Equality and Social Justice: Article 14 | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Right to Equality 

The Constitution of India ensures the Right to Equality through Articles 14 to 18, making equality a fundamental principle of Indian democracy.

• Article 14: Equality Before Law: Article 14 prohibits discrimination and guarantees equality before the law for all individuals. It emphasizes that no person should have special privileges and that the law should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their background.
• Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination: Article 15 prohibits discrimination against citizens on specific grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This article aims to protect individuals from unfair treatment based on these characteristics.
• Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment: Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment. This means that everyone should have an equal chance to apply for and obtain government jobs, regardless of their background.
• Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability: Article 17 abolishes the practice of untouchability, which discriminated against certain groups of people in society. This article aims to promote social equality and eliminate caste-based discrimination.
• Article 18: Abolition of Titles: Article 18 abolishes the conferment of titles, except for military and academic distinctions. This article aims to promote equality by preventing the establishment of social hierarchies based on titles.
• Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has recognized the right to equality as a basic feature of the Constitution. The Preamble of the Constitution emphasizes equality as a fundamental principle. Any constitutional amendment that violates the right to equality would be considered invalid. Neither Parliament nor State Legislatures can infringe upon this principle.
• Equality Before Law: Equality before the law, a negative concept borrowed from the English Constitution, means that there should be no privileges for any individual. It ensures that the law is applied equally to all, without distinction based on race, religion, wealth, social status, or political influence.

 (a) According to Dicey

According to Dicey, the Rule of Law encompasses the following meanings:

1. The Supremacy of Law:  The law is supreme, and the Government cannot act arbitrarily. Individuals can only be punished for violating the law, not at the whim of the Government.
2. Equality before Law:  All individuals are subject to the same legal provisions administered by ordinary courts. No one is above the law, and everyone must follow it.
3. Constitution originates from the ordinary law:  This concept, which Dicey proposed, is omitted in India because the Constitution is the supreme law, and people's rights originate from it.

 (b) Equal Subjection to Courts 

Equal subjection to courts means that no individual should suffer in body or property except for a clear breach of law. All individuals are under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. Dicey opposed administrative tribunals because they do not follow ordinary court procedures. However, since tribunals are now established, courts require them to adhere to principles of natural justice.

• Equal Protection of the Laws: Equal protection of the laws, derived from the American Constitution, signifies equality of treatment in similar circumstances. It mandates that individuals in similar situations must be treated alike. The essence of this principle is that like individuals should be treated alike, and unlike individuals should not be treated alike. This principle is a guarantee of equal treatment under the law and is considered a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It cannot be violated even by constitutional amendments.
• Article 14: Classification and Class Legislation: Article 14 allows for reasonable classification but prohibits class legislation. It does not require laws to be general in character or applicable to everyone. Different classes may have varying needs that necessitate separate treatment. Identical treatment in unequal situations would result in inequality.

Reasonable classification is essential for societal progress, and Article 14 forbids class legislation, which involves conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons without a reasonable basis. Class legislation makes improper discrimination by arbitrarily selecting a group of individuals for privilege without a substantial difference justifying the exclusion of others.

Conclusion 
The right to equality is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and without discrimination. Through various articles, the Constitution aims to promote social justice, eliminate discrimination, and provide equal opportunities for all citizens.

Article 14 and Reasonable Classification 

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law for all individuals. However, since people are not identical, a universal application of equality is impractical. Therefore, laws cannot be universally applied, and some degree of classification is permitted under Article 14.

• The legislature is allowed to identify and classify individuals into different groups because treating unequals in the same way could lead to more problems than it solves. For society to progress, such classification is necessary. However, this classification must not be arbitrary. If it were, there would be no justification for it. While Article 14 allows for classification, it should not confer special privileges to any group without a rational basis.
• For example, the legislature cannot pass a law favoring a particular caste without a valid reason. If such a law is enacted, it is likely to be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary. Arbitrary classification by the legislature is known as class legislation, which is prohibited by the Constitution. However, reasonable classification is allowed, where legislation is based on a rational basis aimed at achieving specific objectives.

Test of Reasonable Classification 

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution prohibits class legislation but permits the reasonable classification of objects, persons, and transactions to achieve specific ends set by Parliament. This classification must not be artificial, arbitrary, or evasive; it should rest on substantial and real distinctions. Additionally, it must bear a reasonable and just relation to the objective that the legislation aims to achieve.

The Indian Supreme Court, in cases like  Saurabh Chaudhari v. Union of India  , has outlined two conditions for reasonable classification:

1.  Intelligible Differentia:  The classification must be based on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes the grouped persons or goods from those excluded from the group.
2.  Rational Relation:  The differentiation must have a rational relation to the objective that the legislation seeks to achieve.

It's important to note that the object of the act and the basis for differential classification are separate. There must be a nexus between the act's object and the basis for classification. If a reasonable basis for classification is lacking, the classification made by the legislature may be deemed discriminatory.

For instance, while the legislature can set the age at which a person is considered competent, it cannot base competency on arbitrary factors like hair color. Such arbitrary classification would be considered invalid.

The Supreme Court, in the  Re Special Courts Bill  case, cautioned against overemphasizing classification. The court stated that the doctrine of classification is a subsidiary rule used to facilitate the doctrine of equality. Overemphasis on classification could undermine the principle of equality under Article 14, leading to a situation where classification replaces equality.

The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been clarified by the Supreme Court in various cases. The propositions laid out in the  Dalmia case  regarding valid classification still hold true. These propositions include:

1. A law may be constitutional even if it pertains to a single individual if there are special circumstances or reasons applicable to that individual, making them a class by themselves.
2. There is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, and the burden of proof lies with those challenging it to demonstrate a clear violation of constitutional principles.
3. The presumption can be rebutted by showing that there is no classification or distinction peculiar to any individual or class, and yet the law applies only to a specific individual or class.
4. It is assumed that the legislature understands and addresses the needs of its people, and that its laws are based on adequate grounds.
5. The court may consider matters of common knowledge, reports, historical context, and assume facts that could have existed at the time of legislation to sustain the presumption of constitutionality.
6. Legislation can recognize varying degrees of harm and restrict its application to cases where the need is most evident.
7. While good faith and awareness of existing conditions are presumed, if there is no basis for classification evident from the law or surrounding circumstances, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be extended to imply undisclosed reasons for discriminatory legislation.
8. Classification can be based on various factors, such as geography, object, occupation, etc.
9. The classification need not be scientifically precise or logically exhaustive. Perfect mathematical equality and identical treatment are not required.
10. Article 14 applies to both substantive and procedural law. If the classification meets the established criteria, the law will be considered constitutional. The reasonableness and propriety of classification should be judged more on common sense than on legal technicalities.

New Concept of Equality

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

This case is significant as it led to a broader interpretation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court. The Court, through its judgment, emphasized that Article 14 guarantees protection against arbitrariness. The concept of equality is dynamic and multifaceted, and it cannot be confined to traditional limits. From a positivistic perspective, equality is opposed to arbitrariness. Equality and arbitrariness are fundamentally at odds; equality aligns with the rule of law in a republic, while arbitrariness pertains to the whims of an absolute ruler. When an action is arbitrary, it inherently violates the principles of equality, both in political and constitutional terms, thereby contravening Article 14.

Key Cases Interpreting Article 14

1. Maneka Gandhi's Case: 

• The Supreme Court ruled that the government's action of impounding a passport was "not justified."
• It expanded the scope of equality beyond the traditional "judicial formula" of reasonable classification, emphasizing that legislative acts must not be arbitrary.
• In this context, the impounding of a passport without a hearing was deemed "unfair," highlighting the need for fairness in legal actions.

2. International Airport Authority Case: 

• The court recognized that the concept of equality had an "activist magnitude," serving as a guarantee against arbitrariness.

3. Mithu v. State of Punjab: 

• Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was struck down by the Supreme Court.
• Under Section 302, the court had discretion in awarding the death penalty for murder, but Section 303 mandated the death penalty without judicial discretion for prisoners serving life sentences who commit murder.
• This lack of discretion under Section 303 was deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional.

4. Air India v. Nargesh Meerza: 

• The regulation allowing Indian Airlines to terminate the services of air hostesses based on age, marriage within four years of service, or pregnancy was challenged.
• The court found the regulation discriminatory, particularly the provision regarding pregnancy, as it was an unreasonable ground for termination.
• This regulation was held to violate Article 14, leading to the invalidation of such terminations.

5. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India: 

• Rule 34 of the Central Services rules was declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14.
• The rule made a distinction between pensioners based on their retirement date, which the court found to be arbitrary and irrational.
• As a result, Rule 34 was set aside for infringing Article 14.

6. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India: 

• The case dealt with admissions to M.B.B.S. and post-graduate medical courses, where preference was given to candidates based on their domicile or residence in the State.
• The practice of confining admissions to candidates with specific domicile or residency requirements was challenged as unconstitutional.
• The court emphasized the unity and integrity of the nation, asserting that all citizens have equal rights regardless of their place of birth or residence.

Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India:

1. The petitioner, an ordinary shareholder of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., approached the Supreme Court seeking protection against the enforcement of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1950.
2. Due to mismanagement and neglect in the company's affairs, the mill was closed down.
3. The Central Government issued an Ordinance, later replaced by the Act, placing the management and administration of the company's assets under government-appointed directors.
4. The petitioner argued that the Act violated Article 14 by subjecting a single company and its shareholders to disabilities compared to other companies. However, the legislation was upheld as valid.

Sri Srinivas Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu

1. The Tamil Nadu Legislature's declaration that theatres within a 5 km radius of municipal corporation areas and special grade municipalities would be subjected to the same taxation method as theatres situated within those areas was challenged.
2. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the competence of the Tamil Nadu Legislature in making such a declaration.

Basis of Classification:

Basis of classification under Article 14 may include:

• Geographical basis:  Classification based on territorial grounds, as seen in cases like Ram Chandra V. State of Orissa and Joshi V. State of M.P.
• Historical basis:  Classification based on historical reasons, such as in Pavitra Kumar V. State of W.B.
• Time as the basis:  Classification based on the date of operation of law, like imposing an enhanced tax rate from a specific date.
• Nature of persons, trade, calling, or business:  Valid classification based on age or specific trade groups, as seen in cases like Express Newspaper Case.
• Special Courts and Special Procedure:  Validity of Special Courts and Special Procedures as held in Kathi Ranning V. State of Saurastra and In re Special Courts Bill.
• Tax basis:  Classification under Article 14 passing the test, like tax on Virginia tobacco but not on country tobacco, as seen in E-l-Tobacco Case.
•  Individual or group classification:  Valid classification if not arbitrary and meeting the two tests.

Article 14 and Special Courts

Constitutionality of Special Courts set up to try specific offences was examined by the Supreme Court. The Special Courts Bill was upheld as valid, with clear guidelines for selecting offences during Emergency. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within India. It emphasizes the rule of law, where law applies equally to all, regardless of religion, race, wealth, social status, or political influence. The concept of "Rule of Law," as articulated by Dicey, underscores the supremacy of law and accountability of all individuals to ordinary Courts.