Critical Essay

The problem statement in the case study is that the state enacted a law which excludes a
particular class of people from applying for a job on the ground of ‘political opinion’.
Equality under article 14 of the constitution enumerates equality before the law and equal
protection of law to the citizens of India. Excluding a particular group of persons with a
certain political opinion from applying to a job is violation of article 14 and thereby
unconstitutional. Article 14 permits classification to distinguish a certain group of persons
from the other group, but only on the basis of intelligible differentia. This differentia should
have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.
Article 16 of the constitution ensures equal protection of opportunities in the employment
and appointment to any office under the state or the person holding office subordinate to
the state. The protection also extends to the matters relating to the employment and
appointment which includes all matters incidental to employment both prior and
subsequent to the employment.
In Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all consensual
sexual relationships between the adults are constitutional which also includes homosexual
relations and section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was decriminalized in this case. Hence,
not taking a group of persons into account without any solid reason is unlawful. 1
In A.P.Agrawal Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the court said that article 14
and article 16 confer right on the citizens of the country to claim consideration for
appointment for employment posts. In Anwar Ali Sarkar V. The State of West Bengal, the
Supreme Court held that conferring arbitrary powers on the government to classify offences
at it’s pleasure was unconstitutional. There can be a reasonable classification of employees
for the purpose of appointments or promotions. Here, it was made clear that the state shall
not hold wide arbitrary powers.2
In Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, the supreme court quashed the economic
criteria laid down by the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh Government to identify the affluent
section of the backward class of people and excluding them from the opportunity of job
reservation as it was held to be violation of article 16(4) and article 14. 3

Discrimination on the basis of political opinion is arbitrary when the characteristic for
distinguishing one class of persons from the other has no logical connection with the
1
(2018) 10 SCC 1

2
AIR 1952 SC 75

3
(1995) 5 SCC 403
objective sought to be achieved by the act. The government has affirmative duty to cut
down inequalities amongst the citizens of the country. Article 16 guarantees equality of
opportunity in the public employment to the people of the country.
In giving power to the state to make classification on the basis of political opinion will do
harm to the society. The state shall not be provided with such arbitrary powers. But it shall
also not affect the power of the state in providing ‘reservations’ to the backward classes of
the society for their betterment in various fields. The state shall take positive measures to
stop inequalities amongst the people of the country. Also, article 2 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights prohibits discrimination on the ground of ‘political opinion’. The pleasure of rights
and freedoms enumerated in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human
Rights Act shall be acquired without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion. The argument by the state that ‘political
opinion’ is not specified under article 16(2) is not a valid argument as discrimination on the
basis of ‘political opinion’ is antithetic to equality, hence unconstitutional.

In my opinion I would definitely not support this classification of persons on the basis of
political opinion as this is prima facie unconstitutional. The protection under article 14 and
article 16 also includes protection from indirect discrimination.