PROMINENT ADVANCEMENTS IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

1. INTRODUCTION

The multifaceted and contentious issue from the past is equality. Even 75 years after gaining its
independence, India still struggles with evils including discrimination based on caste, sex,
ethnicity, religion, and place of birth. The main obstacles to equality are these vices. The Indian
Constitution's Article 14 offers legal assistance for these difficulties. Article 14's major goal is to
provide justice to both citizens as well as non-citizens. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution,
which addresses equality as the first Fundamental Right, states that "The State shall not deny to
any person within the territory of India, equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws".
“Equal Protection under the Law” and “Equality Before the Law” are the foundations of Article
14. The phrase "Equality Before the Law" is of English origin and essentially means that
everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. In contrast, the phrase "Equal
Protection of the Law" is of American origin and primarily focuses on classification. It advocates
changing the law to better serve individual and societal interests rather than having it same for
everyone. This illustrates the effectiveness of the system, which ought to protect everyone
equally. The examples given below for a better understanding of these two ideas:
The scope of Article 14 is expanding gradually under the influence of several rulings. The ambit
of Article 14 was also discussed in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v.
Kerala & Ors1. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sabarimala Temple's practice of
denying entry to women during their "menstruating years" was unconstitutional and in violation
of Article 14 and allowed all women, regardless of age, to enter the temple premises. The
devotees of Lord Ayyappa were of the firm belief that menstruating women should not enter the
temple at this time. The Judiciary, on the other hand, decided in favour of individual rights after
applying the lens of Article 14 to this case. We can also refer the case of Navtej Singh Johar v.
Union of India2. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that section 377 of the IPC is
discriminatory towards the LGBTQ Community and clearly in violation of Article 14, 15 and 21
of the Indian Constitution. This article is primarily focused on the present development of Article
14 of the Indian Constitution and potential suggestions for expanding it to achieve societal
justice.

1
SCC OnLine 2018 SC 1690.

2
AIR 2018 SC 4321.
 2. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ARTICLE 14

The concept of "Right to Equality" originated from the mechanism of “Rule of Law” propounded
by Professor A.V Dicey. It declared that regardless of position or rank, everyone should be
treated equally in the eyes of law. He used the example of a Prime Minister and a Peon to
illustrate how they share the same accountability as any other citizen for any act carried out
without legal justification. This particular doctrine plays a very crucial role in the development
of the idea of equality.
The "Rule of Law", which is reflected in Article 14, was held to be the core feature of the Indian
Constitution in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain3 and hence could not be
eliminated even by a constitutional amendment pursuant to Article 368 of the Indian
Constitution. Also, in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case) 4, the same
ruling was followed. In 1951, the protection of Article 14 was extended to both citizens and
non-citizens, as well as to both natural and legal persons, by the judgement given in Chiranjit Lal
Chowdhuri v. Union of India5. Later, in 1952, in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar6, the Supreme Court addressed the complimentary nature of the phrases "Equality Before
Law" and "Equal Protection of Laws" under Article 14 by stating that violation of one phrase
does not result in violation of the other. Consequently, Article 14 imposes two obligations on the
State, namely:

3
AIR 1975 SCR (3) 333

4
AIR 1993 SC 477

5
AIR 1950 SCR 869

6
1952 SCR 284
1. Equality Before the law

2. Equal Protection of Law.

In 1974, by the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 7, the new dimension and its surety
against the arbitrary nature of Article 14 were established. In the Royappa case, the Supreme
Court revealed a new aspect of Article 14, which had hitherto served as a protection against
arbitrariness.

3. EXAMINING THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 14 THROUGH RECENT JUDICIAL

DECISIONS

As evidenced by recent court rulings, Article 14 is evolving to become more diverse in order to
usher in a new era of true equality in our country. Some of these are discussed below:

1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India - In this case, Section 377 of the IPC was
questioned because it makes "Canal Intercourse" or sexual behavior that violates the laws
of nature, a crime. However, the Supreme Court viewed this matter from the perspective
of equality and ruled that it was unconstitutional because it discriminated against the

7
AIR 1974 SCR (2) 348
 LGQBT community and violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because sexual
orientation is a crucial aspect of their identity, dignity, and autonomy.
2. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala - Since it includes the
admission of women to the Sabarimala shrine, this case is sometimes referred to as the
“Sabarimala temple” case. Menstruating women are not permitted to enter the temple,
according to the religious beliefs held by Lord Ayyappa's followers. The Court held that
the Sabarimala Temple's practice of barring women in their "menstruating years" from
entering the temple premises is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 25 and
26 of the Indian Constitution. All women, regardless of age, should be permitted entry
into the temple. The concept of Constitutional Equality was taken into consideration
when the court made its decision, and it was this principle that ensured the breadth of
individual rights was always given precedence over traditions and religious convictions.
3. Shayara Bano v. Union of India - In this case, the Triple Talaq (Talaq ul Biddat),
declared invalid by the Supreme Court of India, was analyzed in light of Constitutional
Equality, and the court came to a decision in favour of individual rights. In order to
ensure that the supremacy of the Constitution and Constitutional Equality always triumph
over personal laws and traditions, the Supreme Court has served as both a custodian of
the Constitution and an interpreter of it.
4. Ayesha Hajeera Almas v. Chief Secretary - Sometimes referred to as the "Hijab Case",
the Supreme Court in this case, ruled that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and
that wearing the hijab is not a requirement for practising Islam. As a result, hijab is no
longer permitted in colleges or schools.

CONCLUSION

Equality is a complex and divisive topic from the past. Even after 75 years of Independence,
India still battles injustices such as discrimination based on caste, sex, ethnicity, religion and
place of birth. These vices pose the biggest barriers to Equality. For certain issues, Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution provides protection. According to the Supreme Court, Article 14, which
had previously acted as a safeguard against arbitrariness, now has a new meaning. The
cornerstones of Article 14 are "Equality Before the Law" and "Equal Protection under the Law".
Everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, according to the English term
"Equality Before the Law". The term "Equal Protection of the Law", in contrast, has its roots in
America and principally focused on classification.