about your right

2. RIGHT TO EQUALITY
Right to Equality is the first fundamental right assured to the people of India. Article 14-18 of the
Constitution guarantees this right to every citizen of India. Equality is one of the magnificent
corner-stones of the Indian democracy. “In other constitutions generally, this right embodied in
Article 14. As such this right was considered to be a negative right of an individual not to be
discriminated in access to public offices or places or in public matters generally. It did not take
account of the existing inequalities arising even from public policies and exercise of public
powers. The makers of Indian Constitution were not satisfied with such type of undertaking.
They knew of the widespread social and economic inequalities in the country sanctioned for
thousands of years by public policies and exercise of public power supported by religion and
other social norms and practices.”
They were of the opinion that only Article 14 would not be sufficient enough to deal with these
inequalities so they introduced Articles 15-18 in the Constitution along with Article 14 which
deals specifically in and expressly abolished and prohibited some of the existing inequalities.
“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 and core of the right to equality, the State is under the obligation
to take necessary steps so that every individual is given equal respect and concern which he is
entitled to as a human being.”
Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the preamble. It lays down the general
principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between the
persons. The Succeeding Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18 lays down specific applications of the
general rules laid down in Article 14. Article 14 is the equality clause because of its wide ambit
and applicability. It applies to all persons while Article 15 and others cover only citizens. Article
15 relates to prohibition of discrimination on grounds of Religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 17
abolishes untouchability and Article 18 abolishes title.

3. ARTICLE 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.
Article 14 guarantees to every person the right to equality before the law or the equal protection
of laws. The first expression ‘equality before the Law’ which is taken from English Common
Law, is somewhat a negative concept. It is a declaration of equality of all persons within the
territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favor of any
individual. Every person, whatever be his rank or position, is subject to the jurisdiction of the
ordinary courts. It means no man is above law and that every person, high or low, is subject to
the ordinary law of the land.
The second expression, “equal protection of laws”, which is rather a corollary of the first
expression, and is based on the last clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the American 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
favoritism or discrimination. It is a more positive concept (as it expects a positive action from the
state) implying equality of treatment in the equal circumstances. In other words, all persons who
are in the same circumstances will be governed by the same set of rules. It is a guarantee of equal
treatment. An equal law should be applied with an equal hand to all persons who are the equals.
The rule is that the like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike. The
same or uniform treatment of unequal’s is as bad as unequal treatment of equals. It has been said
that the equal protection of the law is a pledge of protection or guarantee of equal laws.

4. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF EQUALITY
Under Art. 359, when the proclamation of emergency is in operation, the enforcement of Art. 14
may be suspended during that period. Art. 361 provides that president and governors shall not be
answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office.
They also enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings until certain conditions are
fulfilled.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS
It is a guarantee of equal treatment. An equal law should be applied with an equal hand to all
persons who are the equals. The rule is that the like should be treated alike and not that unlike
should be treated alike. The same or uniform treatment of unequal’s is as bad as unequal
treatment of equals. It has been said that the equal protection of the law is a pledge of protection
or guarantee of equal laws.
ARTICLE 14 PERMITS REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION BUT PROHIBITS CLASS
LEGISLATION
Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character or that the same laws should
apply to all persons or that every law must have universal application, for, all persons are not, by
nature, attainment or circumstances, in the same positions. The State can treat different persons
differently if circumstances justify such treatment. In fact, identical treatment in unequal
circumstances would amount to inequality. The legislature must possess the power to group
persons, objects and transactions with a view to attaining specific aims. So, a reasonable
classification is not permitted but necessary if society is to progress.

5. ARTICLE 15
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, and place of birth or any of them.
● No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex place of birth or any of
them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regards to-
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing Ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained
wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
● Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for
women and children.
● Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making
any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
● Nothing in this Article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the
state from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes
in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions
including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other
than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.
Article 15(1) would have come in the way of making favorable provisions for backward sections
of society. Clause (1) prohibits the State from discriminating against citizens on grounds only of
religion, race, sex, caste, and place of birth or any of them. The right guaranteed in clause (1) is
conferred on a citizen as an individual and is available against his being subjected to
discrimination in the matter of rights, privileges and immunities pertaining to him as a citizen
generally.

6. .On grounds only – Attention is drawn to the word ‘only’ in Clause (1) and (2) of Article 15, viz.
the State shall to discriminate against any person on grounds only of religion, race caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them. It is the effect or operation of the statute which is the determining
factor and not its purpose or motive. Accordingly, the court should hold a law repugnant to the
guarantee given by Article 15(1) if, as a result of the law, a person is denied any right or
privilege solely because of his religion, caste, race, sex or place of birth.
Clause (1), (2) and (3) together it will follow that while there can be no discrimination in general
on the ground of sex, special provision in the case of women and children are permissible. Thus
it would be no violation of Article 15 if institutions are set up by the State exclusively for women
or places are reserved for women at public entertainments or in public conveyances.
The two most contentious issues in the application of Article 15(4) have been: (i) determination
of backward classes and (ii) extent or quantum of reservation. In Article 15(4), by the words
‘socially and educationally’, the problem of determining such classes is similar under both the
provisions.
From the several judicial pronouncements concerning the definition of backward classes, several
propositions emerge. First, the backwardness envisaged by Article 15(4) in both social and
educational and not either social or educational. This means that a class to be identified a
backward should be both socially and educationally backward.
In Balaji, the Court equated the “social and educational backwardness” to that of the “Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes”. The Court observed: “It was realized that in the Indian society
there were other classes of citizens who were equally, or may be somewhat less, backward than
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it was thought that some special provision ought
to be made even for them.”
Secondly, poverty alone cannot be the test of backwardness in India because by and large people
are poor and, therefore, large sections of population would fall under the backward category and
thus the whole object of reservation would be frustrated.

7. Thirdly, backwardness should be comparable, though not exactly similar, to the scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
Fourthly, ‘caste’ may be a relevant factor to define backwardness, but it cannot be the sole or
even the dominant criterion. If classification for social backwardness were to be based solely on
caste, then the caste system would be perpetuated in the Indian society. Also this test would
break down in relation to those sections of society which do not recognize caste in the
conventional sense as known to the Hindu Society.
Fifthly, poverty, occupations, place of habitation, all contributes to backwardness and such
factors cannot be ignored.
Sixthly, backwardness may be defined without any reference to caste. As the Supreme Court has
emphasized, Art. 15(4) “does not speak of castes, but only speaks of classes”, and that ‘caste’
and ‘class’ are not synonymous. Therefore, exclusion of caste to ascertain backwardness does
not vitiate classification if it satisfies other tests.
Backwardness under Article 15(4) must be social and educational, and that social backwardness
is, in the ultimate analysis, the result of poverty. One’s occupation and place of habitation could
be the other relevant factors in determining social backwardness.

8. ARTICLE 16
Right to Equality is one of the basic fundamental rights that the constitution of India guarantees
to all the citizens of the country. Article 16 deals with the equality of opportunity in matters of
public employment. The constitution of India has given a wide interpretation to this article.
Equal opportunity is a term which has differing definitions and there is no consensus as to the
precise meaning. The constitution of India has given a wide interpretation to this article. Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) principles apply to:
● Access to jobs
● Conditions of employment
● Relationships in the workplace
● The evaluation of performance and
● The opportunity for training and career development.
**DIFFERENCE OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 16**
The goal of Articles 14 and 16 is limited to equality among comparable, a
necessary implication of which is permissibility of reasonable classification, having
nexus with the object to be achieved. An important point of distinction between Arts. 14
and 16 is that while Art. 14 applies to all persons, citizens as well as non-citizens, Art. 16
applies only to citizens and not to non-citizens.
Following are some points regarding the Article 16:
● There shall be quality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State.
● No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any
employment or office under the State. The prohibited grounds of discussions are religion,
race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them. The words, any

9. employment or office under the State make it clear that Article 16(2) also applies only to
public employment.
● 16(2) is confined to employment or office under the state, meaning services under the
Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities
● Art. 16(2) are somewhat wider than those under Art. 15(2) because At. 16(2) prohibits
discrimination on the additional grounds or descent and residence apart from religion,
race, caste, sex and place of birth.
● Under 16 (3) Parliament is competent to regulate the extent to which it would be
permissible for a State to depart from the law laid down.
● 16(4) contemplates special provision being made in favour of the socially disadvantaged
classes. Both must be balanced against each other. Neither should be allowed to eclipse
the other. Accordingly, the rule of 50% reservation in a year should be taken as a unit and
not the entire strength of the cadre, service or the unit as the case may be.
● The overriding effect of Cl. (4) of Art. 16 on Cls. (1) and (2) could only extend to the
making of a reasonable number of reservations of appointments and posts in certain
circumstances. A ‘reasonable number’ is one which strikes a reasonable balance between
the claims of the backward classes and those of other citizens. The Court emphasized that
each year of recruitment has to be considered by itself and the reservation for backward
communities should not be as excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the
legitimate claims of other communities.

10. ARTICLE 17
(ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY)
● Article 17 says that to abolish untouchability and forbids its practice in any form
● In 1976, the Untouchability Act 1955 has been comprehensively amended and renamed
as Protection Civil Rights Act 1955 to enlarge the scope and make penal provisions
more stringent.
● The Act defines civil right as any right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of
untouchability by article of the Constitution.
● The term untouchability has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act.
● However, the Mysore High Court held that the subject matter of article 17 is not
untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but the ‘practice as it had developed
historically in the country’.
● Untouchability is a social practice which is earlier done by people on the basis of their
caste, creed, etc.
● It is said that lower caste or creed people is not given any response from higher caste.
● Higher caste people disrespect them between people.
● So, this is not show equality among people earlier.
● So, Government give right to equality and state act among untouchability.
● It refers to the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons by reason of their
birth in certain cases.
● Hence, it does not cover social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusion from
religious services etc.
● Under the protection of Civil Right Act, 1955, the offences committed on the ground of
untouchability are punishable either by imprisonment up to 6 months or by fine up to Rs.
500 or both.
● A person convicted of the offence of untouchability is disqualified for election to the
parliament or state legislature.

11. ● The Act of abolition of untouchability declares following acts as offences:
1. Preventing any person from entering any place of public worship or from
worshipping therein.
2. Justifying untouchability on traditional, religious, philosophical or other grounds.
3. Denying access to any shop, hotel or places of public entertainment
4. Insulting a person belonging to scheduled caste on the ground of untouchability
5. Refusing to admit persons in hospitals, educational institution or hostels established
for public benefit.
6. Preaching untouchability directly or indirectly.
7. Refusing to sell goods or sender services to any person.

12. 8. ARTICLE 18
(ABOLITION OF TITLES)
1. No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.
2. No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
3. No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the
State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.
4. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the
President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.
Description:
The State shall not confer any title on anybody whether a citizen or a non-citizen except the
recognition of academic and military distinctions. Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma
Bhushan, Padma Shri and other State awards are not regarded as titles in terms of Article 18(1)
of the constitution. The Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan Vs Union of India 1996 case stated
that these are meritorious awards based on excellence in the respective fields. The theory of
equality does not mean that the State should not recognize the excellence.
A ‘title’ is something that hangs to one’s name, as an appendage (either prefix or suffix e.g. Sir,
Nawab, Maharaja, etc.). A democracy should not create titles and titular glories. This will go
against the realization of social equality.
However, the recent conferment of titles of “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”, “Padma Shri”,
etc. (introduced in 1954) are said to be not prohibited under Article 18 as they merely denote
State recognition of good work by citizens in the various fields of activity. It may be noted that
Article 18 does not secure any fundamental right but imposes a restriction on executive and
legislative power. Further, conferring of titles offended against the fundamental principle of
equality of all citizens guaranteed by Article 14.

13. Article 18(2)
It states that no citizen shall receive any title from a foreign State. For example Sunil Gavaskar
was invited to get Knighthood but he was not allowed.
Article 18(3)
It prohibits a foreigner who is in the service of the government of India or that of a State, from
accepting any title from any foreign State without the consent of the President.
Article 18(4)
No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall without the consent of the
President, accept any present, emolument or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.
The following two points must be considered:
(1) There is no penalty prescribed for the infringement of the above prohibition.
(2) Article 18 is merely a directory. It is open to Parliament to make a law for dealing with
such persons who accepts a little in violation of the prohibition prescribed in Article 18.
REFRENCES:
● https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-constitution-right-to-equality-under-article-14-of-
constitution/
● https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-constitution-reservation/
● https://www.lawnotes.in/Article_16_of_Constitution_of_India
● https://www.lawnotes.in/Article_16_of_Constitution_of_India
● https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-article-18-of-Indian-constitution
● https://lawjugaad.com/article-18-of-indian-constitution/