Right to Equality under Article 14 of Indian Constitution

“What is life without liberty; and what is liberty without equality of rights?” – Ernestine L Rose

Introduction:

The fundamental fights are guaranteed to protect the basic human rights of all citizens of India and are put into effect by the courts, subject to some limitations. One such fundamental right is Right to Equality. As the article speaks for itself that everyone is treated same when it comes to justice. The law ensures that justice is served irrespective of other factors.

For a democratic country like India or for that matter for any civilized society law play a very crucial role. India being a land of diversity, this article brings everyone under the big umbrella of justice and equity. Therefore Article 14 can be regarded as the base of our Constitution; indicating that no stone will be left unturned; and that no person having privilege can stand upon the right of anyone who has lesser privileges. Law is same for one and all.

Meaning and Origin

Article 14 is a directive to the state that it shall not deny equal protection of law and equality before the law to who so ever is within the geographical boundaries of India. Article 14 combined two very important aspects. First is “rule of law” a British Doctrine which was set forth by Prof Dicey and “equal protection of the law”, which comes from clause of 14^th from the US Constitution putting intensity and strength in the article which is there to ensure equality in a country of millions. But the Supreme Court had to at times lessen this vigor of article 14 so as the welfare programs can operate without hurdles.

Latest aspects of Article 14

With time Article 14 evolved and a new dimension were added in it in the very famous E.P Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.[1] in which it was held that article 14 is a notion that is actively changing. And it is no way possible that it can be damaged, and can be kept inside limited boundaries of any practice or concepts. Irrationality and impartiality are poles apart as former emphasis on a system deprived of freedom; and the latter emphasis on liberty and fairness. Any legislation that does not follow the concept of reasonableness can be called as bureaucratically and constitutionally against the article of equality.

In this case, we find that Bhagawati J. located the essence of Article 14 in arbitrariness. “The normal meaning of ‘arbitrary’ is something which does not depend on logic or relevant grounds; and an unreasonable judgement is one which no reasonable person would take. In this case, it was held that it was quite appropriate to highlight this aspect of article 14 because petitioner’s allegation could be summed up as an allegation of having been treated arbitrarily.

This particular case had discrimination of a particular class on unreasonable grounds which are totally against Article 14.

Equality before Law

Art 14 ensures that people are treated as equals in the eye of Law. The first expression ‘equality before the Law’ which is taken from English Common Law, is somewhat a negative concept. This means that no person will be given any kind of special treatment irrespective of the post he holds. He like other has to follow the same procedure established by the law. Like Professor Dicey said that if that if the president commits a crime he is has to be tried under the same law. He has to follow the same proceeding as that of a common man. Prof Jennings made it clear with his statement that we have to treat equal people on same footing if they are of same class. Law cannot be different for people belonging to similar classes.

The power to go to the courts, take part in proceedings, file complain etc should follow the same pattern; and any kind of discrimination bases on gender, financial status profession or political influence should be strictly prohibited”.

In the All India Sainik Schools Employees’ Assn. v. Sainik Schools Society[2],it was clearly stated that equal; protection of law ensures equal treatment. According to which the likes will be given the same treatment as that of others.

This was also held in Raghubir Singh v. the State of Haryana[3].

Prof Dicey gave three meaning of Rule of law:

1. The absence of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy of Law: It means that the Government cannot use arbitrary powers. Citizens will be put behind the bars for something that is unlawful and nothing else.
2. Equality before the Law: The monarch system was considered stating that the superior is always right. Apart from that all other people are governed according to the same law and are prosecuted in the similar courts. 
3. The Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land: The legislature makes the laws; and the courts ensure proper enforcement of those laws.

The exceptions Rule of Equality

But there are certain exceptions to this. Article 359 which suspends the enforcement of fundamental rights as the time of emergency also suspends Article 14. Art. 361 provide that the president of India and the governors of the states can not face any legal order at the time when they are performing some official work under their power. They are immune from court cases except in some situations.  As per Art 105 and 194 ,the MLAs and MPs charged with the case of defamation when they are inside the parliament or if they take retains actions inside the Legislative Assembly and Parliament. The officers arriving from different counties to India cannot be prosecuted.

Reasonable Classification but not Class Legislation

Article 14 doesn’t mean that all laws can be treated in a familiar manner. The state is free to give a set of people a different treatment if that treatment is justified. It is quite clear that if unequal are treated equally then that would disrupt the balance of society in large.

Hereby we can say that Article 14 abolishes any kind of class legislation if it is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Class legislation leads to erroneous inequality by providing advantages to a certain class. In-State of A.P. v. N.R. Reddi[4] it was said that even though any kind of discrimination on the basis of class is prohibited but if the classes are made on grounds that are rational and justified, then such classes are permitted so as a social objective can be achieved.

Test of Reasonable Classification

It is necessary that classification for bringing reasonably it has to fulfill the following test mentioned in the very famous Anwar Ali Case[5], in which it was stated that to abide by this test it was necessary that two principles must be followed. Firstly that whatever the classification made, it is reasonable and based on comprehensive aspect. Secondly, the classification aims towards achieving the reason of establishing the particular legislation. After this case, various High Courts and Supreme Courts followed the classification repeatedly; thereby making some contents of the article glorious which, earlier, in the 70’s judgment, was considerably platitudinous.

The courts had a view that the nexus examination may divert the right away from its main objective and will change the principal of fairness. Many emphasized on far reaching study of this article and its principle. After analyzing various decisions of the SC he concluded that the nexus tests failed in various fields. He said that the system of classifying contains the cause, for whom that classification has been done and what is the classification. In this case the question of “what is the classification” was neglected and was not appropriate for this particular condition Cited in Mahendra P. Singh (Ed.): Comparative Constitution Law, p 485.

In the landmark case of R.K Salmia vs. Tendulkar[6], Justice Das held the classification to be valid and theses principles were laid down for a valid classification

If the law is as per the constitution and is applicable on just one person due to certain reasons or conditions then that person will be treated as a separate class from others

It is presumed that the particular statue is as per the Constitution and the one who claims that there has been a breach has to prove its words.

If there is any kind of favoritism for a particular class, it would have been done for the betterment of society:

In Re Special Courts Bill[7], the SC however warned against over-emphasis on classification. In this case it was said that if case two laws are made for a particular issue and in that one law is more radical than the other law and the officials are given this huge power to apply any law which they feel is best suited for a particular situation. Now the people on whom this law would be applicable will have to go through different circumstances as there is a major difference in both the laws and this leads to unjustified differentiation.

Hence to solve this issue the law makers should provide strong grounds as to when a radical law has to be applied and when not. If the radical law fails to achieve its motive, it has to be declared unconstitutional under Article 14. The over-emphasis of establishing different classes leads to unavoidable outcome in the exchange of the method of establishing separate classes in order to achieve fairness.

Case Laws

1. D.S Nakara v. Union of India[8]

In this case a scheme of retirement formed and was applicable on only those people who retired after 31 March 1979. SC ordered that such discrimination of dates did violate article 14 and it was arbitrary and vague. Along with that, a gap of two days could cause a huge financial impact on the one who has to receive a pension

2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[9]

This case apart from well noted for the rarest of rare case, it was also held that where the judge feels that there has been arbitrariness or the grounds of classification are not reasonable then the ruler of law is not provided.

3. Air India v. Nargesh Meerza[10]

The policy made by the Air India was held to arbitrary since it made a norm which leads to termination of air hostess after her first pregnancy. The retiring age was kept 35 which could be extended to the 45 years as per the wishes of MDs. This policy was declared fundamentally wrong and that no proper classification was there.

4. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[11]

A law in Bengal allowed the establishment of a special court in order to have speedy trials and quick proceedings of certain cases offences, etc as ordered by the State Government. These courts followed the procedure that provides lesser assistance to rove him not guilty compared to normal courts. The classification was declared to be arbitrary had the grounds of offences was not properly classified.

5. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R Veeraswamey and Ors.[12]

After a proposal the The Employees Provident Fund Act became applicable on the people working in the state of Tamil Nadu. Now the question arose weather the benefits of EPA have to be given to those members too who has already retired? The defendant contended that it was not possible as this would lead to a huge monitory burden on the employer which was a reasonable reason. The Supreme Court held that this was a reasonable classification. Apart from that, those who previously retired must have received all the retiring benefits and it made no sense to provide them benefits under the ESI Act all over again

6. Northern India Caterers v. State of Punjab[13]

Punjab act formed a procedure so as to remove a person from an authorized job in a public area. There the commissioner was given the power to either remove the person on its own with the help of special law or was free to file a general suit for the eviction under the general law. This was held unconstitutional as the discretion of commissioner cannot be classified as reasonable classification.

Conclusion

In the end is is quite crucial to understand that the courts judgement should be based on keeping both the old as well as the new doctrine in a balanced manner , not ignoring the criticism of these doctrines. The doctrine of intelligible differentia should be advocated. Step by step development and expansion of Article 14 has augmented the scope, the nexus test and the concept of non arbitrariness are the bare example of it. The Article 14 is a vast concept and should be kept up with the changing circumstances of the society and due process of justice. The quote by Rick Riordan rightly fits here that “Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need.”

---

[1] 1974 AIR 555

[2] 1989 Supp (1) SCC 205,212

[3] AIR 1980 SC 1087

[4] (2001) 7 SCC 708

[5] AIR 1952 SC 75

[6] 1959 SCR 279

[7] AIR 1979 SC 478

[8] AIR 1952 SC 75

[9] AIR 1980 SC 898

[10] AIR 1981 SC 1829

[11] AIR 1952 SC 75

[12] 26 March 1999

[13] AIR 1967 SC 1581