014), the right under Article 14 has been interpreted to include various rights and strike down discriminatory policies, which are based on gender, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. Therefore, Article 14 is used to protect the right to equality of individuals against state policies as well as any other actions of the state.

Equality before law

Our country, as we all know, is a democratic country and, in fact, the largest democratic country in the world where all are independent to think about anything and do anything subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state. Accordingly, it is the right of every individual to be treated equally in application of law or before the law.

Equality before the law essentially means that everyone should receive the same treatment, regardless of their economic status, gender, or caste. The state is not permitted to grant special privileges to anyone in the country.

Definition of equality before the law

Equality before the law has been defined by Dr. Jennings. According to him, equality before the law means

The law should be equal among equals, which means that it should be made in such a way that all the members of society get equitable treatment.
The law should be administered equally among equals. It means that like should be treated alike and not everyone. If everyone is treated equally, then it would lead to inequality. People with different circumstances and different characteristics should not be treated in a like manner. People from the same groups should be treated equally without any kind of discrimination.

Therefore, it means that every individual should have the right to sue and be sued for the same kind of activities and actions. Prosecution and punishment for the commission of the same crime must also be equal for all without any kind of unreasonable discrimination on the grounds of caste, race, religion, political influence, or social status.

Equality before the law and absolute equality

On one hand, equality before law prohibits providing any special privilege to any community or people. It does not talk about equal treatment in equal circumstances. According to it, there must be a very ideal condition, and the state does not need to interfere in society by providing additional privileges in society.

On the other hand, the right to equality is not absolute and has several exceptions to it. Accordingly, equals should be treated equally. Equality before law has several exceptions, for example, the immunity provided to the President and Governor. Reservation is also a typical example that defines that the right to equality is not absolute and can be restricted (or rather used properly) according to the needs of society.

In the very famous case of the State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the question of whether the right to equality is absolute or not was raised. Here the Supreme Court held that the right to equality is not absolute. In this case, the State of Bengal was found to use its power arbitrarily to refer any case to the Special Court, which was made by them. It was thus held that the Act of State of Bengal violates the right to equality.

Equality before the law and rule of law

One of the important aspects of equality before law is that there is a direct nexus between equality before law and the rule of law. In fact, the rule of law, which is given by Prof. Dicey, says that no one here is beyond or above the law and is equal in front of the law, which is the inspiration or rather marks the inception of the concept of every person’s equality before the law, as it was one of the prominent concepts that recognised guaranteed equality before the law.

The rule of law states that in a country all should be treated equally, and as there is no state religion, it (the state) should not discriminate against any religion. Here the concept of uniformity should be applied. Basically, it is derived from the Magna Carta (a charter of rights signed in the UK), which prohibits the arbitrary power of the state.

Equal protection of the laws

This is one of the positive concepts of equality. Equal protection of the law is incurred from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Act of the US Constitution. According to this principle, everybody who resides in India should be treated equally and will get equal protection of the law. It guarantees all people inside the territory of India should be treated equally, and the state cannot deny it (for equal protection of the law). It puts a positive obligation on the state to prevent the violation of rights. This can be done by bringing socio-economic changes.

The same concept has been discussed in St. Stephen’s College vs. the University of Delhi (1991). In this case, the admission process of the college was checked, and the main issue raised was the validity of the preference given to Christian students in the admission process. Here the Supreme Court held that a minority institution that is receiving aid from state funds is entitled to grant preference or to reserve seats for the students of its community.

The Supreme Court held that differential treatment of candidates in the admission programme does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and it is needed for the minority section.

Definition of equal protection of laws

Equal protection of laws means laws should be used to protect people equally under similar circumstances. It should be applicable to everyone in the same situation. There should not be any distinction among the members of society. The term ‘any person’ under this Article includes the body of individuals, companies, and associations of persons, which means both natural as well as legal or juristic persons are included.

Protection against arbitrariness

There is a thin line of difference between arbitrary and non-arbitrary actions. The right to equality prevents the arbitrary action of the state. This Article speaks about equal protection of the law, and it is against the doctrine of arbitrariness. For protection against arbitrariness, there are several restrictions put on every organ of the state. It is an important part of preventing the organ of the state from making any arbitrary decision.

Doctrine of non-arbitrariness under Article 14

Article 14 of the Constitution clearly states that no one should be discriminated against on any grounds and prohibits the state from making any arbitrary laws. It helps the state make fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary laws so that no particular class or group of people faces discrimination due to differences in their economic condition or ethnicity. This right to equality principle is totally against arbitrary action by the state or executive bodies. It protects the members of society from the arbitrariness and unreasonable policies of the government.

The doctrine of non-arbitrariness was, therefore, established in the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1973) for guaranteeing equitable treatment without any unreasonable discrimination. In this case, the doctrine of reasonable classification was challenged before the Supreme Court, where the Court stated that the equality concept is dynamic in nature and cannot be confined or restricted to certain limits. The doctrine of non-arbitrariness evolved from this case to protect all people of different classes and groups from being discriminated against.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is basically not a legal right but rather a moral obligation on the part of the administration to look at and make laws that provide equality to all people in a territory. It gives the right of judicial review in administrative law to protect the interests of people when public authority fails to do so (or when public authority rescinds the representation made to a person).

It acts as a bridge between the expectations of individuals and any act of authority. However, these expectations needed to be reasonable and logical. That’s why they are called legitimate expectations.

There are several instruments provided by the court for achieving the motive of authoritative law (here motive is to meet the legitimate expectation). These instruments are provided to protect everyone against the misuse of power by the organs of the state. It puts a type of restriction (although it is a moral restriction) on a state to use its power arbitrarily.

Intelligible differentia

Intelligible differentia is an important concept under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which means understanding the differences. It is defined as a group of individuals having common characteristics that are different from the individuals of other groups. In short, it can be said that Article 14 states that a law should not be applied to everyone uniformly. It should be applied in such a way that individuals belonging to a specific group with some similarities are treated in the same way, not everyone. In other words, it means that the law should be applied in a way that every member of society gets equitable treatment without any kind of unreasonable discrimination based on caste, race, religion, wealth, economic conditions, and others.

The intelligible differentia was enacted to ensure that reasonable classification is permitted to certain groups or sections of society. On one hand, when Article 14 states that everyone should be treated equally without any kind of discrimination based on any of the above grounds, intelligible differentia is implemented to avoid discrimination while permitting certain reasonable discrimination for the betterment and development of a particular group of society. While implementing the intelligible differentia principle, it must be used rationally. It means that there should be a proper nexus between the objective and basis of classification while considering a statute for reasonable classification. For instance, there are provisions for the reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) of society. The interpretation of the intelligible differentia helps to provide privilege to these sections of society without others feeling discriminated against.

Concept of class legislation and reasonable classification

It is significant to understand the concepts of class legislation and reasonable classification and the difference between them. While one of the concepts is allowed as an exception to the right to equality under Article 14, the other is prohibited by the constitutional provision.

Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation and regards it as a violation of the right to equality, while it permits the concept of reasonable classification as an exception to the right to equality.

Class legislation refers to the improper or irrational differentiation or discrimination of people for the benefit of a certain class of people based on an unreasonable or arbitrary selection of such class from a large number of people.

On the other hand, reasonable classification refers to the classification of certain groups that are socially and economically backward to subsequently provide such groups certain benefits and privileges for their social or economic upliftment. The rationale for such a classification is due to the fact that India follows the concept of a welfare state, where the state must provide sufficient and equal benefits to every individual in the country. Therefore, reasonable classification for the said purpose is necessary to achieve the said objective. The concept of reasonable classification has also been recognised by the Apex Court of the country.

Test of reasonable classification

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), laid down two essentials or conditions that are required to be satisfied to pass the test of reasonable classification. The two essentials are as follows:

Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those that are grouped together from others.
The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the proposed legislation or law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice Tendolkar (1958) held that Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification, which is done for legislative purposes.

Relevant case laws on intelligible differentia

Sri Srinivasa Theatre vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1992)

In this case, it was observed that the term ‘law’ that is present in the phrases ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ do not indicate the same meaning. Both expressions have a fundamental difference between them. On one hand, the term ‘law’ is used in a general sense, whereas on the other hand, it denotes specific laws in the expression ‘equal protection of law’. The Supreme Court further stated that ‘equality before law’ is considered a dynamic concept that contains two facets. The first one accepts that everyone is equal, that there shall not be the presence of any privileged class or person, and that nobody should be considered above the law. The second one portrays the state’s duty to ensure a more equal society through our legal system, which is intended by the Preamble and Part IV of the Constitution. Therefore, it can be concluded that the intention of both the expressions ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ is to grant equal justice to all the people of the state without any unreasonable discrimination. Both concepts are complementary to one another, and none can exist without the other.

Pramod Pandey vs. State of Maharashtra (2020)

In the case, the petitioner challenged the condition that states an actor above the age of 65 years must not be present at the time of the shoot at the shooting site. They were not permitted to remain there during the shooting of films or series or series/Over The Top Media (OTT). This restriction was imposed on them by the Maharashtra government. The petitioner argued that the condition is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature as it violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This was because during that period, both the central and state governments had already removed that restriction on their movements and relaxed the general prohibition that was imposed on the actors above 65 years of age. This case took place during the COVID phase. The Bombay High Court stated that though the objective of the state is to safeguard the vulnerable sections of society from the COVID-19 virus, it cannot be considered an intelligible differentia. The reason is that the state government imposed no such restriction in any other sectors or services. So the members of the cast or crew who are 65 years of age or older should not be treated differently. This seems to be discriminatory and arbitrary. The court observed that if persons who are 65 years of age or older are allowed to work and trade in other sectors, then that age-based prohibition in only the film industry seems to constitute unreasonable discrimination. So the Court struck down that condition of the state government by setting it aside.

Madan Mili vs. Union of India (2021)

In the case, a petition was filed against the discriminatory treatment towards the non-vaccinated persons for COVID-19 and not allowing them to enter the state for developmental works in the public as well as private sectors. The Gauhati High Court was of the opinion that it is not evident that those who are already vaccinated cannot get infected or spread the COVID-19 virus by being carriers of it. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons must be treated in the same way without discrimination. Both of them can carry and spread this virus. This classification was considered unreasonable as the distinction made is not real and substantial. The Court observed that this classification is not done based on the principle of intelligible differentia as it has no rational nexus and violates the fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 19(1)(d), and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Elephant G. Rajendran vs. the Registrar General (2023)

In the case, the petitioner who filed the writ petition was the father of a junior advocate. His son was not permitted to drink water while he was inside the Madras Bar Association premises. So the senior advocate, his father, filed the suit against all the unnecessary and irrelevant restrictions that are imposed upon the junior advocates. The Madras High Court stated that, like any other fundamental right, the right to access drinking water is also a fundamental right. So the court observed that no person who is a member of a particular bar association can be deprived of their right to access drinking water. It was also said by the court that an advocate’s responsibility is to encourage and enlighten junior advocates and not to deny access to their fundamental rights. He should follow the standards of professional conduct and etiquette that have been laid down by the Bar Council of India. The court also stated that no discrimination on the basis of community, caste, or economic conditions is permitted. Such discrimination has been declared illegal and unconstitutional. It was held that this kind of unreasonable discrimination is not allowed inside the premises as it violates their fundamental rights and creates unnecessary problems. The court concluded by stating that making a class within the class of lawyers is not considered an intelligible differentia. A certain class of lawyers is making this unreasonable classification, which seems arbitrary in nature.

Administrative discretion

It is the freedom of the administration to react or decide any situation according to the circumstances. Here it becomes important for one to understand the term discretion first. Discretion basically describes the understanding of any person to decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, etc., and react to these situations accordingly. Next, we would like to explain the need for administrative discretion.

The legislature legislates any law on many presumptions, and it cannot exactly foresee everything that is going to take place because of that law. The main purpose of administrative discretion is to maintain equality in all sections of society. However, this administrative discretion should not go beyond the line and should be used with proper care. The discretion may amount to arbitrariness.

Test of reasonable discretion

In the very famous case of Oregano Chemical Industries vs. Union of India (1979), the petitioner (Oregano Chemical Industries) filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which imposed a high penalty under Section 14(B) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Acts, 1952, for the delayed payment of Employees’ Provident Funds and Family Pensions of their employees. Here the conflict arises between Section 14(B) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Here the government was directed to provide the remedy allocable to the Fund so that damages may be compensated.

Section 14(B) states the right of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government to recover damages from the employer who has failed in the contribution, provided that such employer has given enough chance to be heard before recovering such damages.

This section also provides that their damages can be waived if there is a sick industrial company by the Central Board. The Court in this case held that the government has arbitrarily used this section, which is beyond the reasonable discretion of the government and is a type of violation of Article 14 of our constitution.

Exceptions to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

As mentioned above, the right to equality under Article 14 is not absolute in nature, but a qualified one. Therefore, it is subject to some exceptions.

There are some general exceptions, while there are also some specific exceptions, such as the privileges of legislators and the executive heads. There are also some exceptions applicable in cases where special laws have been made or privileges have been given to a certain group of people, such as the children of defence personnel, etc. Reservation is the best example of exceptions to the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

General exceptions

Some of the general exceptions to the right to equality are as follows:

One of the exceptions is that the rights of private individuals vary from those of public officials. The powers vested in public officials can be exclusively used by them. No private individual can use those powers. For instance, a police officer has been granted the power to arrest if he thinks it is reasonable to do so, and this power cannot be exercised by private individuals, however, it can be allowed if exclusively specified by any legislation.
Another exception is that of reservations, which is also discussed as the rule of reasonable classification. The state is allowed to make special laws for certain groups or categories of people. The rule of law does not prohibit the state from making such laws for a particular class. For instance, there are different sets of laws for members of the armed forces. They are governed by military laws exclusively made for the guidance of the military people.
The law has granted certain discretionary powers to the executive bodies and ministers of the state. Those powers can be used by the minister whenever he thinks fit or is satisfied. He is allowed to use those powers on reasonable grounds only.
People of different professions are governed by different sets of laws. Special rules are made to guide the people of certain professions, such as doctors, nurses, lawyers, police, and members of the armed forces.

Benefits enjoyed by the President and the Governor

As we have read earlier, Article 14 states that everyone should be treated equally without any discrimination. Only reasonable classification is permitted under this Article. But there are certain benefits that the President and the Governor of the State enjoy, which are as follows:

They cannot be questioned for any activities that they do while carrying out their duties in their offices.
They are not subjected to any kind of criminal proceedings during their tenure. (Article 361)
They cannot be arrested or imprisoned during their tenure.
They are not subjected to any civil proceedings during their tenure, even if any act is done by them in their personal capacity.

Benefits enjoyed by the members of Parliament and the Legislature

Some benefits enjoyed by the members of Parliament and the Legislature are as follows:

The members of Parliament are not subjected to any civil or criminal proceedings in case a member of Parliament says anything that is disliked by another member or casts a vote against him.
The members of the State Legislature are not subjected to any civil or criminal proceedings in case a member of Parliament says anything that is disliked by another member or casts a vote against him.
A person is not subjected to civil or criminal proceedings in case of the publication of any true report of the proceedings of parliament in any newspaper or article.
The members of Parliament or the State Legislature are not obliged to attend proceedings in court for any criminal or civil matter while the session is going on. (Article 361-A)
The members of Parliament or the State Legislature cannot be questioned by any court for their opinions, speeches, or votes made during the session. (Article 105 and Article 194)

Establishment of special courts

Special Courts were established after the approval of the Special Courts Bill, 1978. Justice Chandrachud explained and elaborated on this aspect by relating it to the principle of the doctrine of reasonable classification, which is an exception to Article 14. It was held that equality before the law is not absolute. There are several exceptions to this Article that are made for the purpose of equitable treatment in all spheres of society. One such exception is Article 246(2), where it is stated that the State Legislature has the right to address any matter that is incorporated in List III of the seventh schedule, regardless of clause (3), and subject to clause (1) of the Article. In the landmark case of In Re: The Special Courts Bill vs. Unknown (1979), the question was raised to determine whether the creation of special courts was in any way violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This case was filed to determine whether constituting special courts under the Act is legitimate or not. It was held to be legal and constitutionally valid.

Exception of reasonable classification

The concept or the rule of reasonable classification is an exception to the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Reasonable classification refers to the categorisation of a certain group of people who are backward, either socially or economically, and providing them with certain privileges or benefits for their social or economic upliftment. This kind of classification, which is made on valid grounds, is not considered a violation of the right to equality.

This exception has also been judicially recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice Tendolkar (1958). The Court in this case held that Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification, which is done for legislative purposes.

Remedies available in case of breach of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

There are various remedies available to individuals in cases of breach of Article 14 by the state or any other organisation, which are as follows:

When an individual’s fundamental right is violated, they can seek remedy by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. Article 32 provides constitutional remedies by enforcing fundamental rights in case of any breach of fundamental rights, which includes Article 14. So in cases of violation of any fundamental rights, individuals can submit a writ petition either in the High Court under Article 226 or in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Another remedy is to file Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against any arbitrary action or policy of the state. PILs mean that public-spirited individuals or organisations can file suit against state actions to seek remedy in cases of violation of Article 14. They can approach the court to challenge unreasonable decisions of the state.
If there is any breach of Article 14 by the state, the individuals can also submit a petition against such state actions or policies that violate one’s right to equality. The court then decides whether compensation should be given for the damages or whether injunctive relief must be awarded to the individual. The remedies to be given totally depend on the nature of the breach.

Therefore, it can be concluded that individuals can seek relief through writ petitions, PILs, regular suits, and other legal means if there is any violation of their right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The judiciary plays a significant role in enforcing fundamental rights and protecting them in case of any infringement of the fundamental rights by the state or any other organisation.

Landmark judgements on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza (1978)

In the case, the petitioners filed a suit challenging Regulation 46 and Regulation 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations as it was violating the fundamental rights of the Constitution. The conditions for termination of the employment of the air hostess were discriminatory in nature, as it said that an air hostess will retire on attending the age of 35 years, upon getting married within four years of her service, or on getting pregnant. These rules of Indian Airlines were considered ultra vires in nature as they violated Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court transferred the case from the Bombay High Court and heard it in the form of a writ petition. The Supreme Court stated that the regulations are unconstitutional as they violate the right to equality. So it struck down the regulations. The Apex Court directed to amendment of the termination clause on the marriage and pregnancy of the Air Hostess. It was also found that the managing director was entrusted with too much power. This excessive delegation of power, thus, leads to discriminatory behaviour. Hence, the Supreme Court held the regulations of the airlines to be inappropriate and ordered to amend them. Therefore, the termination of any air hostess on the above grounds would not be considered valid. This was done to protect the fundamental rights of women against unreasonable discrimination.

Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2006)

In this case, the women who were of menstruating age, that is, between ten to fifty years, were not permitted to enter the Sabarimala shrine. So this policy of the temple was challenged before the Supreme Court by five women lawyers. They argued that it was violating the fundamental rights of women. The Court observed that it was unlawful as it was sabotaging the dignity of women. So the Court ordered it struck down. It held that the social exclusion of women on the basis of menstrual status is prohibited under Article 17. It was stated that the doctrine of equality mentioned under Article 14 cannot override the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. It was also observed that Article 15 prohibits any kind of discretion based on religion, caste, race, place of birth, or gender. So no kind of restriction should be imposed upon the women from entering a temple that is related to their religious beliefs. Therefore, rights entrusted under Article 25(1) are granted to all, irrespective of any discrimination, and everyone should have the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion.

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. R. Veeraswamy (1999)

In this case, the question raised was whether the scheme made for granting pensions was to be applicable to those who had retired before the scheme was introduced. The Supreme Court observed that the already retired pensioners would not get the benefits of the new scheme as they had gotten the retrial benefits during the time they retired. The Court stated that if the previous retirees were to be given benefits under that scheme, then a financial burden of about Rs. 200 crore would be on the employer to bear, which is not at all practicable. The scheme was introduced to reduce the financial constraints, which seemed to be a valid ground for the Court. The Court was of the opinion that retirees before the introduction of the scheme and after its introduction should not be treated alike. They cannot be considered individuals belonging to the same class. So in this case, Article 14 will not be used; instead, its exception of reasonable classification is permitted as they form a separate class. Therefore, the Apex Court concluded by saying that the introduction of the pension scheme not having a retrospective effect is not illegal.

Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2016)

In the case, a Muslim woman named Shayara Bano challenged the constitutionality of ‘Triple Talaq’ when her husband divorced her by saying ‘talaq’ three times instantly without any legal proceedings in that matter. She submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of ‘Triple Talaq’. The petitioner argued that it was illegal and unconstitutional in nature as it violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women. By ‘Triple Talaq’, a Muslim man could divorce a Muslim woman instantly by pronouncing ‘Talaq’ thrice without any intervention by the state or the court. It can be done by writing, orally, or by electronic means. She argued that her fundamental rights had been violated. Her life changed in an instant when her husband divorced her just by writing a letter, in which he wrote ‘talaq’ three times. She faced great difficulty in surviving, as he had no money. She was left alone without any financial or emotional support. After facing all those troubles, she submitted a petition to challenge its validity. It was stated that the nature of ‘Triple Talaq’ was arbitrary, which is against the dignity of a woman. The Supreme Court observed that this ‘Triple Talaq’ system of divorce violates Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution. The women’s right to equality, the right to live with dignity, and the right to freedom of religion are denied if Muslim men are given this right to instant divorce. The Court upheld this ‘Triple Talaq’ divorce system as a law that promotes gender inequality and is unjust and unfair for Muslim women. It was also stated that the personal laws of a religion cannot override the principles of equality and fundamental rights that are incorporated in the Constitution. It declared the practice of ‘Triple Talaq’ as discriminatory. The Apex Court concluded by declaring that the ‘Triple Talaq’ is unconstitutional as it is against Muslim women’s rights and dignity. They should be treated on par with men. So the Court ordered the Legislature to make laws that are equal for both genders without unnecessary discrimination based on religious customs.

Navtej Singh Jauhar vs. Union of India (2016)

In this case, the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was challenged, stating that consensual homosexual acts that were criminalised in earlier times must be decriminalised as they violate their right to equality. This case was about securing the right to equality for all members of the LGBTQ+ community. The members of the LGBTQ+ community have faced a lot of harassment, torture, and social exclusion under Section 377 for many years. In this landmark case, it was contended that their fundamental rights had been violated for years. They are deprived of their right to equality and privacy, which are granted to each and every member of society without any discrimination. The Supreme Court observed that any discrimination that is done on the basis of sexual orientation violates fundamental rights as well as the principle of equality that is incorporated in the Indian Constitution. The Court held that individuals, being adults, have the right to choose anyone for their intimate relationships, and the state has no right to interfere in that matter. Criminalising same-sex relationships or marriage portrays inequality. It causes psychological harm and emotional embarrassment. Accordingly, Section 377 was considered unconstitutional because it violated the dignity of individuals belonging to the LGBTQ+ community. This landmark judgement changed societal thoughts and stigma and fostered a feeling of compassion towards the members of that community. The Supreme Court confirmed that the right to equality, dignity, and privacy is granted to all, irrespective of any person’s sexual orientation. Therefore, it decriminalised Section 377 by accepting same-sex relationships and protecting their rights.

Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018)

In this case, the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was challenged before the Supreme Court of India. Joseph Shine, an advocate, filed a petition against Section 497 to decriminalise adultery in India. He was a non-resident who was determined to reframe the laws that deal with gender inequality. Adultery was criminalised in the British era, where a man was held liable if he would have sexual intercourse with a married woman without her husband’s consent. This law implies that married women are their husband’s property. This section infringed on a woman’s right to autonomy. So Joseph Shine submitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 as it was violating Article 14. He argued that this section violates the right to equality and the principles of individual autonomy and gender justice. The Supreme Court observed that Section 497 only punishes men for adultery while exonerating women for the same crime. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional and discriminatory in nature. The court stated that the state must not interfere with the personal choices of individuals. Individuals have the right to choose the person with whom they want to have intimate relationships. The state’s interference is not required unless it impacts the sanctity of marriage or societal norms. So the court decriminalised adultery for both men and women, stating that adultery can be a ground for divorce. This judgement portrayed that both men and women are treated equally without getting unnecessary privileges. It upheld the principles of marital equality, individual freedoms, and non-discrimination by holding both of them equally accountable for adultery.

Conclusion

The evolution of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution from its incorporation to its present-day broad scope is remarkable. The interpreters of the Constitution, i.e., the Indian judiciary, declared the fundamental rights a part of the basic structure of the Constitution to ensure a just and equitable society without the fear of getting these rights violated by any other person. Any legislation that contradicts the right to equality and other fundamental rights as well is violative of the basic structure and subsequently ultra-vires to the Constitution.

However, in reality, the lack of awareness among the general public has resulted in people becoming the victims of unequal treatment and not even resisting such treatment. Eradication of inequality is impossible unless individuals are made aware of their rights. It is necessary to ensure each and every individual of the country is made aware of his rights and also the various aspects of such rights. Mere information about the right to equality is not much of use if an individual has no idea about various aspects of it, in case of violation of which such individual can approach the courts for remedy. The Indian judiciary has brought about a revolutionary change in the concept of the right to equality by interpreting it in various ways and through various precedents and has always worked for the protection of fundamental rights. However, it is necessary for the people to be aware and approach the courts seeking appropriate remedies. Awareness about options like legal aid is also equally important in championing this cause.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is Article 14 a basic human right?

Article 14, which deals with the right to equality, is incorporated in the Constitution of India as a fundamental right of all, which is also included in the International Human Rights Law as a basic human right. Everyone should be subjected to this principle without any kind of unnecessary discrimination.

Is the reservation policy an exception to Article 14?

Article 14 implies that no person should be given any kind of special treatment based on caste, creed, sex, place of birth, status, religion, or gender. The reservation policy is an exception to Article 14. It is considered reasonable based on the doctrine of reasonable classification. This policy of reservation is not arbitrarily made but is based on the principle of equitable treatment for all. The Supreme Court observed that this reasonable discrimination does not violate any fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution.

What is the objective of Article 14?

The aim of Article 14 is to provide equitable opportunity to all members of society, which includes both citizens and non-citizens. The preamble of the Indian Constitution states that the principle of the right to equality is a basic fundamental right that should be guaranteed to all people without unnecessary discrimination. It helps in keeping all the people at the same level. Equal status and opportunities must be provided to everyone.

What is the significance of Article 14?

Article 14 has played a significant role in protecting the rights and freedoms of the people of the state against any arbitrariness or discriminatory action of the state. If the right to equality of an individual is violated, he could challenge that state’s policy in court, which is violating it. This Article provides equality before the law and equal protection of the laws by safeguarding them from any kind of unnecessary discriminatory policy of the state and keeping all individuals at the same level.