INTRODUCTION

Article 14 embodies the general principles of equality before

law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between
persons.
Declares: the state should not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
equality before the law and equal protection of the law:
Establishes a welfare state.
 Equality Before the
Law
(English Concept)
Article 14
Equal Protection of
the Law
(American Concept)
 DIFFERENCE

Equality before the law :

1. negative concept
2. implying the absence of any special privilege in favor of any
individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary
law.
3. restricts the State to discriminate against any individual.

Equal protection of laws:

1. positive concept
2. employing equality of treatment under equal circumstances
3. obligates the state to protect the rights of the citizens.
 EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

Dr Jennings puts it :

Equality before the law means that among equals the

law should and should be equally administered, that like
should be treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to
prosecute and be prosecuted for the same kind of action
should be same for all citizens of full age and
understanding without distinctions of race, religion,
wealth, social status or political influence
 EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS
State of Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike
both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by
the laws.
Equal laws should be applied to all in the same situation,
and there should be no discrimination between one person
and another.
As regards the subject matter of the legislation their
position is the same.
Thus the rule is that the like should be treated alike and
not that unlike should be treated alike.
TRUE EQUALITY
 RULE OF LAW

Dicey: The guarantee of equality before the law is rule of the law.
It means that no man is above the law and that every
person,whatever be his rank or conditions, is subject to the
jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

Rubinder Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 65

Rule of law requires that no person shall be subjected to harsh,
uncivilized or discriminatory treatment even when the object is the
securing of the paramount exigencies of law and order.
Professor Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law thus-

1. Absence of Arbitrary Power or the supremacy of the law:

Absolute supremacy of the law as opposed to the arbitrary power of the

Government. (Applicable to Indian scenario)

2. Equality before the law:

It means subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of land administered by

ordinary law courts. This means that no one is above law with the sole exception
of the monarch who can do no wrong.
Everyone in England , whether he is an official of the state or a private individual,
is bond to obey the same law. (Applicable to Indian scenario)

3. The constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land:

It means that the source of the right of individual is not the written Constitution but
the rules as defined and enforced by the courts. (Not applicable to Indian
scenario COI is the supreme law of the land)
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF LAW

1. First equality before the law does not mean the power of the
private citizens are the same as the powers of the public officials
Ex: Police Officer

2. Secondly, the rule of law does not prevent certain class of persons
being subjected to special rules.
Ex: Medical Practitioner by Medical Council of India.
ARTICLE 361.

3. Thirdly , A minister may be allowed by law to act as he thinks fit

or if he is satisfied

4. Fourthly, certain members of the society are governed by special

rules in their professions, i.e., lawyers, doctors nurses etc. Such
classes of people are treated differently from ordinary citizens.
 LIMITS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
ARTICLE 14
1. With the new Article 31- C added by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, the scope of Art 14 has been
considerably restricted. Art 31 C provides that the laws made by the state for implementing the Directive
Principles contained in clause (b) and clause (c)of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the ground that they are
violative of Article 14. Such laws will thus be an exception to Art 14.

2. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg Co v Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., the supreme Court has held that where Article 31 C
comes in, Art 14 Goes out

3. Under Article 359 (1) if the President issues an order, where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation ,
enforcement of Art 14 may be suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force.

4. Article 361 lays down that the President and the Governor are exempted from any criminal proceedings
during the tenure of their office.

5. Under International law, foreign sovereign and ambassadors enjoy full immunity from any judicial process.
 ART 14 permits classification but prohibits class
legislation.
The equal protection of laws guaranteed by Art 14 does not mean that all laws
must be general in character. The varying needs of different classes of person
require separate treatment.

It is necessary for the state to make laws operating differently on different

groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in
giving effect to its policies, and it must possess for that purpose large powers of
distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be subjected to such laws.

Identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. So

a reasonable classification but is necessary if society is to progress.

Thus, Art 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
classification.
 Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by
conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons, arbitrarily
selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same
relation to the privilege granted, that between whom and the persons
not so favored no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can
be found, justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other
from such privilege.

The classification, however must not be arbitrary, artificial or

evasive but must be based on real and substantial distinction bearing
a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by
legislation.
Interpreting the scope of the Article, the Supreme Court of India held
in Charanjit Lal Choudhury v. The Union of India that:

(a) Equal protection means equal protection under equal

circumstances;

(b) The state can make reasonable classification for purposes of

legislation;

(c) Presumption of reasonableness is in favour of legislation;

(d) The burden of proof is on those who challenge the legislation.

 TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

Classification to be reasonable must fulfill the following two

conditions:-

1. The Classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes person or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group.
intelligible differentia means difference capable of being understood.

2. K. Thimmappa v. Chairman central Board of Directors SBI, AIR 2001 SC

467- The differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act.
 DECIDED CASES
1. Mitthu v. State of Punjab Sec 303 of the IPC was
challenged on the ground that it is violative of Art 14. The
SC struck down the Sec 303 as unconstitutional on the
ground that the classification between persons committing
murders whilst under the sentence of life imprisonment and
those who commit murder whilst they were not under the
sentence of life imprisonment was not based on any
rational principle.

2. Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University- the SC held that the

classification between the Government/Semi Government
employees and private sector employees for the purpose of
admission to the evening classes was unreasonable and
unjust and therefore. The rule was struck down as
discriminatory and violative of art 14.
3. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib- the allocation for marks for
the admission in engineering college was 66.66% for
written test and 33.33% for oral. The court struck down the
rule prescribing high percentage of marks for oral test. It
was observed that allocation of more than 15% marks for
oral test will be arbitrary and unreasonable.

4. Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan- 25% marks were alloted

for interview for the selection of munsiff in the Rajasthan
Judicial Service. It was held that 25% marks for the oral
test for the selection of munsiff was not arbitrary. In the
case of selection of professionals higher marks for oral test
can be allotted.
5. Air India v. Nargesh Meerza the petitioner challenged
Air India and Indian Airlines Regulations as
unconstitutional on the ground that the conditions laid
down for retirement i.e. an air hostess would retire from the
service upon attaining the age of 35, or on marriage, if it
took place within four years of service, or on the first
pregnancy, in the regulations were entirely unreasonable
and arbitrary.
Also the managing directors had discretion to extend the
age of retirement by one year at a time beyond the age of
retirement upon the age of 45 years if an air hostess is
found medically fit.
The court struck down these rules claiming them to be cruel
and arbitrary and violative of art 14.
7. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India- the SC held that
the classification of newspapers into small, medium and big
newspapers on the basis of their circulation for the purpose of
levying customs duty on newsprint was not violative of Art 14.

8. Javed v. State of Haryana- petitioner challenged the validity of

the law under Haryana Panchayat Raj Act 1994 which
disqualifies a person having more than two children fro
contesting elections of Gram Panchayats, but does not apply to
offices in other institutions of local Self Governments, or State
Legislature or in Parliament. SC held that the provision is not
discriminatory and the classification made by it is based on
intelligible differentia having nexus with the object of
popularisation of family planning programme.
 ARTICLE 15

Art 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.
prohibits the state form discriminating against citizens on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any
of them.
The expression discriminate against means select for
unfavorable treatment.
Discrimination in this sense involves an element of prejudice.
If prejudice is disclosed and is based on any of the grounds
mentioned in Article 15, the law must be struck down.
 Article 15 is a facet of Article 14.

Scope of Article 15 is narrower than that of Article 14.

Article 14 is general in nature in the sense it applies both to

citizens and non citizens whereas Article 15(1) cover only
the Indian citizens. No non-citizen can claim right under
Article 15(1).

Article 14 permits any reasonable classification on the basis

of any rational criterion whereas Article 15(1), certain
grounds mentioned therein can never form the basis of
classification.
 State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1208
On the basis of reports that the inhabitants of certain villages were
harboring dacoits, the government of Rajasthan sanctioned posting of
additional police in those villages. The expenses were to be borne by the
villagers but the Harizan & Muslim inhabitants of these villages were
exempted from this liability.
This was quashed as being discriminatory on the ground of caste or
religion as it discriminated against the peace loving villagers other than
harizans & Muslims.

In re Shaikh Husein Shaik Mahomed AIR 1951 SC Bom 285

Under the City of Bombay Police Act, while a person born outside
Greater Bombay could be extern if he was convicted of any of the
offences mentioned in Police Act, none such action could be taken against
a person born within Greater Bombay.
This was discrimination on the basis of place of birth, and so was invalid
under Article 15(1).
 D.P.Doshi v. Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 SC 334

The residents of Madhya Bharat were exempted from

payment of a capitation fee for admission to the State
Medical college, while the non-residents were required to
pay the same .

The Supreme Court negatived the plea of discrimination

by the non-residents under Article 15(1) because the
ground of exemption was residence and not place of
birth.
 Art 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) specifies the prohibited grounds in any matter in which the
State and even private individuals have exclusive control.
 Art 15(3)- empowers the state to make special
provisions for women and children.
They require special protection by virtue of their very
nature.
Art 15(3) relieves the state from the bondage of Art
15(1) and enables it to make special provisions to
accord socio-economic equality to women.
Art 15(1) and 15(3) read together- while the state may
discriminate in favour of women against men, it may
not discriminate in favour of men against women.
However the provisions made in favour of women
should be reasonable.
 Dattatraya v. State- if educational institutions are established by
the state exclusively for women it will not violate art 15(1) by
virtue of art 15(3). So also if certain seats are reserved for women
in a college that does not offend art 15(1).
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay- the accused challenged the
validity of sec 497 IPC which only punishes man for adultery and
exempts woman for punishment even though she may be equally
guilty as an abettor. Court held- the discrimination made by sec
497 is not on the fact that women have sex different from that of
an, but women in this country were so situated that special
legislation was required in order to protect them.
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijay Kumar- SC held that under
art 15(3), the state may fix a quota for appointment of women in
government services. Also, a rule saying that all other things being
equal, preference would be given to women to the extent of 30%
of the posts was held valid with reference to art 15(3).
Special Provisions for Advancement of
Backward Classes
Art 15(4) another exception to clauses (1) and(2).

The State is empowered to make special provisions for the

advancement of any socially and educationally backward class of
citizen or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Only an enabling Clause. Doesnot obligate the State to form such

laws. Only frees the States from the boundation of 15(1).

Added through First Amendment Act 1951.

 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan Case before the First
amendment Act. Madras Govt had reserved certain seats in the Medical
and Engineering colleges for different communities it was challenged
on the ground that the reservation of seats on the basis only of caste,
religion and race is violative of Art 15(1).- the Supreme Court struck
down the rule as void.
to modify the effect of this decision Art 15(4) was inserted.
Balaji v. State of Mysore the Mysore Government issued an Order
under Art 15(4) reserving seats in the Medical and Engineering Colleges-
Backward classes (28%), More Backward Classes(22%), Scheduled
Castes and Tribe(18%), only 32 % seats were made available to the merit
pool.- the Court held that the sub-classification made by the Govt into
Backward classes and More Backward classes was not justified under Art
15(4). The protection by way of reservation should be reasonable and not
excessive.- it was held that the special provisions should be less than
50%.
 Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu- the Court advised the
government that it should not proceed on the basis that once a class is
considered as backward it should continue as backward class for all
times. Such an approach would defeat the very purpose of reservation.
The government should always keep under review the question of
reservation of seats and only the classes which are really socially and
educationally backward should be allowed to have the benefit of
reservation.

Dr. Neelima v. Dean P.G. Studies A.P Agricultural University- A

high caste girl married a boy belonging to Scheduled Tribe- After
marriage she sought admission to M.SC. Course under reservation
quota. The Court held that she was not entitled to get the benefit of
reservation available to ST.
 ARTICLE 15(5)
Art 15(5) empowers the State to make laws for making special
provisions relating to the admission to educational institutions
including private educational institutions, whether aided or
unaided by the State, for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens of ST & SC.

Added by the Constitution 93rd Amendment Act 2005.

Any such law cannot be challenged in the court on the ground that
it violates Art 19(1) (g)

However the State is not competent to enact such a law to regulate

admission to the educational institutions established by the
minority community as referred to in Art 30 (1)
 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT

Art 16 (1)- says that there shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relation to employment or appointment to any
office under the State.
Art 16(2)- 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.
Art 16 does not prevent the State from prescribing the necessary
qualifications and selective tests for recruitment for Government
services.
The selective test must not be arbitrary. It must be based on reasonable
ground and have nexus between the qualification and the post or the
nature of employment.
ART 16(3) RESERVATION FOR RESIDENTS

Art 16(3) is an exception to Art 16(2)

Under Art 16(3) the parliament may make laws to prescribe a requirement
as to residence within a State or Union Territory for eligibility to be
appointed with respect to specified classes of appointments and posts.
Introduces some flexibility and takes cognisance of the fact that there may
be some very good reasons for restricting certain posts in a state for its
residents.
Power has been given to the Parliament and not to the State Legislature to
ensure that it is not abused.
Under Art 16(3) Parliament has enacted the Public Employment(
Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957 which repeals all laws in force
prescribing a requirement as to residence except in Himachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Tripura and Telangana- the area transferred to Andhra Pradesh
from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. (Due to backwardness of these
States the Act permitted prescription of a residential qualification for a
period upto March 21 1974, in regards to non- gazetted services.)
 A.V.S Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh- the SC declared
that part of the Act unconstitutional which prescribed a residence
qualification for govt services in Telangana- a part of the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The Court took the View that under Art 16(3) the
word State signifies the State as a unit and not parts of a State.
ART 16(4) RESERVATION FOR
BACKWARD CLASSES
Art 16(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for the
reservation of appointments of posts in favour of any backward class
of citizens which in the opinion of the state are not adequately
represented in the services under the state.
Enabling provision
C.A Rajendran v. Union of India- Art 16(4) neither confers a right
on anyone to claim, nor imposes a constitutional duty on the
government to make, any reservation for any one in public services. It
is merely an enabling clause and confers discretionary power on the
state to reserve posts in favour of backward classes of citizens, which,
in its opinion , are not adequately represented in the state services.
Thus reservation under Art 16(4) has to be within reasonable and
legitimate limits.
 Venkataraman v. State of Madras Art 16(4) does not envisage any reservation
in services independent of backwardness. Reservation of posts was made in a State
on the basis of various castes and communities like Harijans, backward Hindus,
Muslims, Hindu Brahmins, Non- Brahmins and Christians. The SC ruled that Art
16(4) expressly permits reservation of posts in favour of backward classes but not
with regard to those not regarded as backward. Reservation of posts between
Hindus, Muslims and Christians infringes Art 16(1) and (2).

Devadson v. UOI- the Constitutional validity of carry forward rule was

challenged.- the rule framed by the Govt provided that if sufficient number of
candidates belonging to the SC and ST were not available for appointment to the
reserved quota, the vacancies that remained unfilled would be treated as
unreserved and filled by the fresh available candidates. However a corresponding
number of posts would be reserved in the next year for SC and ST in addition to
their reserved quota of the next year. by applying the above rule, in actual effect
68% of vacancies were reserved for S.C and S.T. The SC struck down the Carry
Forwad rule as unconstitutional. Held that reservation ought to be less than
50%.
 Indra Sawhney v. UOI- Facts of the case-
1. Jan 1, 1979, Janata Govt. appointed Mandal Commission under the
chairmanship of BP Mandal to investigate socially and educationally
backward classes within the territory of India.
2. The commission submitted its report on March 21, 1979.
3. In the meantime the Janata Govt. collapsed and Congress party under
Indira Gandhicame to power.
4. The Congress did not implement the Mandal Commission report till
1989.
5. In 1989 the Congress was defeated and the Janata Dal again came to
power and on August 13, 1990, issued the Office Memoranda
reserving 27% seats for backward classes in Govt. services on the
basis of the recommendation of the Mandal Commission.
6. A writ on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar
Association was filed challenging the validity
of the OM and for staying its operation.
7. The Five Judge bench of the Court stayed the
operation of the O.M.
8. The Janata Govt. again collapsed and in 1991
congress party again came to power at the
centre.
9. Another O.M was issued with two changes.
10. A Five Judge Bench referred the matter to a
Nine Judge Bench.
The 9 judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6-3 majority gave
the following judgements:-
1. 27% reservation for backward classes is valid but the reservation can be implemented only
when creamy layer among them are eliminated
2. A person belonging to a backward class who becomes a ember of the IAS,IPS or any other
All India Services could not seek benefit of reservation for his children.

3. Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward &

more backward classes.
4. A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only & exclusively with reference
to economic criteria.
5. Reservation shall not exceed 50%.
6. The carry forward rule is valid provided it should not result in breach of 50% limit.
7. Those states where the reservation is more than 50% have to reduce it to 50%.
8. Reservation can be made by the EXECUTIVE ORDER.
9. No reservation in promotion.
10. Permanent Statutory body to examine complains of over inclusion / under inclusion.
11. Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised only in the Supreme Court.
 ART 16(4-A)

77th Amendment Act 1995 added Art 16(4-A)

The clause was again amended by the 85th amendment.
The State can make any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts
in the services under the State in favour of the SC and ST which in the
opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services
under the State.
The amendment nullified the Mandal ruling in connection with
reservation for promotion in case of SC and ST.
ART 16(4B) and 16(5)
In order to put an end to 50% limit on reservation for SC/ST
and backward classes the 81st amendment Act 2000 inserted
Art 16(4B) . Now vacancies which could not be filled up in
previous years shall be treated as a separate class of
vacancies and will be filled up in any succeeding years and
shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the
year or years, even if they go beyond the 50% limit.

ART 16(5)- in the case of religious or denominational

institutions, the State Govt. can by law reserve office of such
institutions exclusively to the persons professing a particular
religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
 ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY

Art 17- untouchability is abolished and it practice in any

form is forbidden.

If it is practiced in any form it becomes an offence.

By virtue of Art 35 parliament enacted the Untouchability

(offences) Act 1955.

This act has been amended in 1976 and renamed as the

Protection of Civil Rights Acts, 1955.

However the word untouchability has not been defined either

in the Constitution or in the Act of 1955.
 Devarajjah v. Padmanna the Mysore HC held that the term is to be
understood as the practice as it had developed historically in this country.
It is a product of Hindu caste system according to which particular
sections amongst the Hindu had been looked down as untouchables by the
other sections of that society.
Pavadai v. State of Madras- the State Legislature passed a law to
improve the conditions of living of untouchables. Accordingly, the Act
provided for acquisition of land for constricting a colony for them.- it was
argued against the validity of the law under Art 17- HC rejected the
argument and stated- Art 17 prohibits singling out the Harijan community
for hostile treatment as a socially backward community. By no process of
reasoning, could Art 17 be held to prohibit the State from introducing a
scheme for improving the condition of living of such people.
The SC has stated that whenever any FR like Art 17 is violated by a
private individual, it is the constitutional obligation of the state to take the
necessary steps for the purpose of interdicting such violations and
ensuring observance of the FR by the private individual who is
transgressing the same.
 ABOLITION OF TITLES
Art 18(1)- no titles shall be conferred by the State to any person.

However the state is not debarred from conferring military and

academic distinctions even though they may be used as titles.

The State is no debarred from conferring any distinction or award

which cannot be used as a title i.e. an appendage to ones name.
thus the award of Bharat Ratna or Padma Vibhushan cannot be
used by the receipient as a title and does not come within the
Constitutional prohibition.

Art 18(2)- prohibits the Indian Citizen from accepting any title
from any Foreign State.
 Art 18(3)- a non-citizen of India who holds any office of profit under
the State cannot accept any title from any foreign state, however he
can accept any title from any foreign state with the consent of the
president of India.
Art 18(4)- a person holding any office of profit under the state cannot
accept any present, emoulment or office of any kind from or under
any state. However he can do so with the consent of the president of
India.
Balaji Raghvan v. Union of India- petitioner challenged the validity
of the National awards like the Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan.
The SC held that the awards awarded by the Government of India are
not titles within the meaning of Art 18(1). the theory of equality
doesnot mandate that merit should not be recognized.- however the
awards conferred by the State are not to be used as suffixes and
prefixes.- the Prime Minister in consultation with the President should
appoint a high level committee to lay down the criteria for selection of
persons for these awards.