Detailed Presentation on Right to Equality By:__________ (For Law Laboratory) Follow us on Instagram: @law_laboratory Website: www.lawlaboratory.in

1. R I G H T TO EQUALITY

2. • Everyone has the equal standing against the law.
• Same or equal access to the opportunities, rights and law.
• No one can be discriminated on the basis of – Caste, Color,
Creed, Race, Sex, Religion etc.
EQUALITY

3. • This concept became important after the racial discrimination.
• The Right to Equality aims at equal opportunities for women
too.

4. • Article 1 of the UDHR gives an equal status to every human
being.
• Article 7 of the convention makes everyone stand at equal footing
before the law.
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

5. • The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights also
provides for equal treatment for all without any distinction
• Article 26 of the covenant is considered as the cornerstone for
affording protection to everyone against discrimination before the
law.

6. • Article 14-18 of the Indian Constitution mainly describes about
the equality.
• Article 14 considered as the Supreme fundamental right.
• Mentioned in preamble too about “ Equality”, It derives its
identity from French Revolution (1789).
EQUALITY IN INDIA

7. • It embodies Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• The concept has been partially derived from US & UK.
• Inequality existed in India since times immemorial.
• Though a negative connotation has been attached to the right too.
•The framers had a conflict in understanding the concept about the
“Equality”.

8. • Equality has been considered one of the basic features in the
Indian Constitution.
• Right to Equality is applies to both the juristic as well as the
natural persons.
• No discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

9. • Equal rights have been enshrined for the transgender too in the
Constitution.
• The framers decided to do away with some inequalities by
abolishing it.
• Articles 15-18 justify the intention of the draftsmen.
• It is both a positive and negative right.

10. • State has the obligation to protect everyone’s right.
• Article 14 is more general in nature. However, the scope of
Article 15-18 has been narrowed as they are more specific.

11. • The “Right to Equality” comes from the English Common Law.
• Everyone is within the bounds of law.
• Also, it is considered as a negative concept.
• It falls in contradiction to the concept of positive discrimination.
EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

12. • Everyone is subjected to the law of land.
• No one stands above the law, everyone is within the walls of
the law.

13. • Everyone, in similar circumstances, are given opportunity to have
access of law.
• It also supports the idea of positive discrimination.
• It considers that positive discrimination is one element of the
equality.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW

14. • It puts forth the idea of reasonable classification.
• It also guides to treat the people differently, if not in similar
circumstances.

15. LEGISLATIVE CLASSIFICATION
• Legislation is needed to achieve equality, so that equals lay on
same footing, and unequal have to be treated differently.
• Law does not need to have an universal application.
• Help of exceptions may be taken to achieve equality.

16. • Property, occupations or persons may be classified and a
legislation may be designed to tackle them independently.
• However, classification must be reasonable.
• Governance should not be considered as a simple exercise.
• The court in Tigner v. Texas 84 L Ed 1124 laid the meaning of
classification.

17. • “Classification is the recognition of these relations and, in making
it, a legislature must have wide latitude of discretion and judgment.”
• Laws may not be general or have universal application.
• Laws may apply to a particular class or there may be a special
legislation for a specific class.

18. PRINCIPLE OF CLASSIFICATION
• Legislature may recognize the extent of harm and restrictions may
be imposed in cases where the need is required to be closest.
• Presumption exists that legislature is well aware and it respects the
need of people.

19. • Constitutionality is always assumed in favor of the legislation.
• Law may even refer to a single person, will not make it void.

20. • The classification must be reasonable so that it stands to be valid.
• The distinction that has been made must be based on some real matter.
• Twin tests have been prescribed for valid classification
1. Intelligible differentia
2. Reasonable nexus
VALID CLASSIFICATION

21. • The court has elucidated the validity of classification in
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2013) [2 SCC 772].

22. •“A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests.
Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on just objective.
And secondly, the choice of differentiating one just objective. And
secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from
another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be
achieved.”

23. • Classification must be done to achieve some purpose or motive.
Some aim must be set due to which the reasonable classification has
been done. It need not to be mathematically perfect and exactly equal.
A similarity or uniformity would not lead the law to be condemned.
However, the object sought to be achieved must be lawful. The
classifications must always be made in good faith.

24. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar [AIR
1952 SC 75], the court held that “Classifications that are scientific
and reasonable will have direct and reasonable relation with the
object, and the object is bad, then the object must be struck down
and not the mere classification which, after all, is only a means of
attaining the desired end.”

25. PRESENT SCENARIO
However, the courts have interpreted it as per the needs of society
and in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [1984 AIR 1420] case, the
court said: “Reservation must-be kept in check by the demands of
competence.” Complete exclusion of the rest of the country for the
sake of a province, wholesale banishment of proven ability to open

26. up, hopefully, some Dalit talent, total sacrifice of excellence at the
alter of equalization when the Constitution mandates for every one
equality before and equal protection of the law-may be fatal folly,
self-defeating educational technology and anti-national if made a
routine rule of State policy.

27. • The court further stated that “A fair preference, a reasonable
reservation, a just adjustment of the prior needs and real potential of
the weak with the partial recognition of the presence of competitive
merit-such is the dynamics of social justice which animates the
three egalitarian articles of the Constitution.”

28. The Court in the case of Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of
Madras [AIR 1951 Mad 120] held that: “The guarantee of equality
before law & equal protection of the laws given to the citizen by
Article 14 of the Constitution does not require that absolutely the
same rules shall apply to all persons irrespective of differences of
circumstances.

29. It merely enacts that equal protection & security of the laws
should be given to all under like circumstances & conditions
in the enjoyment of their civil rights.”

30. • In E.P Royappa case (1974) [4 SCC 3], Justice P.N. Bhagwati
very clear read the principle of reasonableness in Article 14. The
court said that:

31. “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures
fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness,
which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of
equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding
omnipresence.”

32. Equality is a dynamic concept. It has many dimensions and various
aspects. There cannot be a straight jacketed formula to describe it.
The concept cannot be caged to have a narrow meaning and have a
dogmatic point of view to describe it.
CONCLUSION