INTRODUCTION

The Right to Equality is one of the fundamental pillars of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that all individuals are treated with dignity, fairness, and justice. The Fundamental right under Articles 14-18 of the Constitution guarantees the Right to Equality. Article 14 embodies the general principle of equality embodied in the Preamble and Articles 15-18 are the specific applications of the general rule of Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus of the principle of equality and Articles 15-18 are its species.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

Article 14 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.

The protection guaranteed by Article 14 is available to "any person" within Indian territory, i.e. this right is available to natural and juristic persons, citizens and non-citizens alike.

Equality Before Law

The term "equality before the law" is a concept of English origin.

It is a negative concept and implies the absence of any special privileges in favour of any person.

The equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts.

No person (whether rich or poor, high or low, official or non-official) is above the law.

Equal Protection of Law

The term "equal protection of the laws" is a concept of American Origin.

It connotes equality of treatment under equal circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and liabilities Imposed by the laws.

The similar application of the same laws to all persons who are similarly situated.

The like should be treated alike without any discrimination.

However, both these terms necessarily connote the idea of equal justice. Hon'ble Apex Court, in "State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) has held that the two expressions mean one and the same thing

Moreover, the second expression is the corollary of the first and it would be difficult to imagine a situation where violation of the "equality before law" will not be a violation of "equal protection of the laws".

RULE OF LAW

The Doctrine of Equality before law is a necessary corollary of "Rule of Law" which pervades the Indian Constitution.

The concept rule of law was propounded by "A.V. DICEY", the British jurist and is a foundational principle that ensures that all individuals, including the government, are subject to the law and no one is above it. It signifies the supremacy of law over arbitrary power and underscores the importance of legal principles, fairness, and justice in governance.

Equality before the Law: There is equal subjection of all citizens (rich or poor, high or low, official or non-official) to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts. It prohibits discrimination and arbitrary treatment, guaranteeing that justice is administered impartially.

Priority of Rights of the Individual: It says that the Constitution is the result of the rights of the individual as defined and enforced by the courts of law rather than the Constitution being the source of the individual rights.

The first and second elements are applicable to the Indian system and not the third one. In the Indian system, the Constitution is the source of the individual rights.

The Supreme Court held that the "Rule of Law as embodied in Article14 is a "Basic Feature" of the Constitution.

Treating Unequals as Equals: Violation of Equality Clause

The equal protection of laws 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 persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position.

The varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality.

Reasonable Classification v. Class Legislation

Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis But where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Thus, what Article 14 forbids is class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification.

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, all of whom stand in the same relation.

Considering the dynamic nature of human societies, it is not only permissible but strongly required that law should provide for reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions for the purpose of achieving specific ends.

But classification must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive". It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislature.

It has been held in the State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar that the following are the requirements of a reasonable classification:

Intelligible Differentia: The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons or things which are grouped together from others left out of the group. For example, a child below the age of 7 is totally exempted from criminal liability since it is presumed that a child below 7 cannot form guilty intention. Between 7 to 12, it depends on his mental maturity. Above 12, treated as an adult for ascertaining criminal liability. The classification based on age is rational and objective, taking into account factors such as cognitive development, maturity, capacity for understanding consequences, and the rehabilitative potential of children.

Rational Nexus with the Object: The differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. For example, the government imposes higher taxes on luxury goods compared to essential commodities. This classification is reasonable as it aims to ensure progressive taxation and alleviate the burden on low-income groups while generating revenue for public welfare.

A Single Individual May Constitute A Class

In the case of Chiranji Lal v. The Union of India (1961), the facts of the case were that owing to mismanagement in Sholapur Shipping and Weaving Company Limited the management threatened to close down the Mill

The Government of India passed the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. (Emergency Provision) Act empowering the Government to take over the control and management of the company and its properties by appointing their own directors.

The Act was challenged by a stakeholder of the company on the ground that a single company and its shareholder was being denied equality before the law, because the Act treated him differently visà-vis other companies and their shareholders.

The Supreme Court held the Act valid and said that a law may be constitutional even though it applies 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 itself, unless it is shown that there are other who are similarly circumstanced.

In the present case the Sholapur Company formed a class by itself because the

mismanagement of the Company's affairs prejudicially affecting the production of an essential commodity and had caused serious unemployment amongst labourers.

Special Courts and Special Procedure

Under Article 246(2) Parliament by law. is empowered to set up Special Courts and to provide special procedure for the trial of certain 'offences' or 'classes of offences.

Such a law will not be violative of Article 14, if it lays down proper guidelines for classifying 'offences', 'classes of offences' or 'classes' of cases to be tried by Special Court.

But the special procedure prescribed by such a law should not be substantially different from the procedure prescribed under an ordinary law.

Modern Concept of Equality: Protection Against Arbitrariness

In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) the Supreme Court has challenged the traditional concept of equality which is based on reasonable classification and has laid down a new concept of equality. It was held inter alia:

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.

The conclusion is that if the action of the State is arbitrary it cannot be justified even on the basis of doctrine of classification. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal and therefore violative of Article 14. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)

In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, Supreme Court struck down the Air India and Indian Airlines Regulations on the retirement and pregnancy bar on the services of air hostesses as unconstitutional on the ground that the conditions laid down therein were entirely unreasonable and arbitrary.

Regulation 46 provided that an air hostess would retire from the service of the corporation upon attaining the age of 35 years, or on marriage, if it took place within four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurred earlier.

The Court held that the termination of service on pregnancy was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Exceptions to Equality 

The rule of equality before law is not absolute and there are constitutional and other exceptions to it. These are mentioned below:

1. The President of India and the Governor of States enjoy the following immunities (Article 361):

(1) The President or the Governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office.

(ii) No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor in any court during his term of office

(iii) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or the Governor shall be issued from any court during his term of office.

(iv) No civil proceedings against the President or the Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office, until the expiration of two months next after notice has been delivered to him.

2. No person shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in any court in respect of the publication in a news paper (or by radio or television) of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or either House of the Legislature of a State (Article 361-A).

3. No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof (Article 105).

4. No member of the Legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof (Article 194).

5. Article 31-C is an exception to Article 14. It provides that the 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. The Supreme Court held that "where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out".

6. The foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambas-sadors and diplomats enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings.

7. The UNO and its agencies enjoy the diplomatic immunity.

What does Article 14 of the Indian Constitution state?

Article 14 guarantees 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. It means every person, whether Indian or foreigner, is equal in the eyes of the law and entitled to fair treatment by the government.

Does Article 14 allow for any classification or special treatment?

Yes, Article 14 allows for reasonable classification, which means the government can make laws or policies that treat different groups differently, as long as the classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia (a clear and logical distinction), and has a rational connection to the objective of the law.

How is Article 14 applied by the courts in India?

Indian courts use Article 14 to strike down laws or actions that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfair. If a law or government policy treats people unequally without a valid reason, the courts can declare it unconstitutional under Article 14. It plays a major role in protecting citizens against unjust or biased treatment.