Article 14 Constituition

ARTICLE 14

“Article 14 embodies the general

principles of equality before law and prohibits unreasonable

discrimination between persons”

INTRODUCTION

Article 14 declares that “ the state should not deny to any person equality before the laws within the territory of India”.

Article 14 uses two expression “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law”. The phrase "equality before the law" occurs in almost all written constitutions that guarantee fundamental rights. Equality before the law is an expression of English Common Law while "equal protection of laws" owes its origin to the American Constitution.

Both the phrases aim to establish what is called the "equality to status and of opportunity" as embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. 

Article 14

Equality Before the

Law

Equal Protection of

the Law

“While equality before the law is a somewhat negative concept implying the absence of any special

privilege in favor of any individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law, equal

protection of laws is a more positive concept employing equality of treatment under equal

circumstances.”

DIFFERENCE

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” 1

__________________________________________________________

1. Jennings – Law of the constitution p 49

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

It only means that 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.2 Thus the rule is that the like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike.3

__________________________________________2. State of Bengal Vs Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 753. Dr VN Shukla – Constitution of India p. 27

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

Interpreting the scope of the Article, the Supreme Court of India held in Charanjit Lai Choudhury vs. 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.

TRUE EQUALITY

The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of what Dicey calls the rule of the law in England.4 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.

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. 5

_____________________________________________________________________

4. Dicey – Law of Constitution pp 202-3

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

RULE OF LAW

Professor Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law thus-

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

A man may be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else.

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.

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.

“The first and the second aspects apply to Indian system but the third aspect of the Dicey’s rule of law does not apply to Indian system as the source of rights of individual is the Constitution of India.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all laws passes by the legislature must be consistent

with the provision of the Constitution ”

OBSERVATION POINT

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.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF LAW

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. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg Co v Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd.,6 the supreme Court has held that “where Article 31 C comes in, Art 14 Goes out”

2. 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.

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

4. Under International law, foreign sovereign and ambassadors enjoy full immunity from any judicial process.__________________________________________________________6. (1983)1SCC 147

LIMITS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ARTICLE 14

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. 7

From the very nature of the society there should be different laws in different places and the legislature controls the policy and enacts laws in the best interest of the safety and security of the state. In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. 8 So a reasonable classification is only not permitted but is necessary if society is to progress.9

Thus, what Art 14 forbids is class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. 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. 10

__________________________________________________________________________________

7. Chiranjit Lal v. union of India AIR 1951 SC 41, per Das, J.; State of Bombay v. FN Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318, per Fazal Ali, J.; Kedar Nath v. State of west Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404

8. Abdul Rehman v. Pinto AIR 1951 Hyd 11

9. Jagjit Singh v State AIR 1951 Hyd 28

10. RK Garg v. union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138; Re- Special Courts Bill, AIR 1979 Sc 1979 SC 478; Air India v. Nagesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829; RC Cooper v. union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564; Ameronisa v. Mahboob AIR 1953 SC 91

ART 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation.

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.

2. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 11

_____________________________________________________________________

11. K. Thimmappa v. Chairman central Board of Directors SBI, AIR 2001 SC 467

TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Barry Goldwater 

THANK YOU