Continuous Internal Assessment III

Doctrines under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and

case analysis of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

Subject: Constitutional Law

Submitted to: Prof. N S Babitha

School of Law
Christ Deemed to be University.

Submitted by: Tejas V Gowda (Reg no.:2150137)

BA LLB (A), School of Law
Christ Deemed to be University.

Date of Submission: 25 of October, 2023

th

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
2. Equality before law
3. Equal protection of the laws
4. Doctrine of Classification
5. Doctrine of Arbitrariness
6. Conclusion
7. Case Analysis of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
 1. Introduction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures that all individuals have the fundamental right to
equality within the country's borders. It prohibits the government from denying anyone
equality before the law or equal protection under the law 1. This right to equality is considered
a fundamental and unalterable aspect of the Constitution, meaning that neither constitutional
amendments nor actions by the Parliament or State legislatures can violate this fundamental
right. All individuals are inherently equal, and this principle guided the framers of the Indian
Constitution to incorporate provisions for equality. Article 14 holds significant importance in
the Indian Constitution. In the context of India, this right is of great significance due to the
historical and persistent socio-economic disparities that have existed for a long time.
Discrimination based on gender or religious affiliation has been widespread. Consequently,
Article 14 was introduced in the Constitution to eliminate such disparities and ensure that all
individuals are equally protected under the law. Article 14 is a manifestation of the equality
principles outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution.
Article 14 encompasses two fundamental principles: equality before the law and equal
protection of the law. The concept of equality before the law is derived from English law,
while the idea of equal protection of the law is borrowed from the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution.

2. Equality before law

The principle of "equality before the law"2 is a common element in most written constitutions
that safeguard fundamental rights. This concept, which originated in English law and is often
referred to as the Rule of Law, was articulated by Professor Dicey. It represents a concept
that emphasizes the need for uniform and impartial administration of the law, ensuring that
individuals in similar circumstances are treated in a like manner.
Essentially, it asserts that no one, regardless of their social status or position, is exempt from
legal accountability. This concept implies the absence of any special privileges granted to any
individual and underscores the equal application of the law to all classes of society.
Dicey described as the "Rule of Law." In essence, the "Rule of Law" posits that no individual
can place themselves above the law, and everyone, regardless of their social standing or
position, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land and the jurisdiction of regular legal
authorities.
"Equality before the law" signifies the absence of special privileges for any particular person
and serves as a check against arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. It is fundamentally
a concept that ensures uniform treatment under the law.
However, it's essential to recognize that this principle is not an absolute rule, and there are
exceptions, including foreign diplomats, judges, the President of India, and state Governors,
who may have certain legal immunities or privileges.

1
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14
2
Article 14 - Equality Before Law and Equality protection of the law, Hanamant Karanure, Jun 2, 2022,
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Article-14-Equality-Before-Law-and-Equality-protection-of-the-law
 3. Equal protection of the laws
The concept of "equal protection of the law" 3 represents a positive principle ensuring that all
individuals should receive equal treatment in both privileges and circumstances. This concept
stipulates that the law should be applied equally and administered impartially among those
who are in similar situations. It is applicable to both substantive and procedural laws, and it
extends its protection not only to natural persons but also to juristic entities like corporations.
Under this concept, the law should be uniformly applied to all individuals in similar
circumstances, without any discrimination.
The phrase "equal protection of laws" is based on Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, which states, "nor shall any State deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of laws." This phrase is interpreted to mean that equal laws
should apply to all individuals in identical circumstances, ensuring equal treatment in both
the benefits and obligations imposed by the laws.
In essence, "equal protection of laws" establishes the principle that individuals who are alike
should be treated alike, and it does not advocate treating dissimilar individuals in the same
manner. This concept is considered to have a positive content, representing a commitment to
upholding the protection of equal laws.

4. Doctrine of Classification4.
Not all individuals are inherently the same, as their characteristics, achievements, and
circumstances vary. Different groups of people often have diverse needs that require distinct
treatment. Consequently, the legislative authority must possess the ability to create laws that
differentiate, select, and classify individuals and things that these laws will affect.
Article 14 allows for such classification. Classification, in this context, refers to the
systematic organization of entities into groups or categories, typically following a specific
and reasonable scheme. This classification must be rational and not arbitrary, artificial, or
designed to evade the law.
In every society, there are various classes of people, and the natural diversity in society
necessitates different treatments. Hence, many laws are designed to be applied based on a
reasonable classification to ensure equality without discrimination. Article 14, in essence,
requires that classification be based on rational grounds and prohibits laws that target specific
classes of people. Under this concept, equality means that the same law doesn't have to apply
to everyone; it should apply to a class of people. A legislative body is authorized to create
reasonable classifications for the purpose of legislation and treat everyone within a class
equally when in similar circumstances. The key principle is the equality of treatment under
comparable conditions.

3
Article 14 - Equality Before Law and Equality protection of the law, Hanamant Karanure, Jun 2, 2022,
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Article-14-Equality-Before-Law-and-Equality-protection-of-the-law
4
4 Issue 4 Int'l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 3958 (2021)
Doctrine of Reasonable Classification,
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs12&div=370&id=&page=
The Supreme Court has used this standard from the beginning to assess the constitutionality
of legislation and state actions challenged on the grounds of violating Article 14. There are
two tests of classification, as outlined in the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar case:
1. The classification must be based on a discernible difference that distinguishes those
included in the group from those excluded from it.
2. The difference must have a rational connection to the objective intended by the Act.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution prohibits class legislation, which pertains to laws that
exclusively pertain to a particular group of people or a specific geographical area. Such
legislation is considered unfair when it treats individuals within the same group differently
without a valid or justifiable reason. Class Legislation is characterized by unjust
differentiation, where specific privileges are granted to a class of individuals who are
arbitrarily chosen from a larger pool of people.
Cases under the doctrine of classification:
 KT Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala (1961)3 SCR 775
In 1955, the state of Kerala enacted a law, later amended in 1957, that aimed to impose a
uniform and relatively low tax of Rs 2 on all forest lands, regardless of their level of
productivity. This law also granted significant discretionary powers to the district collector.
Landowners with forested land were prohibited from selling, leasing, or mortgaging their
land without prior approval from the district collector. Additionally, they were not allowed to
engage in activities like tree-cutting that could reduce the land's utility.
The individuals who filed the petition challenged the constitutionality of this law because the
tax imposed on them exceeded the income generated from their unproductive land. This was
primarily because the district collector only allowed limited commercial activities, which did
not generate sufficient income.
The majority judgment concluded that the law violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The absence of a classification based on land productivity created inequality. Furthermore,
the law was considered confiscatory in nature and was deemed unconstitutional.
 State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 196
The case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khowa & Others centered on whether
it was permissible to classify assistant engineers based on their educational qualifications to
determine their eligibility for promotion to executive engineers. The regulations in question
divided assistant engineers into two groups: those with degrees and those with diplomas. The
Court, with a unanimous decision, considered this classification valid, as it was linked to the
objective of improving efficiency within the service. The judgment underscored that judicial
review should not excessively scrutinize the rationale behind such classification, and it
should not be interpreted as an endorsement of highly detailed and intricate classifications.
The judges emphasized the importance of striking a practical balance between excellence and
equality, cautioning against excessive classification based on minor differences.

5
KT Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala (1961)3 SCR 77
6
State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19
  D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 3057
In the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that Rule 34 of the
Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was unconstitutional. This rule differentiated the rate
of pension based on the retirement date of the pensioners, distinguishing between those who
retired before a certain date and those who retired after that date. The Court found this
classification arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Desai, in explaining the concept of equality and the standard for satisfying Article 14,
emphasized that while Article 14 prohibits legislation that targets specific classes of people, it
does allow reasonable classification for legislative purposes. This classification, however,
must meet two key criteria: it should be based on a discernible difference that distinguishes
the individuals or things grouped together from those excluded from the group, and this
difference should have a rational connection to the objective intended by the relevant statute.
 Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors AIR 2018 SC 43218
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) previously criminalized consensual sexual
intercourse between individuals of the same sex, deeming it as "against the order of nature."
In 2009, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust ("Naz") challenged the constitutionality of this
section, asserting that it violated several articles of the Constitution, including Articles 14, 15,
19, and 21, before the Delhi High Court. The High Court ruled that penalizing consensual
sexual activity between adults under Section 377 infringed upon the right to equality, privacy,
and personal liberty of these individuals.
However, the Supreme Court later reversed the Naz Foundation's verdict in 2013 through the
Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. ("Koushal") case. The Supreme
Court's decision in Koushal held that only the Indian Parliament had the authority to
decriminalize homosexuality.
Subsequently, five members of the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia,
Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath, and Sunil Mehra) initiated a new writ petition challenging the
constitutionality of Section 377. They argued that it violated Article 14 as it discriminated
against individuals based on their "sexual orientation" and "gender identity.
The Court ruled that the differential treatment of LGBT individuals amounted to a violation
of Article 14. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 377 was inherently arbitrary as
it failed to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts among adults.
5. Doctrine of Arbitrariness 9
Article 14 prohibits discriminatory legislation but permits reasonable differentiation based on
justifiable distinctions. Equality doesn't demand that every law applies universally to all
individuals, regardless of their inherent traits or circumstances.
"Intelligible differentia" refers to distinctions that can be clearly understood, such as factors
that set one group or individual apart from another.

7
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305
8
Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors AIR 2018 SC 4321
9
The Old and New Doctrines of Equality: A Critical Study of Nexus Tests and Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness by V.K.
Sircar (1991) 3 SCC (Jour) 1
Different groups of people have varying needs, necessitating diverse treatment.
To meet the criteria for allowable classification, two conditions must be met:
1. The classification must be based on a discernible difference that distinguishes those
grouped together from those excluded.
2. The difference must have a rational connection to the objective intended by the statute in
question.
Article 14 extends beyond reasonable classification to prevent any form of arbitrariness in
state actions. The doctrine of classification is just a subsidiary aspect of this article.

Explanation along with case laws:

In the past, the reasonable classification test was commonly used to assess whether legislation
complied with Article 14 regarding equality. However, a significant shift occurred in the
Supreme Court during the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 10. In this case, Justice
Bhagwati, speaking on behalf of himself, Chandrachud, and Krishna Iyer J.J., introduced a
new concept of equality. The judgment emphasized that equality is a dynamic concept with
multiple facets and dimensions, and it cannot be confined to traditional, rigid boundaries.

This new concept highlighted that equality is fundamentally opposed to arbitrariness; they are
inherently incompatible. The judgment pointed out that inequality, whether from a political,
logical, or constitutional perspective, is inconsistent with the principles of Article 14, making
it a violation of this article. This same judgment set the foundation for another landmark case,
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11.

The doctrine of classification used by the Court does not merely paraphrase Article 14, nor
does it solely aim to classify. Instead, it focuses on examining whether legislative or
executive actions are arbitrary and, therefore, result in inequity. Article 14 is concerned with
addressing arbitrariness in state actions and ensures that fairness and equal treatment are
upheld.
6. Conclusion
Article 14 is a fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution and is
considered a pivotal provision. It ensures equality for all individuals, prohibiting
discrimination based on factors like gender, caste, or religion.
Article 14 encompasses two key elements: equality before the law and equal protection of the
law. These principles establish the Rule of Law, emphasizing that no one is exempt from
legal provisions, and all must adhere to them. However, it's important to note that the equality
envisaged in Article 14 is not absolute; it follows the principle of equality among equals. This
allows for reasonable and non-arbitrary classification, such as laws aimed at benefiting
children, which are considered justifiable.
10
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348
11
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
Previously, the constitutionality of laws was assessed using the reasonable classification test,
which examined whether a reasonable classification existed in the legislation. Later, a new
test called the arbitrariness test was introduced. While it faced criticism and disagreement in
legal literature, the reasonable classification test continues to be employed in certain cases.

Over time, the judiciary has expanded the dimensions of Article 14. Its primary purpose is to
eliminate any arbitrariness in state actions, making it a much broader and more impactful
provision today compared to its scope at the time of the Constitution's enactment. Various
judicial decisions have broadened the scope of Article 14.

7. Case analysis of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab12 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
Facts
The Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1257, stands as a watershed moment in
Indian jurisprudence, delving deep into the intricate terrain of the right to die, specifically
within the realm of passive euthanasia. At its heart, the case orbits around the actions of Gian
Kaur, the spouse of a retired Colonel in the Indian Army, and a nurse named Ramnik Kaur.
Together, they aided Gian Kaur's ailing husband, Sadhu Singh, in concluding his life,
culminating in charges of abetting suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Following a circuitous journey through the levels of the legal system, the case ultimately
ascended to the pinnacle of the Indian judiciary - the Supreme Court. Initially, a solitary
adjudicator at the Punjab and Haryana High Court found Gian Kaur and Ramnik Kaur
culpable of abetting suicide, leading to their imposition of rigorous imprisonment. However,
dissatisfied with this verdict, they opted to challenge it through the process of appeal.
Issues
1. Whether an individual has a fundamental right to choose the time and manner of their
own death, especially in the context of passive euthanasia.
2. The interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right
to life and personal liberty, and whether it includes the right to die with dignity.
3. Considering the dignity and quality of life of individuals with terminal illnesses, and
whether prolonging life under such conditions is in line with constitutional values.
Laws
1. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the crime of aiding and
abetting suicide.
2. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifies that individuals who survive a
suicide attempt can face legal consequences.
3. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution affirms that every individual is equal in the eyes
of the law.
4. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution asserts that every person is entitled to the right to
life and personal liberty.

12
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
Analysis

The Supreme Court, comprising a five-judge bench, delivered a divided verdict. A three-
judge majority held that the right to die, including the right to passive euthanasia, was not a
fundamental right. Justice J.S. Verma, representing the majority opinion, emphasized that the
right to life did not encompass the right to die, asserting that the sanctity of life should always
be upheld. According to his interpretation, the right to life encompassed the right to live a
dignified life, but not the right to terminate it.
However, two judges, Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Ahmadi, dissented from the majority
opinion. They contended that the right to die with dignity was an intrinsic aspect of the right
to life. Justice Kuldip Singh, in his dissenting judgment, argued that prolonging life in a
vegetative state devoid of any quality or purpose was a violation of human dignity.
The Gian Kaur case firmly established the legal precedent regarding the right to die in India,
as of my last knowledge update in September 2021. It unequivocally affirmed that the right to
die is not enshrined as a fundamental right, and intentionally causing death, even at the
explicit request of the individual, is proscribed by Indian law.
However, it is imperative to recognize that this ruling did not definitively close the chapter on
discussions surrounding euthanasia in India. Instead, it laid the groundwork for subsequent
legal and legislative advancements, exemplified by the introduction of the "Living Will" or
"Advance Medical Directive" in the country. This mechanism empowers individuals to
articulate their preferences regarding medical treatment in the event of terminal illness and
incapacitation.
Conclusion
In summation, the Gian Kaur case stands as a paramount precedent in Indian jurisprudence,
molding the legal terrain concerning end-of-life determinations and the right to die. It mirrors
the delicate equilibrium between personal autonomy and the state's imperative to safeguard
life, persisting as a focal point for both ethical deliberations and legal discourse.