Important Cases on Article 14 of Constitution of India | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Article 14 of the Indian Constitution grants every citizen the Fundamental Right to Equality.
• Article 14, when combined with other Articles, such as Article 15 and Article 16, provides protection against discrimination and ensures equality of opportunity in public employment.
• It also guarantees the right against 'Untouchability' and the abolition of titles.
• Article 14 confers both positive (equal protection of law) and negative (equality before the law) rights to citizens.
• It serves as a foundational principle in establishing the concept of Justice.
• Various case laws and decisions by the Supreme Court have elucidated the practical application of Article 14.
• B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that while equality may be a fiction, it must be accepted as a governing principle.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India

• Case Details: In the landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, a Muslim woman named Shayara Bano challenged the practice of triple talaq after being divorced by her husband using this method. The case was taken up by a constitutional bench of five judges in the Supreme Court of India.
• Issue: The primary issue at hand was whether the practice of Talaq-e-biddat, specifically triple talaq, violated the fundamental rights granted to Indian Muslim women under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.
• Arguments:
  • Petitioner's Arguments: 1. The abuse of Triple Talaq went against the principles of the Quran, which allows divorce for reasonable causes. 2. Granting unchecked power to Muslim men through this practice was unjust and contrary to the Indian Constitution.
  • Respondent's Arguments: 1. Argued that Muslim marriages are private contracts beyond the purview of state intervention. 2. Cited the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, stating that personal laws are not subject to judicial review or state legislation. 3. Emphasized that abolishing a religious practice would infringe upon the freedom to practice religion, as guaranteed by Article 15(2). 4. Contended that personal laws were not explicitly covered under Article 13 but were part of the Concurrent List, indicating the framers' intent to exclude them from Article 13.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority decision, declared the practice of triple talaq unconstitutional, citing its violation of fundamental rights.
• Analysis of Article 14: The court discussed Article 14, emphasizing equality before the law and the equal protection of the law. It highlighted the concept of "intelligible classification" and cautioned against arbitrary actions that would contravene Article 14. Additionally, the court referenced previous cases like State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya and Lachhman Dass v. State of Punjab to underscore the importance of reasonable classification under Article 14.
• Relevance of Previous Cases: The court also referred to the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, underscoring how Article 14 combats arbitrariness in state actions and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

• Facts:
  • In 2009, the Delhi High Court declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as unconstitutional in the NAZ foundation v. N.C.T of Delhi case.
  • This decision was challenged in 2014 in the Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. NAZ foundation case in the Indian Supreme Court (SC), where it was overturned by a two-Judge bench.
  • The SC judgment was further challenged in 2016 in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case, which was presided over by a five-Judge bench of the SC.
  • Navtej Singh Johar, a dancer belonging to the LGBTQ community, filed a writ petition in the SC under Article 32.
• Issue:
  • The case examined the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the IPC and its application to consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex in private.
  • The key question was whether Section 377 violated the right to equal protection under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
• Law:
  • Indian Constitution provisions relevant to the case:
    • Article 14 = Right to equality before the law.
    • Article 21 = Right to life.
    • Article 15 = Right to protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex.
    • Article 19 = Freedom of Expression.
    • Article 25 = Freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Indian Penal Code:
    • Section 377
• Analysis:
  • Section 377 of the IPC was deemed to be in violation of several articles of the Indian Constitution, including Article 21, 14, 15, 19, and 25.
  • The judgment relied on the principles of Transformative Constitutionalism and Progressive realization of rights.
• Judgment:
  • A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled to decriminalize Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code concerning same-sex relations between consenting adults.
  • This decision granted the LGBT community the legal right to choose same-sex partners.
  • The court held that the relevant segment of Section 377 was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 and Article 15 - the right to equality under the law and the right to equality on the grounds of sex.

Indian Young lawyers association and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.

Facts:

• The case was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyer’s Association through public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India.
• It revolves around the entry of menstruating women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Temple.
• Petitioners argued that this practice violated the Equal protection of law under Article 14, alleging discrimination based on sex, thus breaching Article 15.
• Sabarimala Temple is located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala and is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

Issue:

• The main question was whether barring women based on their biological sex amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court, with a 4:1 majority, deemed the exclusion of menstruating women from Sabarimala Temple as unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi;

• The right to equality and equal protection under the law, as enshrined in Article 14 and 15, is fundamental.
• Article 15 prohibits discrimination on various grounds, emphasizing the importance of equal treatment without bias.
• The practice of religion under Article 25(1) is not absolute and must align with the principle of non-discrimination.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India Case

Facts:

• M. Nagaraj case was deliberated by a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India. It focused on the issue of "reservation in promotion" in the context of Constitutional law. The case involved the insertion of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) by the Indian Parliament through the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. These articles were inserted retrospectively, leading to debates on equality, the basic structure doctrine, and the previous judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others vs. Union of India.

Issue:

• The key question revolved around whether Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) violated Article 14 and thereby the basic structure doctrine.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and (4B), affirming the constitutionality of the 77th, 81st, and 85th amendments. The court clarified that while equality is a fundamental aspect of the basic structure doctrine, the rule against conferring seniority did not fall within this purview.
• The court emphasized that the state is not obligated to provide reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in promotions. However, if such reservations are implemented, relevant data must be furnished.

Role of enabling provisions in the context of Article 14

• Article 14 underscores equality of treatment. It establishes a personal right by enforcing an absolute prohibition. The principle of classification is interwoven into Article 14 through judicial interpretations. Equal treatment under Article 14 is an objective criterion based on equal operation under similar circumstances.
• The concept of enabling provisions, as seen in Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), aims to strike a balance between equality and positive discrimination. These provisions permit differential treatment to rectify historical injustices. They serve to harmonize the concept of access with efficiency, depending on the specific circumstances.
• Equality before the law, as guaranteed by the first part of Article 14, embodies a negative concept, while the second part represents a positive concept that validates corrective measures based on specific situations. The notion of equality permits differentiated treatment but prohibits unjustifiable distinctions, necessitating a case-by-case evaluation.