CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I

ABSTRACT

TITLE OF THE PROJECT: ARTICLE 14- RIGHT TO EQUALITY

Article 14 of Indian constitution speaks about the right to equality and it says that “The State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth”. According to the above said phrase it clearly indicates that no one is above the law and all
are equal before the law that means from the Prime minister of India to the common man
everyone is equal before the law and as specified in the above article any person cannot be
discriminated on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth only. The Article 14 of
Indian constitution is expressed in the preamble of the constitution by the word Equality.

From the article it clearly denotes two expressions “Equality before law and equal protection of
laws”. The latter was taken from the Britsh and the former was taken from the American
constitution. These two expressions are also used in universal declaration of human rights also.
Both the above said phrases on the face appear to be same but they are different because the
Equality before law is a somewhat negative concept because it restricts the special privileges and
also it says that all classes are to be treated equally before the law. Equal protection of laws is a
more positive concept because it speaks about the equal treatment in the equal circumstances.
The common aspect between the two expressions is that they both speak about the equal justice.

In the case of state of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the supreme court had held that if any
person violates the equality before law then he will also be violating the Equal protection of laws
and there cannot be a situation where only one expression can be violated alone.

Equality before law: The concept of equality cannot be applied absolutely and cannot be
physically achieved. It is only a concept which implies the absence of any special privilege to
any person on the grounds enshrined in the article.

Rule of Law: This is an aspect taken from the Dicey’s rule of law. And Dicey specifies that
none is above the law and all are subjected to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In Rubinder
Singh v. Union of India, the court held that none can be subjected to the harsh and
discriminatory treatment even when the object is the securing the paramount exigencies of law
and order.

Equal Protection of laws: It means applying the equal law to the all the persons who are in
same circumstances. Thus rule enshrined in this is a like to be treated alike and unlike to be
treated alike. In this regard the case of Indhira Ghandi V. Raj Narian will be discussed in
which case it was stated by the supreme court that the rule of law enshrined in the article 14 is
basic feature of the constitution. In another case Raghbir singh V. State of Haryana it was held
that the state shall see that none should be punished brutally by police. In Chiranjit Lal v.
Union of India it was held that the corporations being juristic persons will also get the benefit of
Article 14.

Exceptions to the rule of law: There are many exceptions to the rule of law because the powers
of ordinary citizens will be different from the powers of public officials.

Article 14 permits reasonable classifications but prohibits class legislations: The equality
doesn’t mean that all the laws must be having the general character but there may also be laws
which will be made applicable to the specific persons only. In Jagjit singh V. State it was held
that the reasonable classification is only not permitted but is necessary if society is to progress. in
the case of the Abdul Rehman v. Pinto it was held that identical treatment in unequal
circumstances would amount to inequality. In R.K Garg V. Union of India it was held that the
the classification must be reasonable and it must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.

Test for Reasonable classification:

There must be a classification based on the intelligible differentia and it must have a rational
relation to the said act. In this regard K. Thimmppa v. Chairman Central Directors SBI,
Ramakrishna Dalmia V. Tendulkar will be discussed.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation: The decision maker can normally be compelled to give
effect to his representation in regard to the expectation based on the previous practice or past
conduct unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. This doctrine is in its
substantive sense accepted as a part of our law. In this regard the Navjyoti Co-op. Group
Housing Society V. Union of India, in which case the principle of procedural fairness is
applied. The basic principles for the doctrine of legitimate expectation is given in the case of
Council of Civil Services Unions V. Minister for the Civil Services and this case will also be
discussed.

Principles of Natural Justice-Implicit under Article 14: In the case of Central Inland water
transport corporation V. Borjo Nath, the supreme court had held that the service rules
empowering the government corporation to terminate the service permanent employees without
giving the notice on three months or pay lieu notice was held to be violative of article 14 being
unconscionable, arbitrary, unreasonable as it wholly ignores the Audi Alteram Partem rule.

LOKESH SAI KADIYALA

18LLB051

3rd SEMESTER