Table of Contents

Right to Equality is the first fundamental right assured to the people of India. Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the Preamble. The succeeding Arts. 15, 16 and 17 lay down specific applications of the general rules laid down in An. 14. Art. 14 is the equality clause because of its wide ambit and applicability.

Art. 14 states,

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

This means no person is above the law, and everyone gets the same legal protection. However, equality before law does not mean absolute equality, because complete equality among human beings is not practically possible. It simply ensures fairness and the absence of special privileges. This right is available to both citizens as well as non-citizens. However, an alien (foreign national) cannot claim equal rights (under Art. 14) with that of an Indian national, in relation to the grant of Indian citizenship.

Rule of Law

The concept of ‘Rule of Law’ was devised by A.V. Dicey in his book, ‘Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution’ in the year 1885. It means to be governed by law.

Prof. Dicey’s modern framework of the Rule of Law consists of three core principles:

  1. Supremacy of Law – No person can be punished or lawfully harmed except for a clear breach of law established in an ordinary court.
  2. Equality before the Law – Every person, regardless of their rank or position, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land.
  3. Predominance of Legal Spirit – The principles of the Constitution are the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private individuals, rather than the other way round.

However, in the Indian system, only the first two elements fully apply. In India, the Constitution is the source of individual rights, not the result of court decisions.

  • Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab – In this case, the Supreme Court held that Rule of Law in India is based on three basic principles:
  1. law-making must be done by a democratically elected legislature;
  2. even the legislature cannot have unlimited power;
  3. and there must be an independent judiciary to protect citizens from misuse of power by the legislature and executive.

Equality before Law

According to this principle, all persons should be treated equally without any discrimination. It states that all individuals irrespective caste, race, sex, religion, status, position, etc. are equally subject to the ordinary law of land; no one is above the law. Everyone must follow the same laws, and all are tried by the same ordinary courts. It is a negative concept as it prevents special privileges. However, equality before law does not mean absolute equality, because complete equality among human beings is not practically possible. It simply ensures fairness and the absence of special privileges.

Equal Protection of Law

This concept was taken from 14th amendment of the USA’s Constitution. It states that equals (people in similar circumstances) should be treated equally whereas unequals can be treated differently (discrimination should be reasonable and not arbitrary); it is a positive concept. The Supreme Court has held that Article 14 does not apply when equals and unequals are treated differently.

Concept of Reasonable Classification

Art. 14 does not allow class legislation (laws that unfairly favour a particular group), but it permits reasonable classification. While Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it permits reasonable classifications of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends, as long as the classification is not arbitrary or unfair. In other words, what Art. 14 prohibits is class legislation and not classification for the purpose of legislation.

Test for Reasonable Classification

In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara a test was developed for the purpose of reasonable classification. To pass constitutional validity and avoid being struck down as arbitrary, any legislative classification must satisfy two conditions:

  1. Intelligible Differentia – The law must differentiate or group people based on a clear, understandable, and logical distinction.
  2. Rational Nexus – The distinction used must have a direct, rational connection to the specific objective the law seeks to achieve.

The differentia which is the basis of classification and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification.

For Instance, Under Sec. 11 of Indian Contract Act, persons who haven't attained majority can't enter into a contract. The two categories are adults and minors. The basis of classification is the age, which obviously has a relation to the capacity to enter into contract. The section, therefore, satisfies both requirements of a valid classification. But suppose that the basis of classification is colour of hair e.g. all persons having black hair may contract. This classification would fail because the differentiation has no relation to the object of legislation - the capacity to contract.

Doctrine of Arbitrariness

The Doctrine of Arbitrariness states that any state action that is capricious, irrational, or lacks a valid reason violates the Right to Equality under Article 14. It was first articulated by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the landmark case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974). Before this doctrine, Article 14 was strictly interpreted through the “reasonable classification” test, which merely checked if the government had a valid basis to differentiate between groups of people.

Under the new doctrine, the Supreme Court declared that equality is a dynamic concept that cannot be confined within traditional limits; it is the absolute antithesis of arbitrariness. If a law, policy, or executive action is found to be arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory, it is automatically struck down as unconstitutional. Over the decades, the scope of anti-arbitrariness has expanded significantly, serving as a powerful tool to strike down major state actions, including the historic invalidation of Triple Talaq in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) and the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).

Exceptions to Rule of Law and Article 14

Although, Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Rule of Law ensures equality before law, there are certain exceptions as well:

  1. Special Laws for Certain Groups – Constitution provides special provisions for certain categories such as women, children, and backward classes. [Art. 15(3), 15(4), 16(4)]. Art. 31A, 31B, and 31C protect laws related to agrarian reforms from being challenged under Art. 14. For example, members of the armed forces are governed by military laws, and professionals like doctors and lawyers follow rules made by their respective professional bodies.
  2. Art. 361 – The President and Governors are exempted from criminal proceedings during their term in office.
  3. Art. 361A – No person can be punished for publishing a true report of Parliamentary or State Legislature proceedings.
  4. Art. 105 and 194 – Members of Parliament and State Legislatures enjoy certain privileges for what they say or do inside the House or its committees.
  5. Art. 31C - laws made to implement certain Directive Principles [Article 39(b) and (c)] cannot be challenged on the ground that they violate Article 14.

Thus, while Art. 14 and Rule of Law are fundamental principles, it is not absolute and allows exceptions for reasonable classification, special privileges, and constitutional provisions. These exceptions exist to promote social justice, public interest, and national security.

Important Case Laws

  1. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) – Justice Subba Rao stated that Article 14 has both negative and positive aspects. It includes equality before law and equal protection of laws.
  2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – The Supreme Court held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected. (Golden Triangle). Any law affecting personal liberty must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. This greatly expanded the scope of Article 14.
  3. Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981) – In this case, the court held that terminating the services of an air hostess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to discrimination.
  4. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) – In this case, the court observed that although equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right; it is a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16, and 39(c) of the Constitution.
  5. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) – In this case the court stated that classification/differentiation between the pensioners retiring before and after a specific date is irrational; it is against Art. 14.
  6. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) – It is a landmark case that struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandated the death penalty for anyone committing murder while serving a life sentence. The Court ruled that mandatory capital punishment violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
  7. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – The Court upheld reservations for backward classes and held that Article 16 is a part of Article 14. It said reasonable classification, including reservation, is allowed to achieve equality.
  8. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) – The court held that the phrase “any person” in Article 14 of the Constitution is gender-neutral and fully includes transgender and non-binary individuals, guaranteeing them equal protection and equality before the law. The Court emphasized that individuals who do not fit into the traditional male or female binary fall directly within the legal definition of “person”. Denying rights or protections based on gender identity or sexual orientation constitutes direct inequality before the law, violating the core mandate of Article 14.
  9. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – The Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, stating that it violates gender equality under Article 14.
  10. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – In this case, a unanimous five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court ruled that the colonial-era law, which penalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, was unconstitutional. It overthrew its own 2013 verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation and formally apologised to the LGBTQ+ community for the historical denial of their rights. The Court declared Section 377 as “manifestly arbitrary” because it failed to differentiate between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts. “The Court reasoned that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was violative of the right to equality”.
  11. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – In this case, popularly known as the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark 4:1 majority verdict striking down the ban on women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) entering the Sabarimala Temple. The Court ruled that the practice was unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and religious freedom under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Indian Constitution. It also declared Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, invalid.