Right to Equality (Article 14): all you need to know

In this article we made a comprehensive and detailed study about the Concept of Equality before the Law and the Equal Protection of the Laws under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

 

1. Introduction:

 

Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution guarantee the right to equality to every citizen of India. Article 14 embodies the general principles of equality before law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons. Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the Preamble. The succeeding Articles 15, 16. 17 and 18 lay down specific application of the general rules laid down in Article 14. Article 15 relates to prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 17 abolishes ‘Untouchability’. Article 18 abolishes title.

 

Principle of equality is fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of it can be seen in Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 of the Constitution embedded, in Part IV of the Constitution.

 

2. Understanding Article 14:

 

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution reads:

 

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.

 

This simple yet profound statement encapsulates the essence of the right to equality. It establishes that all individuals, regardless of their caste, religion, gender, race, or socio-economic status, must be treated equally by the state and enjoy equal protection of the laws.

 

3. Equality Before Law (Article 14)

 

Article 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'. Thus Article 14 uses two expressions “equality before the law" and "equal protection of the law”. The phrase “equality before the law” finds a place in almost all written Constitutions that guarantees fundamental rights. Both these expressions have, however, been used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first expression 'equality before law' is of English origin and the second expression has been taken from the American Constitution. Both these expressions aim at establishing what is called “equality of status” in the Preamble of the Constitution. While both the expressions may seem to be identical. they do not convey the same meaning. While 'equality before the law' is a somewhat negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege in favour of individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law. "Equal protection of the law" is a more positive concept implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances. However, one dominant idea common to both the expressions is that of equal justice.

 

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, Patanjali Sastri, CJ, rightly held-the second expression is 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 one and the same thing.

 

3.1. Equality before law and absolute equality:

 

The concept of equality does not mean absolute equality among human beings which is physically not possible to achieve. It is a concept implying absence of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like in favour of any individual, and also the equal subject of all individuals and classes to the ordinary law of the land. As Dr. Jennings puts it:

 

“Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered that like should be treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to prosecute and be prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all citizens of full age and understanding without distinctions of race, religion, wealth, social status or political influence”.

 

Equality before Law and 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 be his rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. “With us”, Dicey wrote "every official from the Prime Minister down to constable or a Collector of taxes is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen". 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.

 

Professor Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law thus-

 

1. 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. In other words, “a man may be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else”.
2. Equality before the law. It means subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts. This means that 'no one is above law with the sole exception of the monarch who can do no wrong". Everyone in England, whether he is an official of the State or a private individual, is bound to obey the same law. Thus, public officials do not hold a privilege position in Great Britain. In Great Britain there is one system of law and one system of courts for all, i.e., for public officials and private persons.
3. The Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land. It means that the source of the right of individuals is not the written Constitution, but the rules as defined and enforced by the courts.

 

The first and the second aspects apply to Indian system but the third aspect of the Dicey’s rule of law does not apply to Indian system as the source of rights of individuals is the Constitution of India. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and all laws passed by the legislature must be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

 

3.2. 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. This has been interpreted to mean subjection to equal law, applying to all in the same circumstances. 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. As regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is the same. Thus, the rule is that the like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.

 

The rule of law imposes a duty upon the State to take special measure to prevent and punish brutality by police methodology. The Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 is the “basic feature” of the Indian Constitution and hence it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution.

 

The words ‘any person’ in Article 14 of the Constitution denote that the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is available to any person which includes any company or association or body of individuals. The protection of Article 14 extends to both citizens and non-citizens and to natural persons as well as legal persons. The equality before the law is guaranteed to all without regard to race, colour or nationality. Corporations being juristic persons are also entitled to the benefit of Article 14.

 

3.3. Exceptions to the Rule of law:

 

The above rule of equality is, however, not an absolute rule and there are number of exceptions to it:

 

First ‘equality before the law’ does not mean that the “powers of the private citizens are the same as the powers of the public officials”. Thus, a police officer has the power to arrest while, as a general rule, no private person has this power. This is not the violation of the rule of law. But the rule of law does require that these powers should be clearly defined by law and that abuse of authority by public officers must be punished by ordinary courts in the same manner as illegal acts committed by private persons.

 

Secondly, the rule of law does not prevent certain classes of persons being subject to special rules. Thus, members of the armed forces are controlled by military laws. Similarly, medical practitioners are subjected to the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, a statutory body, and are immune from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. Article 361 of the Indian Constitution affords an immunity to the President of India and the State Governors. Article 361 provides that the President or the Governors of State shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. No criminal proceeding shall be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor of a State in any Court during his term of office. No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or the Governor of State shall be issued from any Court during his term of office.

 

Thirdly, ministers and other executive bodies are given very wide discretionary powers by the statutes. A Minister may be allowed by law to act as he thinks fit or if he is satisfied. Such power is sometimes abused. Today, a large number of legislations is passed in the form of delegated legislation. i.e., rules, orders or statutory instruments made by ministers and other bodies and not directly by Parliament. These rules did not exist in Dicey's time.

 

Fourthly, certain members of society are governed by special rules in their professions, i.e., lawyers, doctors, nurses, members of armed forces and police. Such classes of people are treated differently from ordinary citizens.

 

The Constitution itself contains provisions which, under certain circumstances, limit the effectiveness of Art. 14.

 

1. The scope of right to equality under Article 14 has been considerably restricted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The new Article 31-C added by the Amendment Act provides that laws made by the State for implementing the Directive Principles contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14. Such laws will, thus, be an exception to Article 14 of the Constitution. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that “where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out”.
2. Article 359(1) provides that where a proclamation of emergency is in operation the President may, by order, declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such rights conferred by Part III (except Arts. 20 and 21) shall remain suspended. Thus, if the President of India issues an order, where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, enforcement of Article 14 may be suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force.
3. Under Article 361, the President and the Governors 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 process. This is also available to enemy aliens for acts of war.

 

4. Landmark judgements on equality:

 

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, has been interpreted and clarified through various landmark case laws over the years. These cases have played a crucial role in shaping the understanding and application of this fundamental right. Here are some of the most important case laws related to Article 14:

1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): While this case is primarily known for the doctrine of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, it also had significant implications for Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the power of amendment does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes principles of equality and the rule of law.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the scope of Article 14 by interpreting the phrase “procedure established by law”. The Supreme Court ruled that any law depriving a person of their personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. This case emphasized the importance of substantive due process in addition to procedural due process.
3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Also known as the “Mandal Commission case,” this landmark judgment dealt with the issue of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. The Supreme Court held that the principle of equality does not prohibit the state from making reservations to uplift historically marginalized sections of society, provided there is no excessive reservation.
4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974): This case established the principle that equality is not merely formal but substantive. The Supreme Court held that arbitrary and irrational state action, even if within the bounds of law, can be challenged if it violates the essence of equality.
5. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981): In this case, the Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, and any action of the state that lacks reasonableness can be struck down under Article 14.
6. Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1952): This case laid down the “intelligible differentia” test, stating that a classification must be based on a rational distinction that has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law.
7. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): This case clarified that while reasonable classification is permissible, it must not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive. It emphasized that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational relation to the objective of the law.
8. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): While not exclusively about Article 14, this case is significant for establishing the concept of “procedure established by law” as opposed to “due process of law” when it comes to depriving a person of their personal liberty.

 

These cases have played a vital role in shaping the jurisprudence around Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. They have provided valuable insights into the scope, limitations, and interpretations of the right to equality, ensuring that this fundamental principle is upheld and protected in the Indian legal system.

 

5. Conclusion:

 

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution stands as a testament to the nation's commitment to equality and justice. It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary and discriminatory actions, fostering an environment where every citizen can flourish without being impeded by unjust barriers. As India continues its journey towards progress and development, the principles enshrined in Article 14 serve as a guiding light, ensuring that the country remains true to its democratic and inclusive ideals.