Introduction
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India[1]. It embodies the general principle of equality and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons[2]. Article 14 is one of the pillars of the Indian Constitution and a part of the basic structure which cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment[3].
Historical Background of Right to Equality and Article 14
The concept of equality before law owes its origin to the English Common Law and the Magna Carta[4]. The rule of law propounded by AV Dicey included the principle of equality before the law[5]. The barons of England compelled King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 AD which guaranteed this principle[6].
The equal protection clause finds its origin in the 14th amendment to the US Constitution[7]. It provides that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[8]. This clause has been extensively interpreted by the US Supreme Court in its jurisprudence[9].
The framers of the Indian Constitution adopted principles from the US and UK and incorporated Article 14 to provide for both equality before law and equal protection of laws[10].
Scope and Application of Right to Equality under Article 14
Article 14 applies to all persons within the territory of India, including citizens, non-citizens, corporates, juristic persons etc[11]. It applies against State action and not private action unless there is sufficient nexus with the State[12]. Both substantive and procedural laws are subject to Article 14[13]. The right under Article 14 is available against arbitrary executive action also[14].
The essence of Article 14 has been described as a “constitutional goal of equal justice”[15]. It aims to establish an egalitarian social order without any discrimination[16]. The overarching principles of governance in Article 14 are fairness, non-arbitrariness, non-discrimination and rationality in State action[17].
Equality Before Law under Article 14
Equality before law means that among equals, the law should be equal and should be equally administered[18]. It implies that people in similar circumstances should be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by laws[19]. There should not be any special privilege to any person on the basis of birth, creed, sex, religion etc[20].
This doctrine was expounded by Dicey as a principle of Rule of Law[21]. It ensures that every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts irrespective of his/her status or position[22].
This principle acts as a check on the arbitrariness of the rulers and requires the law to be certain and predictable in application[23]. However, identical treatment to unequals may lead to inequality[24].
Equal Protection of Laws under Article 14
Equal protection requires State to enact equal laws and provide adequate safeguards against discrimination[25]. The State cannot discriminate based on impermissible criteria[26]. However, reasonable classification is permitted based on rationale differentia[27].
This doctrine mandates equality of treatment in equal circumstances[28]. It permits State to classify persons for legitimate governmental objectives but such classification should be reasonable and have nexus with the objective sought[29]. The essence of this principle is “like should be treated alike”[30].
Inter-relationship between the two expressions of Article 14
The two principles aim to establish equal justice, the former in a negative way and the latter in a positive way[31]. Equal protection of laws is wider in scope and includes equality before law[32]. Classification of persons for differential treatment is permitted subject to Article 14[33].
The differences between equality before law and equal protection of laws have blurred over time and courts use both principles interchangeably to strike down arbitrary laws[34].
Reasonable Classification as a Reasonable Restriction on Article 14
Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes between those included and excluded from the class[35]. Such differentia must have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved[36].
The twin tests for valid classification were laid down in the case of Anwar Ali Sarkar[37]. The criteria evolve and vary with times[38]. Classification should not be arbitrary but be based on some “intelligible differentia” or real differences[39]. The Supreme Court has applied several criteria to determine reasonableness[40].
- Firstly, a single person can be classified as a class based on unique circumstances applicable only to that person[41].
- Secondly, there is a presumption in favor of constitutionality of statutes and burden is on those challenging it to prove unreasonableness[42].
- Thirdly, predominance of legal spirit requires court to look at surrounding circumstances and not just object or form of law[43].
- Fourthly, classification need not be scientifically perfect[44]. Minor imperfections or fortuitous consequences will not invalidate classification[45].
- Fifthly, Article 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification[46].
- Sixthly, if the object of the law itself is discriminatory, no explanation of classification will justify it[47].
- Seventhly, a law can be struck down only if it is shown that there are people similarly situated but treated differently[48].
New Dimensions of Equality under Article 14
In recent times, Indian Courts have expanded the concept of equality under Article 14 by developing principles like arbitrariness, legitimate expectation etc[49].
In E.P.Royappa[50], Justice Bhagwati held equality to be antithesis of arbitrariness[51]. Maneka Gandhi case [52] laid down that aside from classification, reasonableness is also a test for equality. Thus, even non-discriminatory laws can be struck down as arbitrary[53].
Doctrine of legitimate expectation was evolved in India[54]. State cannot arbitrarily change a regular practice without sufficient cause[55]. Any change in policy must be fair, non-arbitrary and rational[56]. Proportionality of such change will be examined[57].
Critical Analysis of Right to Equality under Article 14
Certain conflicts have arisen in applying doctrines under Article 14. There is thin line between discretion and discrimination[58]. Courts have struggled to determine arbitrariness in non-discriminatory laws[59]. Wider judicial review of State action may encroach on separation of powers[60]. Legal scholars have criticized the vagueness in principles of equality[61].
However, the dynamic approach of the Supreme Court has strengthened equality jurisprudence[62]. Article 14 has become a potent weapon against injustice[63]. The Court has balanced different principles to uphold the spirit of the Constitution[64].
Conclusion
To conclude, Article 14 is the bedrock of Indian democracy[65]. It has been interpreted innovatively by the courts to uphold justice[66]. The horizon of equality jurisprudence was expanded by developing linked principles[67]. However, achieving substantive equality remains a goal for the State[68]. Inclusive growth and equitable development will fulfill the vision of Article 14[69].
References
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[2] Deepak Sibal v Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145.
[3] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
[4] JAIRAJ GOYAL, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 64 (15th ed. 2021).
[5] Id.
[6] S P SATHE, EQUALITY, RULE OF LAW AND THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION 14 (1965).
[7] U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
[8] Id.
[9] Gautam Bhatia, Equal moral membership: Naz Foundation and the refashioning of equality under a transformative constitution, 2 NUJS L. REV. 443 (2009).
[10] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[11] State of U.P. v Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86.
[12] Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.
[13] Budhan Choudhry v State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.
[14] Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.
[15] SANJAY PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 62 (2nd ed. 2021).
[16] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[17] Shayara Bano v Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
[18] Mohd. Qasim v State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1953) SCR 564.
[19] Id.
[20] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[21] SATHE, supra note 6.
[22] Id.
[23] Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
[24] SATHE, supra note 6.
[25] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[26] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[27] Id.
[28] State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
[29] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[30] SATHE, supra note 6.
[31] Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
[32] Id.
[33] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[34] Mahesh Chandra v Regional Manager, (2009) 2 SCC 99.
[35] Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
[39] Id.
[40] MAHESH CHANDRA, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 205 (10th ed. 2020).
[41] Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
[42] Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
[43] Jyoti Prasad v Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602.
[44] Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
[45] Id.
[46] Mahesh Chandra, supra note 40.
[47] Subramanian Swamy v CBI, (2005) 2 SCC 317.
[48] Mahesh Chandra, supra note 34.
[49] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[50] E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.
[51] Id.
[52] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
[53] R.D. Shetty v International Airports Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
[54] Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477.
[55] Id.
[56] Id.
[57] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[58] Mahesh Chandra, supra note 40.
[59] Shayara Bano v Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
[60] SATHE, supra note 6.
[61] UPENDRA BAXI, THE CRISIS OF THE INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM 340 (1982).
[62] Mahesh Chandra, supra note 40.
[63] GOYAL, supra note 4.
[64] SATHE, supra note 6.
[65] Mahesh Chandra, supra note 40.
[66] E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.
[67] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
[68] SATHE, supra note 6.
[69] Mahesh Chandra, supra note 40.
