Author: SADHVIKA.S, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, TRICHIRAPALLI
Edited By: Ritesh Singh Shekhawat, MJRPU, Jaipur
INTRODUCTION
Art[1].14 to 18 of the constitution guarantees the right to equality to every citizen of India. Art.14 embodies the general principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons. Art. 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the Preamble. Equality is considered to be fundamental in the formulation of any policy by the state and it can be seen in Art.38,39,39-A,43, and 46 of the Constitution embedded in part IV[2] of the Constitution.
The Rule of Law embodied in Art. 14 is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution and hence it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the Constitution under Art.368 of the Constitution[3]
“ The aim of having fundamental rights declare that certain elementary rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of speech freedom of should be regarded as inviolable under all conditions and that the shifting majority in legislature of the country should not have a free hand in interfering with these fundamental rights[4]”.
HISTORY OF ARTICLE 14
The Constitution of India contains a long list of fundamental rights in Part III[5]. This part of the Constitution is considered the Magna Carta of India. In 1215, the English people exacted an assurance from King John for the respect of the then-ancient liberties. This is the first written document relating to the fundamental rights of citizens. Following the spirit of the Magna Carta of the British and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the citizens of France, the Americans incorporated the Bill of Rights in their Constitution. The framers took inspiration from this and incorporated a full chapter in the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights.
NEED FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Fundamental rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachment of the Power delegated by them to the Government. “ There are limitations upon all the powers of the Government, legislative as well as executive and they are essential for the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of the political instruments[6].”
In Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI[7], the SC observed that “ These fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of India since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions times in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a ‘pattern of guarantee’ on the basic structure of human rights, and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on individual liberty in its various dimensions”.
SUB-HEADING
Two expressions under ART.14
ART.14 declares 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”. ART. 14 uses two expressions “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law”. Equality before the law is a somewhat negative concept and Equal protection of the law is considered to be a positive concept. However, the common idea is that both express the equality concept. “ The second expression is a corollary of the first and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the violation of the equal protection of laws will not be the violation of the equality before law. Thus, in substance, the two expressions mean the same thing”[8].
Equality before the law and absolute equality
The concept of equality does not mean absolute equality among human beings which is physically not possible to achieve it. It is a concept implying the absence of any special positions among humans based on caste, color, sex, age, birth, creed or not to favor any particular section of the society or person and also to ensure that equality is served to all the individuals and ordinary law of the land.
Equal protection of the laws
The guarantee of Equal protection of laws is similar to one embodied in the 14th Amendment to the American Constitution[9]. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another. Thus, the rule is that Like should be treated as alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.
Rule of law
The guarantee of equality before the 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 his rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. Dicey writes “ Every official from Prime Minister down to constables or a collector of taxes is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal jurisdiction as any other citizens”.
Professor Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law thus-
Absence of Arbitrary power or supremacy of the law-
It means the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to the arbitrary power of the Government.
Equality before the law-
This exactly means that “ Nobody is above the law and all are equal before the law”. Every individual in society must be treated equally without any kind of discrimination or special status.
The constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land.
It can be said that the first and second points are suitable for the Indian system but the third aspect of Dicey’s rule doesn’t apply to the Indian system as the source of rights of individuals is the Constitution of India. In Justice K. Puttaswamy vs. UOI[10], “ It was viewed by the SC as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution are inalienable human rights which get recognition in the constitution”.
Exceptions to the Rule of Law
- ‘Equality before the law’ doesn’t mean that the rule ‘powers of the private citizens are the same as the powers of the public officials. Generally, the people with authority are provided with powers, but this doesn’t mean that all private people can exercise their powers in terms of equality.
- The rule of law doesn’t prevent certain classes of persons from being subject to special rules.
- Ministers and other executive bodies are given very statutes discretionary powers by the statutes.
- Certain members of society are governed by special rules in their professions. Such classes of people are treated differently from ordinary citizens.
LIMITATIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF ART.14
The constitution itself contains provisions which, under certain circumstances, limit the effectiveness of Art.14-
- The scope of the right to equality under Art.14 has been considerably restricted by the 42nd Amendment Act,1976. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. co. vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, “ where Art. 31C comes in, Art. 14 goes out”[11].
- 359(1) provides that if the President of India issues an order, where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, enforcement of Art. 14 may be suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force.
- Under Art.361, the President and the Governors are exempted from any criminal proceedings during the tenure of their office.
- Under International Law, foreign sovereigns and ambassadors enjoy full immunity from any judicial process. This is also available to enemy aliens for acts of war.
TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION
The Equal protection of the law doesn’t mean that all the laws should be general. The law cannot be the same for all people. It does not mean that every law must be universal, as people differ by nature, attainment, or circumstances. In the Chiranjit Lal vs. UOI[12] case, the court upheld that “The varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment”.
Thus, Art.14 forbids the class- legislation and it does not forbid the reasonable classification. The classification must not be ‘arbitrary, artificial or evasive’ but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation[13].
- Classification to be reasonable must fulfill the following two conditions:-
- The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others left out of the group,
- The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act[14].
What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
In Menaka Gandhi vs. UOI[15], The court held that “ Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned with the traditional and doctrinaire limits”. The society is composed of unequals and a welfare state has to strive by both executive and legislative action to help the less fortunate and to improve their conditions so that social and economic inequality in society may be bridged. The doctrine of classification evolved to the legislation of state action in or to weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the society in need of succor.
REFERENCES
Cases Referred
- Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
- K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
- Hartado vs. people of California,28 Led 232, per Mathew, J.
- Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 at p.619.
- State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75.
- Puttaswamy vs. UOI, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
- Sanjeev Coke Mfg. co. vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd,1983 1 SCC 147
- Chiranjit Lal vs. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
- C. Cooper vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.
- Thimmappa vs. Chairman. Central Board of Directors, SBI, AIR 2001SC 467.
Statutes Referred
- Constitution of India, 1950.
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Books Referred
- Pandey, J.N., Srivastava, S.S., 2014. Constitutional Law of India.
[1] Article of Constitution of India,1950.
[2] Directive principles of policy(part IV of the constitution)
[3] Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299
[4] A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
[5] Fundamental Rights (part III of the Constitution)
[6] Hartado vs. people of California,28 Led 232, per Mathew, J.
[7] Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 at p.619
[8] State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75.
[9] “ Nor shall any state – deny to any person equal protection of laws”
[10]K. Puttaswamy vs. UOI, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
[11] Sanjeev coke Mfg. co. vs. Bharat cooking coal Ltd,1983 1 SCC 147
[12] Chiranjit Lal vs. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
[13] R. C. Cooper vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564
[14] K. Thimmappa vs. Chairman. Central Board of Directors, SBI, AIR 2001SC 467.
[15] Menaka Gandhi vs. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597
