CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II (FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS)

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II (FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS)
LAW 637
ARTICLE 14
Himanshu Kumar Singh
Assistant Professor of Law
Indian Institute to Legal Studies Cooch Behar

2. “To secure to all citizens, equality of Status and of Opportunity” – Our constitutional goal
enshrined in the Preamble.
Art 14 -18 are the provisions made in confirmed with the idea of equality enshrined in the
Preamble.
Art 14 incorporates the doctrine of Equality in general and wider sense. Art 15 – 18 contains
specific instances of the general doctrine of equality incorporated in Art 14.
RIGHT TO EQUALITY (Art 14 -18)

3. “To secure to all citizens, equality of Status and of Opportunity” – Our constitutional goal
enshrined in the Preamble.
Art 14 -18 are the provisions made in confirmed with the idea of equality enshrined in the
Preamble.
Art 14 incorporates the doctrine of Equality in general and wider sense. Art 15 – 18 contains
specific instances of the general doctrine of equality incorporated in Art 14.
RIGHT TO EQUALITY (Art 14 -18)

4. Art 14. Equality before law - The State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
• Art 14 imposes a negative obligation upon the State.
• Art 14 is mandatory in nature and its protection is available to any
person. Classification of persons into citizens and aliens is not valid for
the purposes of Art 14.
ARTICLE 14

5. Equality before the law
• Term of English Origin
• Implies that no one is above the law and every person is subject to
the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals.
• Term is Negative in nature which also suggest the absence of
privilege in favour of any person.
ARTICLE 14

6. Equal Protection of the laws
• Term of American Origin (inserted under US Constitution vide
14th Amendment to the US Constitution, 1868).
• Implies equal treatment in equal circumstances.
• Term is Positive in nature which also suggest the applicability of
uniform law for persons equally situated.
ARTICLE 14

7. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952, SC, held :
• The two expressions “Equality before the law” and “Equal Protection of the
laws” have no substantial difference. Both imbibe the idea of equal justice.
• Violation of any of the two is bound to affect the other.
• Equal protection of the laws is the natural corollary of the Equality before the
law.
• “Equality” means equals should be treated alike and not that unequals should
be treated alike.
Equality before the law vis a vis Equal Protection of the laws

8. • Absolute Equality is impracticable as people are different from each
other in their nature, disposition, efficiency, capacity, personality etc.
Human needs also differ. People also differ as regards to the
requirements of particular office or place.
• Art 14 prohibits Class Legislation but permits Reasonable
Classification.
• Class Legislation is undesired discrimination. Picking out a few out of a
larger body would amount to class legislation if it is done without any
reasonable basis.
• Conferment of privilege or inflictment of penalty by arbitrary picking
up few, infringes equality.
• Reasonable Classification is a desirable and proper discrimination. It
does not violate equality. Reasonable Classification is inevitable to
achieve specific ends.
NEED OF CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 14

9. Landmark Judgments
 RK Dalmia v Justice Tendolkar, 1958, SC, held:
• For a classification to be termed as Reasonable, it must be based on
intelligible differentia. The classification and the objects thereof, must
have rational nexus.
• Reasonable Classification does not imply scientific completeness or
logical exactness.
• Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment.
• Classification may be made on different grounds like geographical,
object wise or professional or otherwise.
• In appropriate cases, even a single individual may constitute a class in
itself.
• Art 14 prohibits discrimination on substantive as well as procedural
grounds.
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

10. Landmark Judgments
 EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, 1974, SC, laid down the new principle of
Equality:
• Equality is a dynamic concept. It has many aspects and dimensions. It can’t be
confined within traditional doctrinaire limits.
• Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness, as both are sworn enemies. Therefore, an
arbitrary action violates Art 14.
 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 SC, the above principle of Equality
was reiterated. It was further held:
• Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness. The doctrine of Equality is not a paraphrase of
Art 14.
• It is not the object & end of Art. 14 either.
• It is only a judicial formula.
• No arbitrary State action can be justifies even by resorting to doctrine of
classification.
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION