INTRODUCTION

The makers of India’s Constitution were not satisfied with that kind of understanding of
the right to equality. They knew that even though inequality in Indian society has been
noticed and attacked ever since Buddha’s time and has been Central to the social
reforms from time to time, widespread social and economic inequalities, often
sanctioned by law or public policies and exercise of public power, supported by religion
and other social norms and practices existed and flourished such inequalities could not
be removed minimised or dealt with by a provision like Article 14 alone. Even if they
could be dealt with, it would have been a very slow process. Therefore, they expressly
abolished and prohibited some of the existing inequalities practised not only by public
power or State but even by private persons, and expressly authorised the State to take
necessary steps to remove them. Article 15 to 18 clearly express such intention of
Constitution makers. Thus, the right to equality in the Constitution of India is not merely
a negative right not to be discriminated against, but also a positive right to be treated as
an equal. Under the later aspect of the right, which is the essence of the core of right to
equality, the State is under an obligation to take necessary steps so that every individual
receives equal respect and concern which he is entitled to as a human being. Article 14,
though much wider and general than Article 15 to 18 in its scope, it must be read in
conjunction with Article 15 to 18 and should not either permit anything prohibited or
prohibit anything permitted by the latter.

Article 14 guarantees to every person, including non-citizens and transgender , the right
to equality before law or the equal protection of laws. The first expression equality
before the law, which is said to have taken from the English common-law, is declaration
of equality of all person in the eyes of law, implying absence of any special privilege in
any individual. Every person, whatever his rank or position, is subject to the jurisdiction
of the ordinary courts. Explaining the concept of legal equality as it operated in England,
Dicey said, “With us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a
collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without any legal
justification as any other citizen. The second expression, “the equal protection of the
laws”, which is rather a corollary Of the first and is based on the last clause of the first
section of 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, directs that equal protection shall be
secured to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union in the enjoyment of
their rights and privileges without favour or discrimination. It has been said that “the
equal protection of laws” is a pledge of protection or guarantees of equal laws. The two
expression are simultaneously used in Article 7 of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948 which may have influenced the formulation of Article 14. The underlying
purpose of the two expression is to give as wide amplitude to Article 14 as possible.

The obligation imposed on the State by Article 14 is for the benefit of all persons, within
the territory of India. The benefit of Article 14 is, therefore, not limited to citizens. Every
person whether natural or artificial, whether he is citizen or an alien, is entitled to the
protection of this Article.

In National Legal Services Authority V/s Union of India (2014), it was observed that the
meaning of the term 'person' within Article 14, is gender neutral and also covers
transgenders who are neither male nor female. They are entitled to legal protection of
laws in all spheres of State activity, including employment, healthcare, education as well
as equal civil and citizenship rights, as enjoyed by any other citizen of India.

Article 14 uses the two expressions to make the concept of equal treatment a binding
principle of State action. For long the nature and the extent of the guarantee has been
understood to be the same under both the expressions. In the case State of West Bengal
V/s Anwar Ali Sarkar(1952), Patanjali Sastri CJ observed that the second expression was
a corollary of the first. Indeed, it will be difficult to imagine any violation of "the equal
protection of the laws", which would not be a violation of "equality before the law".
However, the court has also observed that even if there is much in common between the
two expressions in Article 14, they do not mean the same thing. "The word 'law' in the
former expression is used in generic sense - a philosophical sense — whereas the word
'laws' in the latter expression denotes specific laws ". It has not explained this statement
any further, but it means that equality for all is the law or standard norm of the land. As
we will also notice below under the head "Expanding Horizons of Equality", some of the
judges have been pointing out from the very beginning that equality is a dynamic
concept which goes on changing with changing times and social contexts and must be
understood in that sense.

In Stephens College V/s University of Delhi, the Honourable Court held that the
expression “equal protection of laws is now being read as a positive obligation on the
state to ensure equal protection of laws by bringing in necessary social and economic
changes so that everyone may enjoy equal protection of laws and nobody is denied such
protection. If the state leaves the existing inequalities untouched by its laws, It fails in its
duty of providing equal protection of its laws to all the persons. State will provide equal
protection to all the persons of India, irrespective of their citizenship.

In the case, Indra Sawhney V/s Union of India (2000), it was recognised that right to

equality is one of the basic features of Indian Constitution.

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

The phrase "equality before law" is somewhat a negative concept for it implies absence
of - any special privilege in favour of any particular individuals, while the expression
"equal protection of laws" is positive in operation, ensuring equality of treatment to all
in equal circumstances. However, the second expression has been held to be the
corollary of the first. It would, therefore, be difficult to imagine a law, having inequality
of operation may yet give equality of protection. It would be a contradiction to say that
any violation of equal protection of laws would not result in violation of equality before
law. It was thus held that both these expressions meant one and the same thing, i.e.,
equality of status and of opportunity. The dominant idea common to both these
expressions is that of equal justice.

The Supreme Court has explained in Sri Srinivasa Theatre v Government of Tamil Nadu,
that the two expressions 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of law' do not mean
the same thing even if there may be much in common between them. "Equality before
law" is a dynamic concept having many facets. One facet is that there shall be no
privileged person or class and that none shall be above law. Another facet is "the
obligation upon the State to bring about, through the machinery of law, a more eqpal
society .....For, equality before law can be predicated meaningfully only in an equal
society...."

In Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India,' the Governor-General of India

promulgated the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions)
Ordinance, 1950, empowering the Central Government to take over the management
and administration of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., which was closed
down due to disputes between the management and the employees. The Ordinance was
subsequently replaced by an Act of Parliament, containing similar provisions. The
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the impugned Act and the action taken
against the Company. The Court held that there was no infringement of the provisions of
Article 14 even though the Legislature had proceeded against one Company only and its
shareholders. The Court observed that the law would be constitutional, even if it applied
to one person or one class of persons, if there was sufficient basis or reason for it.

Equal Protection of Law

Equal protection of law means that law provides equal opportunities to all those who
are in similar circumstances or situations. This concept is slightly positive in connotation.

Both Equality before law and Equal protection of law aim to establish the “Equality of
Status and Opportunity” as embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. Further,
because all persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same
positions; article 14provides that state can treat different persons in differently if
circumstances justify such treatment. This is called Doctrine of Reasonable classification
and it says that protective discrimination is also a facet of equality.
 Tests for Reasonable Classification

Article 14 in its ambit and sweep involves two facets, viz, it permits reasonable
classification is founded on intelligible differentia and accommodates the practical needs
of the society and the differential must have a rational relation to the objects sought to
be achieved. Further, it does not allow any kind of arbitrariness and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment. It is the 'fonjuris' of our Constitution, the fountainhead of justice."
Differential treatment does not per se amount to violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution and it violates Article 14 only when there is no reasonable basis and there
are several tests to decide whether a classification is reasonable or not and one of the
test will be as to whether it is conducive to the functioning of modern society.

Classification having regard to microscopic differences is not good. To borrow from the
judgement in Roop Chand Adlakha V/s Delhi Development Authority(1989) : "To
overdo classification is to undo equality". In order to pass the test of permissible
classification, it was reiterated, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,

1. Ineligible Differentia: The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia

which distinguishes those that are grouped together from other, and

2. Rational Relation: That differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the Act.

·0 Where the law is challenged as offending against the guarantee in Art 14, the first
duty of the court is to examine the purpose and policy of the Act and then to
discover whether the classification made by the law has a reasonable relation to the
object which the Legislature seeks to obtain. The object of the Act is to found in its
Title, Preamble and Provisions.

·1 It is not possible to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which may accord a

reasonable basis for classification in all cases. It depends on the object of the
legislature. In order to be ‘Reasonable’, a classification must not be arbitrary but
 must be rational`.

The Supreme Court in the case, LIC of India V/s Consumer Education and Research
Centre, has however warned against over-emphasis on classification. The Court has
explained that 'the doctrine of classification is only a subsidiary rule evolved by the
courts to give practical content to the doctrine of equality, over-emphasis on the
doctrine of classification or anxious or sustained attempt to discover some basis for
classification may gradually and imperceptibly erode the profound potency of the
glorious content of equity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The over-emphasis
on classification would inevitably result in substitution of the doctrine of classification
for the doctrine of equality... Lest, the classification would deny equality to the larger
segments of the society'.

Principles for determining Reasonableness of Classification

These principles were laid down in R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, still hold valid
ground, which are follows -

(a) A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual, if, on
account of some special circumstances or reasons, applicable to him and not applicable
to other, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself.'

For instance, Indian Military Nursing Service is a distinct separate class by itself, though a
part of Indian Army, prescription of dress code for the Nurses, has been held as not
violative of Article 14.

(b) There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and

the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear
transgression of the constitutional principles.' It is an accepted doctrine of American
Courts.

(c) It must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the
needs of its own people, that, its laws are directed to problems made manifest by
experience and that, its discriminations. are based on adequate grounds.

(d) The Legislature is free to recognise the degree of harm and may confine its
restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest.

(e) In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the Court may take into
consideration, matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of
the times and may presume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the
time of legislation."
(f) While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of the
Legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the
surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification
may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be
carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and
unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations, to hostile or
discriminating legislation.

(g) The classification may be made on different basis e.g., geographical or according to
objects or occupations or the like.

(h) The classification made by a legislature need not be scientifically perfect or logically
complete. Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required.

(i) Article 14 applies to both, the discrimination of the substantive law as well as
procedure law. If the classification satisfies the above propositions, the law will be
declared Constitutional.

Permination & Prohibition Of Article 14

Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation the equal protection of law
guaranteed by article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character. It
does not mean that the same laws should apply to all persons. It does not mean that
every law must have universal application for, all person are not, by nature, attainment
or circumstances in the same position. The varying need of different classes of persons
often require separate treatment. From the very nature of society there should be
different places and the legislature controls the policy and enacts laws in the best
interest of the safety and security of the state. In fact, identical amount to unequal
circumstances would amount to inequality. Thus, a reasonable classification is permitted
for the develop society.

Article forbids class-legislation but it does not forbids reasonable classification. The
classification, however, 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 be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 is implied where equal are
treated differently without any reasonable Basis.But where equals and unequal are
treated differently, article 14 does not apply class legislation is that which makes an
improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons
arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons.

In Deepak Sibal V/s Punjab University, the Supreme Court has pointed out that a
classification need not be made with mathematical precision. But, if there is little or no
difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and was
left out of the group then classification cannot be regarded as reasonable. The court has
also pointed out that to consider reasonable Ness of the classification it is necessary to
take into account the objective of such classification if the objective be illogical, unfair
and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable.

A Dynamic Approach towards Article 14

The doctrine of reasonable classification has been for long, the undisputed touchstone
to determine the scope and content of Article 14. Over the years, Article 14 has received
a liberal interpretation. Its scope has also been expanded by creative interpretation of
the Courts. The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa V/s State of Tamil Nadu, however, has
given a dynamic connotation to the equalising principle, enunciated in the Article. The
Supreme Court declared this equalising principle contained in Article 14 as a "'founding
faith, a way of life" and for that reason it must not be subjected to "a narrow pedantic or
lexicographic approach." Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself,
Chandrachud and Krishna Iyer, J.J., propounded the new concept of equality from a
positivistic point of view and observed :

Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot
be "cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits.
From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact,
equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a
republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.
Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to
political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.

In Mohd. Shujat Ali V/s Union of India, the Supreme Court warned that the doctrine of
classification should not be carried to a point which instead of being useful servant, it
became a dangerous master. The court observed : "Over emphasis on the doctrine of
classification or an anxious and sustained attempt to discover some basis for
classification may gradually and imperceptibly derive the guarantee of equality of its
spacious content."

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, the Supreme Court struck down as constitutionally invalid,
the allocation of as high a percentage as 33.3 of the total marks for the oral interview for
admission to the Engineering College and declared it as “Infecting the admission
procedure with the vice of arbitrariness". The Court firmly laid down that "what Article
14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary must necessarily invole
negation of equality". So ruled, the Court said that, not more than 15% of the total
marks, should be allocated for the oral interview.

Instances of Classification

Air India V/s Nargesh Meerza

In Arjun Singh v. Vice-chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia," the law students, governed by
the Regulation of the Bar Council of India, were required to secure 25 per cent minimum
attendance while students of other Faculties governed by the University Regulations
were exempted from the requirement of minimum attendance. The Delhi High Court
held that since the students of the Faculty of Law and the students of other faculties
were not similarly placed, there was no basis for the contention of the law students that
they were subjected to hostile discrimination and that their fundamental right
guaranteed by Article 14 had been violated.

D.S. Nakara v. Union Of India

The Government issued an office memorandum announcing a liberalized pension

scheme for retired government servants but made it applicable to those who had retired
after 31 March 1979. The supreme court held that the fixing of the cut off date to be
discriminatory as violating Article 14. The devision of pensioners into two classes on the
basis of the date of retirement was not based on any rational principle because a
difference of two days in the matter of retiremnt could hav a traumatic effect on the
pensioner. Such a classification held to be arbitrary and unprincipled as there was no
acceptable or persuasive reason in its favour. The said classification had no rational
nexus with the object sought to achieved.

Sanaboina Satyanarayan v. Govt. of A.P

In Andra Pradesh. They formulate a scheme for prevention of crime against women. In
prisons also prisoners were classify in to two category first

Prisoners guilty of crime against women and second prisoners who are not guilty of
crime against women. Prisoners who are guilty of crime against women challenge the
court saying that there right to equality is deprived. Court held that there is resoanble
classification to achieve some objective.

Rules of Natural Justice and Article 14

In recent decisions, Article 14 has acquired a new and dynamic meaning. It has been
held that Article 14 requires not only reasonable classification but also that the
classification must be just, fair and reasonable. The classification would not be
reasonable if it is made without observing the rules of natural justice. Even an
administrative order, which involves civil consequences, must be made in consonance
with the rules of natural justice. It has thus been held that the rules of natural justice
form an essential component of Article 14. Even in criminal matters, it is held, that the
Court while awarding compensation to the victim of an offence, must give opportunity
of hearing to the accused.

Natural justice is held to be the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition
and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of
natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Besides, natural justice is an
inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles
of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the Statute, unless there is
a clear mandate to the contrary.

The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The rules cannot be put into a
straight-jacket formula. Their application will depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case as also the provisions of a Statute or Statutory Rules. However, they are
held to constitute "the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate
sense of man for fair play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or
country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is that "no man shall be a
judge in his own cause" and the second rule is "hear the other side".

Another salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order
made. "Reason" is said to be the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it
becomes lifeless. Therefore, where the High Court refused to grant leave to appeal
against acquittal by a non-speaking order, it would be improper as violative of Article 14.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, the Supreme Court held that
Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road. Transport Authority (Condition of Appointment and
Service) Regulations,- 1952, which conferred power on the. Authority, to terminate the
services of a permanent employee by issuing a notice without assigning any reason and
without giving .him any opportunity of hearing, was wholly arbitrary, unjust, unfair and
unreasonable, violating principles of natural justice as well as Article 14.

However, the rules of Natural Justice are not embodied rules and undue reliance on
these principles, may lead to miscarriage of justice. There can be certain situations in
which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside, e.g., where
no prejudice is caused to the person concerned and if quashing of the order made in
breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself
illegal. The Supreme Court in several cases has developed the principle that in addition
to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved. Again, the principle of
natural justice, of giving opportunity of hearing, may be dispensed with on the ground of
public policy and safety or in the interest of justice. It may thus be said that the
requirement of natural justice must deperid on the facts and circumstances of the case.

In State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, the respondent's resignation from service was
accepted for contesting election to the Legislative Assembly of the State. He having been
defeated in the election, sought reinstatement in service, on the ground that others,
earlier had been so reinstated. Rejecting the claim of the respondent, the Supreme
Court held that Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination was meted
out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in
that behalf. A wrong decision by the government, the Court ruled, did not give a right, to
enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. The wrong order, .the Court said,
could not be the foundation, for claiming equality, for enforcement of the same order.

In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, the respondent, a Laboratory

Assistant, was deemed to have vacated his post, on the ground of overstaying of leave
and unauthorised absence. The Court held that the absence of a notice to show cause
did not make any difference, for the employee had already been told that his further
overstay for continuing in the job with a foreign university was bound to be refused.
Right cannot be waived: A person cannot voluntarily get discrimination or waive his
Fundamental Right against discrimination. This was observed in Basheshar Nath V/s IT
Commissioner(1959).

MISTAKE NOT TO BE REPEATED

The guarantee of 'equality before law' is a positive concept. It cannot be enforced by a

person in negative manner. Therefore, if an illegality or irregularity is commited by the
state in favour of a person or a group of persons, others cannot claim that the same
irregularity or illegality be also committed in their favour on thee principle of equality
before law. A wrong decision/order in favour of any particular person does not entitle
any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of such wrong decision. illegality
cannot be a basis for equal treatment.

The principle of equality under Article 14, it has been ruled, does not apply when the
order relied upon is unsustainable in law and is illegal. It is ruled that two wrongs do not
make one right' and that an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so-
called "equality doctrine". It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality.

BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION

It has been held that classification to be reasonable must be founded on some

intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together
from those left out of the group. There may be different basis of classification referable
to different considerations in each case.

Geographical Basis

Article 14 does not require that uniform laws be enacted for the whole of the territory of
India. A law may be applicable to one part of the territory of India and not to the other
parts depending on particular circumstances and peculiar geographical conditions
pervading in that area. A classification may be, therefore, properly made, on
geographical basis. Thus, favoured treatment to those situated in backward and tribal
areas, cannot be held, to be illegal or arbitrary.

In Ram Chandra v. State of Orissa, the State made two Acts for nationalisation of road
transport business. One of the Acts applied to the part of the State which was previously
a part of British India and the other Act applied to that part of the State which was
previously a Princely State. As the conditions in the two parts were materially different,
the Acts were upheld as not violative of Article 14.

But, if the basis of classification is not rational, it would not be upheld merely on the
ground of particular geographical considerations. In the State of Rajasthan v. Rao
Manohar Singhji, jagirdars in one area of the State of Rajasthan were allowed to collect
the land rent, but the jagirdars in other Areas were not so allowed. There being no
apparent difference between them, the law was struck down as having no rational basis
for classification.

Historical Consideration

A classification may be made on the basis of historical reasons. Section 87-B of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, granted immunity from civil process to the. ex-Rulers of Indian
Princely States. This Section was upheld in Mohanlal Jain v. Man Singhji, as the ex-Rulers
constituted a separate class on account of historical consideration. Likewise, the Madras
H.R.C.E, Act, 1951, which was applicable to only that Malabar area, which formerly
formed part of Madras State, was held not discriminatory, since the classification was
based on geographical/historical reasons.

Educational Qualifications

Classification on the basis of educational qualification has been held to be reasonable,

said to satisfy the doctrine of equality as adumbrated in Article 14. The state, as an
employer, therefore, is entitled to fix separate quota for promotion for the degree
holder, diploma holders and certificate holders separately in exercise of its rule making
power under Article 309.
 CONCLUSION

Right to equality is a Fundamental Right. It can be enforced in High Court under Article
226 and in Supreme Court under Article 32.Fundamental Rights can be enforced only if
the state violates it. Right to Equality is considered as basic feature of the Indian
Constitution. Right to Equality under Art.14 is vested not only to citizens but to all
persons. It includes equality before Law and Equal Protection of Law. No one is above
the law of the land. Everyone is equal in the eyes of law. There should be no
discrimination. Law must be equal and must be equally administered. So like must be
treated alike and unlike. Equality before law is negative concept and Equal protection of
law is positive concept. Reasonable Classification is allowed in the administration of
justice. But it should have some relation to the object of the legislature.

In every society there are two classes namely upper class and lower class. The standard
of living of the upper class is high but that of lower class is low. As a result it is the duty
of the state to uplift the lower class in the society to bring Equality. Absolute equality is
impossible but there should not be inequality. Discrimination on the basis of caste, sex,
race, religion, language etc must be not there at all. A sense of equality must be there
then and then only then will be unity in any state.