An Analysis of phrases ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ under Article 14

Introduction

Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, the 4th Earl of Minto became the seventeenth Viceroy of India. During British rule, he brought the ‘Divide and Rule’ policy to British India. Under which, they attempted to divide Indians on the premise of economic, religious, social, and political differences. It was all commenced once they gave provision of separate electorates to create a rift among Hindus and Muslims, consequently promoting communal disharmony.

The Act brought communal representation in Indian politics. This was intended to weaken the developing tide of nationalism within the country with the aid of dividing the Indians on a communal basis. The effect of this act was additionally visible during the partition of the country alongside religious lines. The results of differential remedy of various religious corporations can be visible till date.

Article 14

After winning independence from the hands of the British, while witnessing the scenario of India our Constitution-makers brought Article 14 in the Indian Constitution to establish the fundamental right for every citizen of India. This Article also implies on those who aren’t a citizen of our territory.

Article 14[1] 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”.

However, it should be noted that the word ‘person’ includes legal person, statutory corporation, companies, registered societies, or any other type of legal person.

To treat all citizens equally is the fundamental concept of liberalism[2] and Article 14 guarantees the same to every Indian citizen. The liberty of any individual is directly related to the equality he/she is enjoying in the society.

Article 14[3] uses two expressions “Equality before law” which implies the absence of any special privileges in favour of individuals and the subject of all classes to the ordinary law and equal protection of the law which implies “Equal Treatment in Equal Circumstances”

Equality before Law

India is a democratic country and in fact the most important democratic country in the whole world. Here every citizen is independent to think about anything, do anything (with some limitations though) and our state is there to place reasonable limits. In the eyes of law, every individual in the territory of our country has to be dealt with equally. It is a general concept.

‘Equality before Law’ is originated from the UK. It has been placed in Article 14(1)[4] of the Indian Constitution which basically refers that every individual needs to be treated equally regardless of whether or not they’re poor or rich. In other words, it means that there should be no discrimination as per class, gender, caste, etc. This state cannot offer any special privileges to any person within the country. It is likewise referred to as legal equality.

Absolute Equality

Equality before Law prohibits the authority to offer any special privilege to any group of people. It does not convey about equal remedies in equal circumstances. According to it, there needs to be a completely best circumstance and the state does not need to intrude in society with the aid of presenting extra privileges in society.

On the opposite hand, the Right to Equality isn’t absolute and has numerous exceptions to it. Accordingly, equals should be dealt with equally. Equality before Law has numerous exceptions, for instance, the Immunity supplied to the President and Governor. Reservation is likewise a normal instance that defines that the Right to Equality isn’t absolute and may be restricted (or as an alternative used properly) as per the need of society.

In the well-known case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[5], the question was raised that whether the fundamental right to equality is absolute in nature. In the case, the State of Bengal was applying its arbitrary strength to refer cases to the Special Court which was formed by themselves.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a judgement stating that the Fundamental Right to equality is not absolute in nature. Hence, the act of the state was illegal as it was violating the Right to Equality.

Rule of Law

We have already mentioned Equality before Law in detail but there may be additionally an instantaneous connection between Equality before Law and Rule of Law. In Fact, the Rule of Law that’s given by Prof. Dicey[6] says that “no person here is beyond or above the law and is equal in front of the law”. Rule of Law ensures Equality to everybody before Law.

The Rule of Law states that within a country, all men have to be treated equally, and as there is no state religion so the state has no right to discriminate towards any religion. The idea of uniformity must be applied. Basically, it is derived from the Magna Carta (a constitution of rights signed in the UK) which prohibits the arbitrary strength of the state.

Equal Protection of the Laws

It is one of the effective principles of Equality. Equal protection of law[7] originated from the United States of America. It is incurred from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Act of the US constitution. Article 14(2) of the Indian Constitution talks about Equal safety of the law and in keeping with this principle, each person who is living in India needs to be treated similarly and will get equal protection of the law. It ensures safety to everybody in the territory of India and the government cannot discriminate in any ground. It puts a positive responsibility on the state to prevent the violation of rights. This may be achieved through bringing socio-economic changes. It is a specific concept.

The same idea has been mentioned in Stephens College v. The University of Delhi[8]. In this case, the admission system of the university was checked and the primary trouble raised was the validity of preference given to Christian college students within the admission system. Here the Supreme Court held that minority group that’s receiving useful resource from country’s budget is entitled to supply preference or to reserve seats for the students of its community.

The Supreme Court also said that differential remedy of applicants within the admission program does not violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and it is necessary for the minority section.

In another well-known case of Basavaraj v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer[9] wherein the appellant went to the Supreme Court for the unsatisfactory decision of the High Court of Karnataka.

According to the appellant, the High Court committed a mistake by not condoning the postponed as there had been sufficient motives for them to be not capable of attending the High Court on time. It is a well-set up legal proposition that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution isn’t always there to create perpetual illegality, even with the aid of extending the preceding wrong judgement.

It Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellant was negligent on his element because the appellant was not able to reveal the sufficient reason for the delay and for that reason, their appeal was rejected.

Comparing Equality before Law and Equal Protection of the Laws

Equality Before Law has been discussed in Article 14(1) and it’s a negative approach. It states that we should not afford unequal treatment. Further the law has been used as in a generic sense that means that everyone is equal in the eyes of law. It has been used as a standard norm.

Equal Protection of the Laws has been discussed in Article 14(2) and it’s a positive approach. It states that we should create or demand such laws which will help us to afford equal treatment. However, here the word “laws” is a plural word which means that it has been used in a specific sense.

For example: if the government formulates a law for ensuring women’s safety, is that violates the Article 14?  It’s not. This is the main logic behind equal protection of laws. It says that for better public welfare, classification is a must. By recognising various factors such as caste difference, gender discrimination, etc within the country, we will be able to formulate better laws which will help to uplift the country.

Therefore, it was clear that classification is necessary to formulate better laws. But this classification invites undue advantages. Hence, to protect these classifications from undue advantages, the Supreme Court of India has formulated the test which was developed in the State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara[10] case. It gave us the old doctrine in the year 1970.

Test of old doctrine:

1. Intelligible Differentia
2. Rational Nexus

While evaluating the old doctrine of 1970, Supreme Court felt that it was very negative and restrictive approach. Therefore, in E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[11] case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court introduced a new doctrine with the reason that quality is a dynamic concept. By the passing of time, the needs of the society will also change, which will led to the change in the essence of public welfare. If any act is qualifying by the old test, we cannot define that it will also qualify the test of equality.

The new doctrine is very dynamic and activist in nature. It expanded the scope of Equality Before Law and held that:

Equality Before Law = Rule Of Law + Principle of Natural Justice

This view was adopted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[12]. The appellant stated that the sole purpose of Article 14 was to strike out the Arbitrariness from the state’s action and ensure fairness and equality.

The court held that if any action is arbitrary in nature, that means that it is against the equality, no matter if it is qualify any test.

Therefore, the test of new doctrine was formulated as reasonableness plus the previous tests.

Conclusion

In a general sense, every person in India is capable of understanding Article 14 of the Indian Constitution i.e. “Right to Equality”. As our country is democratic, we are blessed with certain fundamental rights to every citizen and we must ensure that those rights must not be infringed by anybody that is not even by the state. The right to Equality that’s provided by our constitution isn’t truly being well enforced even after a lot of legal obligations which are associated with it. It has been put forward by our judicial system[13].

Even after 73 longs years of independence, our motherland is not free from viruses like discrimination, poverty, etc. Even the creators of our Constitution suffered from this. Till date, there are a few places wherein people aren’t dealt with equality and they’re discriminated on the grounds like religion, race, sex, caste, place of origin, etc.

Our judiciary together with the other organs of the country are operating and working very hard to hold equality amongst all the citizens of our beloved country. But until the people of this country are not aware of their rights it will become very hard to remove inequality. The function of the citizens has become very critical for the safety of their personal rights.

The right to equality had to be implemented in a sensible sense in order that no person is disadvantaged in their rights. From Mahatma Gandhi to B.R Ambedkar everybody desired a country wherein there is no place for discrimination.

---

References:

[1] IndianKanoon, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, 1949, IndianKanoon (9^th Sept, 2021, 10:00 AM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/

[2] Richard Dagger, Liberalism, Britannica (9^th sept, 2021, 12:00PM)  https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

[3] Satyajit, Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of the Law (Article 14), Legal Service India (10^th sept, 2021, 10:00 AM) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3276-equality-before-law-and-equal-protection-of-the-laws-article-14-.html

[4] Subhodh Asthana, An Overview of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, Ipleaders (10^th sept, 2021, 12:00 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-14/

[5] IndianKanoon, The state of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, IndianKanoon (11^th of Sept, 2021, 10:00 AM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1270239/

[6] Subhodh Asthana, An Overview of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, Ipleaders (10^th sept, 2021, 12:00 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-14/

[7] Legal Information Institute, Equal Protection of Law, Legal Information Institute (10^th sept, 2021, 11:00 AM) https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/equal-protection-of-the-laws

[8] IndianKanoon, St. Stephen College v. University of Delhi, IndianKanoon (11^th of Sept, 2021, 10:00 AM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1545248/

[9] IndianKanoon, Basavaraj v. The spl land acquisition officer, IndianKanoon (11^th of Sept, 2021, 11:00 AM)  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95455039/

[10] IndianKanoon, State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara, IndianKanoon (11^th sept, 2021, 10:30 am) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/334293/

[11] IndianKanoon, E.P. Royappa v. the state of Tamil nadu, IndianKanoon (11^th sept, 2021, 7:00 PM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327287/

[12] IndianKanoon, Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of India, IndianKanoon (11^th sept, 2021, 5:00 PM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/

[13] MD. Shahid Ali, An overview of right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, Nyatsa (11^th sept, 2021, 4:00 PM)  http://nyatsa.com/blog_detail.php?code=K9597