Article 14 of Indian constitution explanation: The Right to Equality

Spread the love

This article has been written by Mahita Swamy, Law Graduate from BMS College of Law, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Table of Contents

Abstract

With growing economic crisis surrounding our country and the many voices that advocate for their fundamental rights that are guaranteed, one finds themselves asking what are their fundamental rights and why is it important. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that promises Right to Equality, is one of these fundamental rights that covers the source of discrimination in the process of law making and execution of the same. This is with the help of two principles included in the article – ‘Equality before law’ and ‘Equal protection of laws’. Furthermore, the courts have established certain conditions were put in place for the checking if the State’s actions are reasonable or if the classification, they have made are arbitrary or not, that is, if they violate Article 14 or not. The courts have also passed certain cases that help us understand how important it is for law to change with changing times, as Equality is dynamic. The economic and social situations of our country have changed in the past few years, changing the approach that used to be taken to Equality.

Introduction

Have you ever stood in the middle of the garden and looked at all the plants that were growing in it? Some are flowering plants, while some bear fruits. Do they all need water in the same quantity? No. There are certain plants that require water every day, while others require it every other day or even once a week. The reason behind this is purely scientific – how fast some plants absorb water and use it in their daily food in-take.

In the same manner, there are certain sections of the society that is either socially or economically backwards. Or sometimes, in both ways, they are behind the majority of the society. There could be a lot of reason, but one major reason for this situation to occur is discrimination against that one section of the society, which could happen because of either their caste, religion, sex, colour, disability or place of birth. These are just few examples on what grounds one can be discriminated against. To ensure that there is an end to this violation, the Constituent Assembly had included a very important clause in their Draft Article 15, which is now popularly known as Article 14 or The Right to Equality.

Journey of Article 14 from Constituent Assembly to Present Constitution

Most of us remember learning about the Salient Features of the Constitution in Class X, where one of the features was that our constitution was a ‘borrowed constitution’, which meant that our constitution had been drawn upon with many sources. Many of the major world countries’ constitutions or their basics principles were looked at and analysed to form our constitution.

The concept of Article 14 has originated from the Manga Carta and English Common Law of the United Kingdom, which is said to restricts discrimination among the members of the society and promotes equality among them. Professor A. V. Dicey had set two important principles with respect to this article which are: – ‘Rule of Law’ that is found in the Constitution of UK and ‘Equal protection of Law’ that is found in the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution, which was added to the Bill of Rights and states that ‘No state shall deny equal protection of laws’.

The Constituent Assembly further borrowed this concept from the Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), where it is said that ‘everyone is entitled to equality before law and also equal protection before the law without being subject to any kind of discrimination’.

The Constituent Assembly further borrowed this concept from the Declaration of The Rights of Man and of Citizens, which is a result of the French Revolution, and expressly talks about the fundamental human liberties – that all individuals are born free and have equal rights.

Now that we have understood the various sources for Article 14, let us see how the Constituent Assembly had initially presented The Right to Equality, which was a part of the Draft Article 15 and was read as:

‘Protection of life and liberty and equality before law – No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India.’[1]

When this article had been taken up for discussion on 6^th and 13^th December 1948, the ‘equality before law’ part of the draft article wasn’t discussed. In a letter addressed to the President of the Constituent Assembly dating to November 3^rd 1949, it was revealed that the Drafting Committee had decided to spilt the then Draft Article 15 into two parts and the part of ‘Equality before Law’ was going to be a new article 14 headed “The Right to Article”. This was the moment when the present Article 14 was formed and added into the constitution, where the right is guaranteed by the State to the citizens. Which only means that the State is the one violating the rights of the citizens. There are also certain cases where citizens have also grossly missed used their right and hindered other citizens’ rights.

Understanding Article 14

As we have read, there are two major principles in Article 14 – ‘Equality before Law’ and ‘Equal protection of laws’. Though on first glance they may seem the same, but they are not the same. Let’s understand them one by one and look at the tests that the Supreme Court had laid down for this article.

Equality before Law:

This phrase means that everyone should be treated equally before law or on the application of laws. Let’s go back to our example of the garden – no matter the size of the plant or it’s water absorption rate, those plants need water. Along with adequate sunlight, fertile soil and fresh air. There should be no differentiating among the plants, just because you prefer one over the other.

This phrase of this article has a similar application. No one should be unjustly discriminated against because of factors such as sex, colour, race, caste or religion as it is not only unfair but also unjust. As per Dr. Jennings, this concept of equality before law simply means that if one person has the right to sue, he/she can also be sued for the same right.

In State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)[2], the Supreme Court, when asked whether right to equality is absolute or not, held that right to equality is not absolute. That the actions of the State in this case, where they had referred a case to the Special Court was arbitrary and violated Article 14.

Keeping this case in mind, we should also be aware of certain exceptions that come under this part of the article, and they are as follows: –

The President or a Governor of any state would not be answerable to any Court for the exercise of any of their duties/powers and would be immune from any criminal proceedings instituted against them.
The President or a Governor could be arrested during their tenure in office.
No member of the Parliament or State Legislature is obliged to appear to any civil or criminal case while the session is ongoing or is answerable to any court for any speeches or opening statements given by them in the house.

Equal Protection of Laws:

To understand this phrase, we need to do understand classification first. Classification, in very simple terms means ‘the act or process of dividing things into groups according to their type’.

Let’s take roses and daisies as an example for this. They are flowers but two different types. While Daisies need well-drained soil to grow, roses need regular watering to grow. Both need different conditions to grow and bloom. As such, they fall in different categories and are different from each other. This is very simple to understand, and we should apply the same rule to people and law.

Even when we say that everyone is equal before law, certain conditions like financially or socially, there will always be certain sections of the society that is left behind. To such people, we need to make separate laws, only to empower them to the standard of living that others have. This whole phrase is trying to explain that equals should be treated equally and there should be no discrimination among equals. It puts a positive obligation on the state to ensure that everyone is treated equally and improve the socio-economic conditions.

Where, a case in which, a minority educational institution was receiving aid from state funds was entitled to grant preference or reserve seats for students of its community was held to be lawful under Article 14, that the differential treatment of candidates in the admission process under the college’s program is not violative of Article 14, this principle under Right to Equality is explained.

Doctrine of Reasonable Classification

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is applicable to only those women who are working and are expecting a child. Not to all working women in a workplace. This is the slight difference one must focus on while ensuring that there is reasonable classification of the right to equality. For another example, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 is applicable to children who are below the age of 14, for protection from being employed in hazardous industries.

To know if the classification is reasonable, it should always rest on some real and substantial distinction, having reasonable and just relation to the need/purpose of the classification so done, there are two conditions that are to be met: –

The classification should be on some grounds of intelligible differentia, distinguishing grouped together persons or goods from the left-out ones of the group.
The differential should have a rational relation with the object set out and achievable by the act.

Something to be noted is that if the legislature, or the state, fails to give a reasonable basis for any classification they have done, such classification should be declared as discriminatory in nature. The first part of Article 14 emphasises that no one individual is above law, the second part of focuses on equal protection of the legislation to the individuals and that any action on the part of the State that causes differential treatment should be backed by reasonable relation.

Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness:

Though in E. P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (1973)[3], when this doctrine of reasonable classification was challenged in the Supreme Court, a new doctrine on non-arbitrariness was established. Arbitrary actions from any organ of the state have been restricted, while it is also wise to understand that an arbitrary and non-arbitrary action could only have slight difference in them. Article 14 also restricts the state from making laws that could be arbitrary in nature. This ‘arbitrary action’ of state was finally challenged in the above case, where it was held that “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it would not be cribbed, cabined, and confined with traditional doctrinaire limits”. Thus, this doctrine has evolved from this case to protect all people of different classes and groups from being discriminated against. This landmark judgement has also been used in other cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority.

Cases where Doctrine of Reasonable Classification has been accepted

The courts have accepted certain cases where the reasons for the classification on the part of the state held not violative of Article 14, on the grounds such as geography, taxes, age, nature of corporation, sex, citizens and non-citizens, juvenile offenders and other offenders, ordinary suits and suits on negotiable instruments, etc.

In the case of Clarence Pais v the Union of India (2001)[4], the Supreme Court held that historical reasons would justify differential treatment for separate geographical regions, provided there is a reason and just relation to the matter in respect of which this treatment is handed. Uniformity in law must be achieved, but that is a long-drawn process.

The court held that a criteria requiring a candidate to be at least 17 years old to get entry into medical colleges are reasonable, as there is a necessity of certain amount of maturity, in Gautam Kapoor v The State of Rajasthan (1987)[5].

In another case, involving a cinema theatre hall, it was held that an imposition of higher taxes from the bigger cinema halls, located in well-off localities, is a valid classification under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v R. Veeraswamy (1999)[6]: –

In this case, there was a certain pension scheme announced without any retrospective effect (that is, not from the beginning of time). So, when the case was in the Supreme Court, it was found that if previous retirees were to be given benefits in the new scheme, then there would be a financial burden of Rs. 200 crores on the employer, which was considered as not practicable. Thus, the court held that the previous retirees, who were already enjoying another pension scheme, would not be included in the new scheme as they are part of different class and accepted the reasonable classification of the board.

Other Landmark Cases:

Air India v Nargesh Meerza (1978)[7]:-

In this case, certain regulations of the Air India Employees Service Regulations were challenged as they violated certain fundamental rights, including Right to Equality. The regulations stated that an air hostess’s condition of termination will happen via retirement process, on whenever she will attain the age 35, upon getting married within 4 years of her service or whenever she gets pregnant. The Supreme Court found this as discriminatory in nature and struck down the regulations of the airlines.

Conclusion

Right to Equality is part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, with certain exceptions as we have seen. Even after being declared as part of the basic structure of the constitution, there is a lack of effort to make these rights accessible and easy to learn to the general public. This has led to many discriminatory actions being taken against them, which is in violation of Article 14. These laws not only make a part of the advocates’ livelihood, but they also govern most of the common people’s lives and they should always be given an opportunity to learn about it.