Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Before the period of independence, we faced gross discrimination based on our caste, colour sex, etc. The forefathers of our Constitution also suffered this agony in their lives. So, to remove this taboo from our society, the drafters of our Constitution made provisions of equality in our supreme constitutional document. This principle of equality is enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution and it ensures that there shall be no discrimination among the people and arbitrariness is removed in the state action.

This article will explore the Concept of Equality before the law, equal protection of the law and the rule of law. Further, we will also explore the exception of the right to equality along with the doctrine of reasonable classification and the doctrine of non-arbitrariness.

Table of Contents

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 of the Indian constitution is the touchstone of the right to equality in our society. It states that every person is equal in the eyes of law and there shall be no discrimination. Further, it also provides for the concept of equality of opportunities and special treatment for the backward section of the society.

Ingredients of Article 14

There are mainly three Ingredients of Article 14 which are as follows –

Equality before Law

This concept is derived from the constitution of England. As per this doctrine, every person is equal in the eyes of the law ranging from a president to a peon. In other words, It states that every person in our society should be treated equally and the same punishment shall be granted for the same offense to every person in the society. There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of their wealth, caste, colour, race, etc. The state can’t give a special purpose to any person. It is also known as legal equality. This is a negative concept as it provides for the deprivation of any special privilege or honour to a particular person in society.

Equal Protection of the Law

This concept is derived from the Constitution of the United States of America (USA). As per this doctrine, the state is obliged to provide equality of opportunities to its citizens. The spirit of this principle states that the “equals should be treated equally”. In other words, this provision states that there is no comparison between equal and unequal thus the state should adopt the mechanism of positive discrimination. The term positive discrimination means some socio-economic steps aimed to improve the condition of a particular section of society. For example – Reservation for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe is also an example of positive discrimination.

In the Stephens College v. The University of Delhi case, the admission quota involved a specific percentage of reservations for Christian students. It was challenged on the ground of equality but our Hon’ble Supreme Court held that this treatment doesn’t violate the principle of equality and minority institutions that receive aid from the state can reserve some seats for their particular community.

Rule of Law

In our Constitution, the rule of law is enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The term rule of law is derived from the French phrase ‘La Principe de Legalite’ which means the governance of a state on the principle of equality and justice. The rule of law is the fundamental principle of a democratic setup and it is totally against the policy of arbitrariness. The concept states that democracy shall function as per the law and not by the arbitrary actions of men.

This concept of “rule of law” is derived from the Magna Carta and was given by Professor Dicey. This concept has 3 elements namely –

The supremacy of law– As per Professor Dicey, this concept of “Rule of Law” stands for absolute supremacy of law. Every person ranging from a common man to a government minister needs to abide by the holy Constitution. Further, no person shall be prosecuted except in situations where the breach of law occurs and this offence is proved in a court of law.
Equality before law– As discussed earlier, this means that the law is equal for everyone no one shall be accorded special treatment on account of his wealth, caste, sex, race, etc. The law shall treat everyone equally.
The dominance of Legal Spirit – The term legal spirit denotes the spirit of justice. It states that the law shall always follow the principle of justice and no one shall be deprived of his life and liberty except due process. The right of an individual shall be given due importance.

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that that “rule of law” enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution is a part of the basic structure of the constitution. It cannot be curtailed or destroyed even by an amendment to the constitution.

The doctrine of legitimate Expectation

As the name suggests, this doctrine talks about the expectations of the individual from their lawmakers. This doctrine put a moral obligation on the part of a state to make laws that impart equality to all sections of society. It is not a legal right and it gives the right of judicial review of the action of administrative authorities to protect the rights of citizens. However, It is important to note that the expectations of citizens must be reasonable and rational.

The exception to Right to Equality

It is pertinent to note that the right to equality is not absolute in nature and several exceptions are provided for it. In the case of the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the hon’ble supreme court held that the right to equality is not absolute and it includes some meaningful exceptions.

In the Special Courts Bill case, the validity of the establishment of special court was challenged before the hon’ble supreme court on the ground of violating Article 14 of the constitution. The court held that there was reasonability and rationality behind the motive of the establishment of these courts, thereby it is not in violation of Article 14 of our Constitution.

Test of Reasonable Classification

As we already discussed, the right to equality is not absolute and some special treatment may be provided to an individual as per the circumstances. Thus, the doctrine of reasonable classification was derived by our hon’ble Supreme Court. This doctrine permits the reasonable classification of individuals, things, etc for achieving a particular objective in society. However, it is important to note that this doctrine also forbids “class legislation”.

Class Legislation refers to making improper discrimination and conferring special privileges to a certain class of person which is arbitrarily selected. In other words, the people who are at the receiving end are equal in status with other people and there is no special need for that provision. So, we can say that class legislation makes unreasonable discrimination between various classes which all are on equal footing.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India laid down the test that determines whether the special treatment is based on reasonable classification or not. The classification will be considered reasonable if 2 conditions are satisfied which are described below –

The classification must be based on reasonable differentia. It means that the people who are selected must be different in status or position from those who are left out. In simple words, the statute or the Act must demonstrate that there are some special or considerable grounds of difference between both groups.
There must be sufficient nexus between the differential classification and the object sought with the act. In simple words, it is essential to demonstrate that the classification is necessary for achieving a particular objective.

For example – The government wants to curtail the rate of poverty in our country. With this objective, it designated a certain class of people as “below the poverty line” based on their economic condition. This is an example of reasonable classification as there is a reasonable classification based on their economic condition and this classification is necessary for achieving the objective of reducing poverty in our society.

In the absence of reasonable classification or a situation when there is no nexus between the object and the impugned Act, it will be declared unconstitutional and discriminatory.

In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately explained the various facets of this doctrine of reasonable classification. These are as follows –

An individual can constitute a class and it will be deemed as a reasonable classification if that particular individual is conferred certain privileges on account of reasonable conditions or circumstances.
It will be presumed that the Act of the state is constitutionally valid and the burden of proof will lie on the person who challenges its validity on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination.
This presumption will be reversed if it is prima facie evidence that the object of the statute doesn’t aim for special treatment of a particular set of an individual and yet the classification is incurred among individuals or classes.
It will be presumed that the classification is reasonable as the state considers the needs of their citizens and some special treatment is needed for improving their condition.
While assuming constitutionality, the court will take into consideration the intent of the legislation while enacting the Act. Further, other factors like a matter of reports, basic knowledge and historical backdrop shall also be duly recognised.
The classification can be based on numerous grounds including geographical, economic and social factors etc.
The discrimination or the classification incurred in the doctrine applies to both the substantive and the procedural law. If the aforesaid 2 tests are satisfied, then the impugned Act will be declared constitutional.
The classification should not be scientifically perfect or mathematically proved. The essential elements of classification is reasonability and rationality which is a very subjective phenomenon and is determined on case case-to-case basis.

Doctrine of Non-arbitrariness

It is well-settled law that equality is totally against the arbitrariness action. In the case of E.P Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu, the doctrine of reasonable classification was challenged before the hon’ble supreme court. In this case, a new doctrine or a new facet of the right to equality was evolved. This was known as the doctrine of Non-arbitrariness. The court held that equality is a very dynamic concept and cannot be confined to the existing limit.

As per this doctrine, equality is the antithesis to arbitrariness. So, any form of arbitrariness in political, social or administrative action will make the entire Act unconstitutional as it will violate the principle of equality. In the landmark case of Meneka Gandhi vs Union of India, It was held that Article 14 struck down arbitrary actions. The doctrine ensures fairness, responsibility and equality of treatment. This concept of reasonability and non-arbitrariness is the golden thread that binds all the fabric of the Constitution. Thus, there shall be reasonability and rationality in every Act of the legislature or the Act of administrative authorities.

Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendolkar

Ram Krishna Dalmia was an Indian businessman who was born into a poor family in Rajasthan. The Dalmia Bharat Group (DBG) is an Indian conglomerate whose roots can be traced back to the businesses founded by Ramkrishna and Jaidayal Dalmia. In the first half of the twentieth century, the Dalmia brothers formed a corporate conglomerate in eastern India. On 11 December 1956, a notification was published in the Gazette of India by the Central Government. Large and renowned companies and firms were under the control of people like Sarvarshi Ramkrishna Dalima, Jaidayal Dalmia, Shanti Prasad Jain, Sriyans Prasad Jain, Shital Prasad Jain and others who were either relatives, employees or were connected to these people, were included in this gazette and large amounts of money were subscribed by the investing public in the shares of these companies.

It was alleged that these people were misusing the money for their personal benefits which were raised by public funding or public shares, and this was the reason why people who had invested in the company were facing losses. Through this proclamation, the central government established a Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar, Judge of the High Court of Bombay. The panel was requested to investigate and report on 11 different clauses. The names of the companies that had defaulted were disclosed, and an investigation would be conducted. Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 gave the central government the authority to publish this notification.

Facts of the case

Six appeals were filed against a Bombay High Court Division bench’s shared judgment and order in three miscellaneous cases filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners sought a suitable direction or decision under section 226 quashing and setting aside the notification issued by the Union of India on December 11, 1956, in exercise of powers bestowed on it by Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952. The four individuals named filed three applications with the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, disputing the legitimacy of the Act and the notification and requesting writs to have them quashed. Except for the last section of cl. 10, the High Court dismissed the claims and ruled that the notification was legitimate and valid.

Issue

Defaulting persons filed case alleging mainly that the notification has gone beyond the act and the Act itself is ultra vires the constitution.
Whether the case was in violation of article 14
If Ram Krishna Dalmia and people related to the companies were isolated
If Sarvarshi Ramkrishna Dalima, Jaidayal Dalmia, Shanti Prasad Jain, Sriyans Prasad Jain, Shital Prasad Jain and others who were either relatives, employees or basically were connected to these people were misusing the money for their personal benefits
The notification is bad as the action of government in issuing it was mala fide and amounted to an abuse of power and also as it violates Article 23 of the constitution.

Petitioner’s arguments

The notification passed by the central government has gone beyond the act, and the act itself is ultra vires to the constitution in two ways. Firstly, that it was beyond the competence of Parliament to enact a law conferring such a wide sweep of powers and, secondly, that the inquiry is neither for any legislative nor for any administrative purpose, but was a clear usurpation of the functions of the judiciary.
On the basis of a legitimate classification, the appropriate government has failed to use its discretion properly. The claim against the notification is that the government did not properly implement the policy or follow the principles set forth in the Act, and as a result, it has overstepped its power.
The appropriate government has discriminated and isolated the petitioner and their companies by singling them out.
The notification was taken in mala fide intention (in bad faith) and amounted to abuse of power and also violates article 23 of the constitution.

Respondent’s argument

The notification does not go beyond the Act as the powers are being conferred to the appropriate government by section 3 of the Act.
The Act does not violate the constitution because it was enacted within the scope of Parliament’s powers under Article 246 of the constitution. No inquiry has itself been undertaken neither by Parliament nor the Government, for it to be called the usurpation of judicial functions.

It was further submitted that the section also ascertains that the Parliament has the authority to provide for the appointment of Commissions so as to carry out the Inquiry in consideration of a matter of public importance.

It is impossible to forecast all the societal eventualities and therefore the duty of taking the necessary action hall be vested with the appropriate Government Article 14

Article 14 of the constitution talks about Right to Equality to the citizens of India. The central and the state cannot deprive any person from Equality before law and Equal protection of the laws within the territories of India. In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, the petitioner contended that their right to equality, that is, article 14, has been violated. The petitioner also stated that through the notification it is clear that the companies and the petitioners have been segregated and have been treated as separate classes or groups. The petitioners questioned the validity of the notification.

In the Indira Sawhney case Article 14 has been taken under the basic structure doctrine, it is also a basic fundamental right and in no circumstance apart from a national emergency can these rights be taken away from the citizen of this country otherwise the whole fundamental basis of democracy would get grossly violated. The true meaning and scope of Article 14 was established in the case of Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, citing various other cases such as Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, state of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara[4], and many others, and it was established that “while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.”

Then there’s the matter of what constitutes a legitimate classification because it can’t be “arbitrary, contrived, or evasive.” To accomplish this, a permissible classification test must be passed, which requires two conditions to be met: first, the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those who are grouped from those who are not, and second, the differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be accomplished by the statute in question. The term “intelligible differentia” refers to a difference that can be understood. What is required is a link between the classification basis and the Act’s intended purpose.

Judgment

The person who asserts that a particular law is violating the Constitution has the burden of proof. The principle to mind when deciding whether the statute is legal or in violation of Article 14 is that nothing in Article 14 prohibits any reasonable classification. It does, however, ban discrimination in both substantive and procedural law. Matters of common knowledge, matters of common respect and history of the times may be taken in consideration by the court so as to sustain the presumption of constitutionality. Although the presumption of constitutionality is necessary, it cannot be expanded to the point where it is assumed that there must be some secret and anonymous motives for subjecting some individuals or organizations to antagonistic or discriminatory legislation.

In this case, the Supreme Court describes the jurisprudence of equality before the law. The very famous “classification test” had been given in this case. Simply put, it permits the State to make differential classifications of subjects (which would otherwise be prohibited by Article 14) provided that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia (i.e. objects within the class are distinguishable from those that are outside) and has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the classification.

Conclusion

The right to equality is an integral element of our Constitution and it is the most commonly used mechanism to assess the legality of the act of the legislature or the executive body. Article 14 encompasses the concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The former states that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and the latter states that the like should be treated alike and allowed positive discrimination for the benefit of society.

Salient Features of the Indian Constitution

However, the right to equality is not absolute and certain exceptions are there. The state can make a reasonable classification among the individuals. However, while doing so, it needs to ensure that the classification must be reasonable and it has sufficient nexus with the object sought. Article 14 also struck against the arbitrary acts of the state and made them constitutional. Thus, in a nutshell, we can say that Article 14 is one of the most important elements that is enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.