Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

ARTICLE 14
Article 14. Equality before law.
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Equality before law

Negative concept -All persons should be treated equally, no Rule of Law has been
discrimination allowed held as part of basic
Concept taken from the British concept of ‘Rule of Law’ – The structure of Indian
originator of the concept of rule of law was Sir Edward Coke. Constitution in Indira
It means that no man is above law and also that every person Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law Narain (1975)
irrespective of their position and rank. According to Professor
A.V Dicey, for achieving Rule of law three
principles/postulates must be followed which are as follows:
1. Supremacy of law – Absolute supremacy of law as opposed to
arbitrary power of the government.
2. Equality before law – no one is above the law, everyone is bound
to obey the same law
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit – It means Constitution originated
from the ordinary law and the real source of the right of individual
is not the written constitution but the rules as defined and
enforced by the courts (this concept is not applicable in India because as
we know our written constitution is the Supreme law of the land in India and
source of Rights of all individuals)

Equal protection of law

Concept taken from 14th Amendment of USA’s Constitution
Positive concept - like should be treated like, unlike should not be treated like,
discrimination allowed but it should not be arbitrary and should be reasonable.

YG LAW 1
Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973) it was held that “Equality is a
dynamic concept, it cannot be Cribbed, Cabined or Confined with Traditional
Limits. From a positivistic point of view equality is anti-thesis to arbitrariness.”

Class Legislation is not allowed

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

Reasonable classification is allowed if it is based on Intelligible Differentia

(Intelligent reason for classification)
Whether the discrimination is reasonable, is upon judiciary to decide,
the requirements are
- Should have relation with the rationale to be achieved
- The rational to be achieved should be just

CASES
Chiranjit Lal v. UoI (1950)

Central Government issued an ordinance which later became an Act

named ‘The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. (Emergency provision)
Act 1950’ when due to mismanagement and neglect of the company a
mill was closed. The action of the company led to the scarcity of
essential commodities in the country apart from unemployment and
unrest.

Petitioner urged that the Act was violative of Article 14 because a single
company was subjected to disabilities.

It was held that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a

single individual, in those cases where on account of some special
circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to
others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself;

YG LAW 2
Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)

The West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 created special courts for the
speedier trial of certain offences, the challenge was made on the point
that there was no object for making the classification between different
offences under the Act.

The Supreme Court invalidated the Act because it conferred arbitrary

powers in the government to classify offences or classes of offences at
its pleasure. The Act did not lay down any policy/guideline for
classification of such offences. Court held that there should be some
nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act which
was very vague in this particular case. This case was one of the initial
cases to lay down the foundational principles of Article 14, in this case
supreme court said that ‘equal protection of law’ is corollary (something
that naturally follows) to ‘equality before law’

Trilochan Mishra v. State of Orissa & ors. (1971)

The issue was that bids of persons making the highest tenders were not
accepted and persons who had made lesser bids were asked to raise
their bids to the highest offered and their revised bids were accepted.

Court held that the persons who had made lower bids were asked to
raise their bids to the highest offered before the same were accepted.
Thus, there was no loss to Government, The Government has a right to
enter into a contract with a person well known to it and specially one
who has faithfully performed his contracts in the past in preference to
an undesirable or unsuitable or untried person.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Court said that section 10(3)(c) of passport act, 1967 is void because it
violates article 14 of Indian constitution because it confers vague and
undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution since it doesn’t provide for an opportunity for the
aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since
it does not affirm to the word “procedure” as mentioned in the clause,
and the present procedure performed was the worst possible one.

YG LAW 3
Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

Court said any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must
satisfy a triple test:

1. it must prescribe a procedure; (‘procedure established by law’ is

requirement of article 21)
2. the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the
fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be
applicable in a given situation; and
3. it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14.

This is the reason that we call article 14,19 and 21 as the ‘golden
triangle’ of Indian Constitution

Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)

Indian Airlines provided made regulation that an Air Hostess had to

retire from their services on attaining the age of 35 or if they married
within 4 years of their service or on their first pregnancy whichever
occurred earlier. The court held that terminating the services of an air
hostess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to discrimination as it
was an unreasonable ground for termination.

Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)

Equal pay for Equal work though not a fundamental right is clearly a
constitutional goal under Articles 14,16 and 39(c) of the constitution.
This principle of ‘Equal pay for equal work’ has since this case been
followed in a number of cases (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) and
Ram Chandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984)

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)

Rule 34 of the Central Services rules was held to be violating Article 14

and thus unconstitutional. Under this rule, a classification was made
between the pensioners who retired before a specific date and those
who retired after that date. Such classification was held irrational by the
Court and it was arbitrary. Thus it was an infringement of Article 14 and
as a result, was set aside.

YG LAW 4
Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)

Section 303 of IPC was struck down as unconstitutional.

Section 303 provided for mandatory death penalty for anyone who
commits murder and is on life imprisonment, which the court declared
arbitrary and not based on any rational principle

Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984)

100% reservation on basis of domicile was held to be unconstitutional.

Central Inland Water Transport Corp. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986)

Rules of natural justice implicit in article 14, government cannot

terminate services of permanent employees without giving reasons on
three months’ notice or pay in lieu of the notice period. It is a violation
of audi alteram partem rule (i.e. hear the parties)

Similar ruling was given in Delhi Transport Corp. v. D.T.C Mazdoor

Congress (1991) where terminating services of permanent employee by
notice without giving reasons or opportunity of hearing was held to be
violative of Article 14

Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995)

Validity of a new rule which didn’t allow anyone to register as an

advocate after the age of 45 was challenged, reasoning given by bar
council was that people who were in government services use their past
contacts to canvass for cases and such people also pollute the minds of
young advocates, Supreme court said that the reasoning behind this rule
is unreasonable and arbitrary and most importantly the bar has no
material to show that what is claimed actually happens plus you cant
deny everyone the right to register as an advocate just because a select
few misuse their position.

YG LAW 5
Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

Danial Latifi v. Union Of India (2001)

Section 3 and 4 (provided for maintenance beyond iddat period) of the

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was
challenged on the ground that it was violative of article 14. Court held
that the act is constitutionally valid.

This case is important because, it established for the first time that a
Muslim husband’s liability to provide maintenance to his divorced wife
extends beyond the iddat period, and he must realize his obligation
within the iddat period, thereby striking a balance between Muslim
personal law and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

National Legal Services Authority v. Union Of India (2014)

Article 14 does not restrict the word ‘person’ to males and females only,
Hijras/Transgender’s are also included in the definition of ‘person’. Also,
the prohibition on discrimination on basis of Sex under article 15 and 16
does not just mean biological sex, it also prohibits discrimination on
basis of gender identity.

Shayara Bano v UOI (2017)

Supreme Court pronounced its decision in the Triple Talaq Case,

declaring that the practice of instantaneous triple talaq [Talaq-ul-biddat]
was unconstitutional. The Bench observed that this form of Talaq is
manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken
capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at
reconciliation so as to save it. Therefore, is violative of Article 14.

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India (2018)

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, because 377 criminalized same-sex
relations between consenting adults. LGBT individuals were legally
allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. Section 377 of IPC was
held to be violative of right to equality for same sex couples.

YG LAW 6
 Constitution of India 2022 Article 14

Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple’s

custom of prohibiting women in their ‘menstruating years’ from entering
the temple premises.

Harsh Mander v. Union of India (2018)

This judgment decriminalized begging on the ground of right to equality

under Article 14 by removing around 25 sections of Bombay Prevention
of Begging Act, 1959 which criminalized different forms of begging.

In this petition it was pointed out that the definition of "begging" under
the Act violated Article 14, as it does not make any distinction between
persons who solicit or receive money for authorized purposes and those
who are singing, dancing or engaged in similar activities.

Be part of YG Law Community and make studying law easier.

YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in

Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in

Click here to view my courses

YG LAW 7
Protect pdf from copying with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com