Introduction Of Article 14
Article 14 is enshrined in the part 3 of the Indian Constitution which is about Fundamental rights. The rights given in article 14 are enforceable and justiciable in nature means that if anyone violates your right you can go to the court to enforce them.
Article 14 of Indian Constitution
Article 14:- States that the state shall not deny to any person equality before law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
The right guaranteed under Article 14 is available to any person whether citizen or non-citizen within the territory of India.
This provision forms the foundation of the right to equality in India and aims to promote fairness, prevent discrimination, and ensure uniform application of laws.
Explanation of article 14:-
1. The state
2. Any person
3. Equality before law
4. Equal protection of laws
1."The State":
1.Includes the Government (central and state), Parliament, Legislatures, local authorities, and other bodies functioning under the Constitution.
2."Any person":
1. The word person here includes not only Indian citizens but also foreigners and legal persons (e.g., companies, corporations).
3."Equality before the law" (borrowed from the British legal system): Every individual, regardless of status or position, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. No one is above the law, whether rich or poor, powerful or weak.
Example:-
Imagine a traffic signal.
If a minister's car jumps the red light, and a common man's car also does the same, both should be fined.
The police cannot excuse the minister just because of their position.
This is equality before law - the law treats everyone equally, no matter who they are.
4."Equal protection of the laws" (drawn from the American Constitution):
Laws must apply equally to all persons under similar circumstances. It permits classification but not arbitrary discrimination.
Example:
Imagine the government gives free coaching classes to poor students but not to rich students.
Here, the law is not treating everyone the same but it's treating equals equally (all poor students get the benefit). This is not discrimination because poor students are in a different situation than rich students. This is equal protection of laws - the law protects similar people equally, but can make special rules for different groups if the classification is fair and logical.
Both the terms equality before law and equal protection of law aims at establishing equal justice.
in State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) the supreme court held that the two expressions means one and the same Moreover, the second expression is the outcome 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 laws.
Example:-
Ravi and Arjun both stole a bicycle.
The police arrested Ravi and sent him to jail, but let Arjun go because his father is a politician. This violates equal protection of laws (both should be treated the same) and also equality before law (no one should be above the law).
RULE OF LAW:-
The concept of equality before law is the outcome of Rule of law. The concept of Rule of law was propounded by A.V Dicey, the British jurist.
The rule of law ensures that all individuals, including the government, are subject to law and no one is above the law. A.V Dicey's concept has three aspects.
1. Absence of arbitrary power, that is, no man can be punished except for a breach of law.
2. Equality before law: that 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 the discrimination and arbitrary treatment, it guaranteeing that justice is administered impartially.
3. The priority of right of the individual which means that constitution is the result of the rights of individual as defined and enforced by 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 3rd 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 article 14 is basic feature of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that where equals and unequals are treated differently, article 14 does not apply. While article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits a reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the law. But the classification should not be arbitrary, artificial or vague. Rather, it should be based on an intelligible differential and substantial distinction.
What is class legislation?
Class legislation means making a law that gives special benefits to one group of people or treats another group unfairly, without any good reason. Such laws are not allowed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which gives everyone the right to equality.
For example, if a law says only people from one village can apply for
government jobs, it is unfair to others and is called class legislation. This kind of law creates unequal treatment without any proper reason. But if a law gives special help to poor students through scholarships, it is not class legislation, because it is based on a reasonable reason - helping those in need. So, class legislation is unfair and unequal treatment without a valid reason, and our Constitution does not allow it.
WHAT IS REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION?
Reasonable classification means dividing people into different groups and treating them differently, but only when there is a good and fair reason for doing so. It is allowed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because not all people or situations are the same.
For example, giving free coaching to students from poor families is reasonable, because they need extra support. The classification must be based on a real difference and must have a clear purpose. So, reasonable classification is a fair way of treating people differently when it is necessary and justified.
In State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar the court held that following are the requirements of a reasonable classification:
1. Intelligible differentia means a clear and reasonable difference between two or more groups of people that helps the government to make fair laws. This difference must make sense and should not be based on random or unfair reasons.
For example, giving special job reservations to physically disabled persons is based on intelligible differentia, because their needs and challenges are different from others. The difference must be easy to understand and must relate to the purpose of the law. So, intelligible differentia is a sensible reason used to divide people into groups for making fair and just laws.
2. Rational nexus means there must be a clear and logical connection between the goal of a law and the difference made between groups (intelligible differentia). In simple words, the reason for treating people differently must be directly related to the purpose of the law.
For example, if a law gives free coaching to poor students, the goal is to support education, and the difference (poverty) is directly linked to that goal this is rational nexus. If there is no connection between the classification and the aim of the law, it becomes unfair. So, rational nexus means the law must treat people differently only when that difference helps to achieve the law's purpose.
CASE LAWS OF ARTICLE 14:
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Supreme Court made Article 14 stronger by connecting it with Articles 19 and 21. The government took away Maneka Gandhi's passport without giving her a chance to explain or defend herself. The Court said that whenever the government wants to take away someone's rights, it must follow a fair and reasonable process. This means the government cannot act unfairly or in a random way. The decision showed that the rights to equality, freedom, and life are all connected and should be protected together. It made sure that laws and government actions must be fair and just.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
It is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that expanded the scope of Article 14 by introducing the principle that arbitrariness is unconstitutional and is incompatible with the concept of equality. The Supreme Court held that Article 14 not only prohibits discrimination or classification that is unreasonable or irrational but also prohibits arbitrary actions by the State. The Court emphasized that equality is a dynamic concept that ensures fairness and justice, and arbitrariness is the negation of equality. In fact equality and arbitrariness are the sworn enemies one belongs to rule of law while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. This judgment marked a shift from the traditional narrow view of Article 14, underscoring that any action taken by the State must be free from arbitrariness and must satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness.
Article 15 Of The Indian Constitution.
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
It means that the government is not allowed to treat people unfairly just because of:
- Their religion (like Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc.)
- Their race (ethnic background)
- Their caste (like Scheduled Castes or other castes)
- Their sex (whether they are male, female, or others)
- Their place of birth (where they were born)
Example Imagine there’s a government college in India. Many students apply for admission. It cannot reject a student just because:
- The student is a Muslim (religion)
- The student belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) (caste)
- The student is a girl (sex)
- The student was born in Bihar (place of birth)
This would be discrimination, and it is not allowed under Article 15.
Article 15(1): The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
The statement “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them” means that the government of India cannot treat any citizen unfairly just because of their religion, skin color or ethnicity, caste, gender, or the place where they were born. Every citizen must be treated equally, and the government is not allowed to give special treatment or deny rights to someone based only on these personal factors.
For example, the government cannot make rules that favor men over women, or deny jobs or services to people from a certain religion or caste. This ensures fairness and equal treatment for all citizens under the law.
Article 15(2) 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 regard 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.
clause 2 means that no citizen can be stopped or treated unfairly when it comes to using public places just because of their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Every person has an equal right to go to shops, hotels, restaurants, and places of public entertainment like movie halls. Similarly, everyone must be allowed to use public places such as wells, water tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and parks if they are maintained by the government or meant for the public.
For example, a hotel owner or a shopkeeper cannot deny entry to someone just because they belong to a lower caste or a different religion. This rule helps to stop untouchability and social discrimination, and promotes equality in public life.
The clause (1) of article 15 prohibits discrimination by the state and clause (2) prohibits discrimination by both the state as well as private individual.
In the case of Nainsukh Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953), the Supreme Court dealt with a law that allowed separate electoral rolls for Muslims in municipal elections. This meant that only Muslims could vote for Muslim candidates. Nainsukh Das, a citizen, challenged this law, saying it was unfair and violated the Constitution. The Court agreed with him and held that such a system of separate voting based on religion was against Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, and also violated Article 325, which says that no one can be excluded from voting based on religion, caste, or sex. The Court ruled that elections must be fair and equal for all citizens, and everyone should vote on a common electoral roll, regardless of their religion.
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Pratap Singh (1960), the Rajasthan government had declared some villages as disturbed areas and sent extra police forces there. The cost of these police forces was to be paid by the villagers. However, the government exempted only the Harijan (Scheduled Castes) and Muslim residents from paying, saying they were peaceful and law-abiding. Thakur Pratap Singh challenged this, saying the exemption was unfair and based only on religion and caste, which is not allowed under Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed and said that the government cannot treat people differently just because of their caste or religion, even with good intentions.
Article 15(3): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
clause (3) says that the government is allowed to make special rules or give extra help to women and children. This means the State can create laws or programs to protect women and children or give them benefits, like reservations in jobs or education, to help them get better opportunities. This is allowed because women and children may sometimes need extra support to be treated fairly and equally in society.
In the case of Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court talked about the special rights given to women under the Constitution. The Court said that the government can make special rules to protect women and give them extra help, like in matters of inheritance or property. This is allowed under Article 15(3), which says the State can make special provisions for women and children to help them get equal opportunities in life. The Court made it clear that giving women these special benefits does not break the rule of equality but actually helps to correct unfair disadvantages they have faced in the past.
Article 15(4) 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 the Scheduled Tribes.
Clause 4 says that the government can make special rules or give extra help to groups of people who are socially and educationally backward, like certain castes or tribes (called Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes). These special rules are meant to help these groups improve their situation in society by giving them better chances in education, jobs, and other areas.
In the Indra Sawhney case (1992), (also known as the Mandal Commission case) the Supreme Court talked about the government’s power to give special help to socially and educationally backward groups like the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The Court said that the government can set aside a certain number of jobs and school seats for these groups to help them get better opportunities. This is allowed under Article 15(4) because it aims to improve their social and educational conditions. The Court also explained that these special provisions should be fair and used properly to make sure they help the right people.
In the M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) case, the Supreme Court talked about the government’s power to give special benefits like reservations in education and jobs to socially and educationally backward classes. The Court said that while the government can help these groups under Article 15(4), the amount of reservation should be reasonable and should not go beyond 50% of the total seats or jobs. This was to make sure that there is a fair balance and that reservations don’t become too large or unfair to others. This case helped set limits on how special provisions can be made.
Article 15(5) 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 the 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.
Clause 5 says that the government can make special laws to help socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) get admission into educational institutions. This includes both government and private colleges or schools, whether they receive government aid or not. However, it does not apply to minority-run institutions protected under Article 30(1). This means that if a college is run by a minority group (like religious or linguistic minorities), the special admission rules won’t apply to them. The purpose of this provision is to make sure that weaker sections of society get better access to education and opportunities.
Article 15(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) 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, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.
