Article 14 of Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens, which are essential to uphold the principles of democracy, justice, and equality. Among these, Article 14, enshrining the concept of equality, forms the cornerstone of individual rights and liberties. This article ensures that every individual, irrespective of their identity or status, is treated equally in the eyes of the law and is entitled to equal protection by the legal system.
This detailed article explores the meaning, scope, exceptions, doctrines, judicial interpretations, and significance of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, emphasising its role in promoting equality and justice.
What is Article 14 of Indian Constitution?
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, 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.”
Article 14 embodies two significant concepts:
Equality Before the Law
This concept, derived from English Common Law, signifies the absence of any special privilege in favor of any individual. It mandates that every person, irrespective of their status or identity, is subject to the same legal standards. The principle emphasises that no individual, including public officials or authorities, is above the law. Equality before the law ensures a level playing field and prohibits arbitrary state actions.
Equal Protection of the Laws
Borrowed from the American Constitution, this phrase goes beyond formal equality to ensure substantive equality. It requires that individuals in similar circumstances be treated equally under the same legal framework. This principle focuses on preventing discrimination while allowing reasonable distinctions where necessary for achieving justice.
Key Features of Article 14 of Constitution of India
These key features underscore the comprehensive and adaptable nature of Article 14, making it a cornerstone of equality and justice in the Indian legal framework.
Universal Applicability
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is inclusive and applies to all individuals, irrespective of their citizenship status. This means both citizens of India and non-citizens residing within the country are entitled to the protections guaranteed under Article 14. By extending this fundamental right to everyone within Indian territory, the Constitution emphasises the universal nature of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Protection Against State Actions
The primary objective of Article 14 is to safeguard individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory actions by the State. It ensures that all laws and actions taken by the government or its officials are fair, non-discriminatory, and in compliance with the principles of equality. Any violation of this right by the State can be challenged and remedied through the judiciary.
Dynamic Concept
The interpretation of Article 14 is not static. Over the years, courts have expanded its scope to adapt to changing societal and legal landscapes. This dynamism ensures that Article 14 remains relevant in addressing contemporary issues, including gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and protection against arbitrary administrative actions.
Substantive Equality
Article 14 goes beyond formal equality and incorporates the concept of substantive equality. It recognises that treating everyone equally in all situations may lead to injustice. Hence, the principle allows for reasonable classification, where individuals or groups in similar circumstances are treated alike, while distinctions are made when justified by logical, real, and substantial differences. This ensures fairness in lawmaking and governance while addressing the needs of disadvantaged or marginalised groups.
Historical Context
Global Influences on Article 14
The principle of equality has a long-standing history in global legal traditions. Article 14 draws inspiration from:
- English Common Law: The Magna Carta (1215) introduced the idea of the rule of law, ensuring that no one, including the king, is above the law.
- American Constitution: The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws, which served as a model for the “equal protection” clause in Article 14.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Adopted in 1948, Article 7 of the UDHR states that all individuals are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection.
Indian Context and Article 14
Before independence, Indian society was deeply divided along lines of caste, religion, and gender, perpetuated by social customs and colonial policies. The framers of the Indian Constitution sought to eradicate these disparities by ensuring equality as a fundamental right.
Exceptions to Article 14 of the Constitution of India
While Article 14 enshrines the fundamental principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, it is not absolute. Certain exceptions are recognised to accommodate the practical needs of governance, societal welfare, and national security. These exceptions are guided by the principle of reasonable differentiation and are essential for maintaining balance within the legal framework.
Reasonable Classification
Reasonable classification is a fundamental exception to Article 14. It permits the legislature to enact laws that classify individuals, groups, or objects, provided:
- The classification is based on intelligible differentia: A clear, logical distinction separates the individuals or groups within the classification from those excluded.
- There is a rational nexus: A direct connection exists between the classification and the objective of the law.
This exception acknowledges that equality does not mean uniformity. It allows for differentiation where logical, real, and substantive differences justify such distinctions.
Examples:
- Reservation Policies: Quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in education and employment are examples of reasonable classification. These measures aim to uplift historically disadvantaged communities.
- Taxation Laws: Progressive tax structures classify individuals based on income levels to ensure equitable taxation.
Privileges for Certain Individuals
Certain high-ranking officials, such as the President and Governors, are granted specific immunities under Article 361 to ensure the smooth functioning of governance:
- They are not subject to criminal proceedings during their tenure.
- They cannot be arrested or imprisoned while in office.
- Their official acts are protected from judicial scrutiny.
These privileges ensure that constitutional functionaries can perform their duties without fear of litigation.
Special Laws
Special provisions and laws exist for specific individuals, groups, or entities, exempting them from the general application of the law. These are designed to address unique circumstances:
- Armed Forces: Military personnel are governed by separate laws and courts under the Armed Forces Acts, recognising the distinct nature of their duties.
- Foreign Diplomats and Sovereigns: Diplomats and foreign sovereigns are granted immunity from civil and criminal proceedings under international law to facilitate diplomatic relations.
- United Nations and its Agencies: As per international conventions, the UN and its agencies enjoy diplomatic immunity within Indian territory.
Emergency Provisions
During a national emergency, the protection of fundamental rights, including Article 14, may be suspended under Article 359. This allows the State to take measures necessary for the preservation of sovereignty, security, or public order.
For example:
- During the Emergency of 1975-77, several fundamental rights were suspended, including the right to equality, to empower the government to address the crisis.
Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
Reasonable classification is a pivotal concept under Article 14, enabling the State to enact laws that differentiate between groups for achieving specific objectives. To be valid, a classification must satisfy two criteria:
- Intelligible Differentia: The classification must distinguish a group from others based on logical and substantive differences.
- Rational Nexus: The classification must have a direct connection to the objective of the law.
Case Law on Reasonable Classification
- State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): The Supreme Court struck down a law allowing arbitrary referral of cases to special courts, as the classification lacked a rational nexus.
- Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958): The Court reiterated that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification for legislative purposes.
Doctrine of Arbitrariness
The Doctrine of Arbitrariness asserts that equality cannot coexist with arbitrary actions. The principle was first established in:
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973): The Court held that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality. Any arbitrary action violates Article 14.
This doctrine was further reinforced in:
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Court expanded the scope of Article 14, stating that laws and administrative actions must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Landmark Judgements on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
Over the years, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting and expanding the scope of this fundamental right through landmark judgements. These cases have addressed various dimensions of discrimination, arbitrary practices, and inequality, setting significant legal precedents.
Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza (1978)
In this case, the petitioners challenged Regulation 46 and Regulation 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations, which imposed discriminatory conditions on the employment of air hostesses. These regulations mandated termination of service for air hostesses upon attaining the age of 35, getting married within four years of service, or becoming pregnant.
The Supreme Court found these provisions unconstitutional, holding that they violated Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. It stated that the termination conditions were not only discriminatory but also an infringement on the right to equality and personal liberty.
Additionally, the Court observed that the managing director of Air India had been given excessive discretionary powers, which could lead to arbitrary and biased decisions. This excessive delegation of authority was deemed inappropriate.
The Court struck down the discriminatory regulations and directed Air India to amend them. This judgement highlighted the importance of protecting women’s rights in the workplace and ensuring that employment conditions are free from gender-based discrimination. It was a crucial step in advancing workplace equality and safeguarding women’s fundamental rights.
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2006)
This case revolved around the prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The restriction, based on the notion of “menstrual impurity,” was challenged as a violation of fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court struck down the practice, declaring it unlawful and unconstitutional. The Court ruled that such restrictions violated Articles 14, 15, and 17, which guarantee equality, prohibit discrimination, and outlaw untouchability. The practice was also seen as an affront to women’s dignity and autonomy.
The Court emphasised that the doctrine of equality under Article 14 cannot be overridden by religious practices or customs protected under Article 26. It held that women have the right to equality and freedom to practice religion under Article 25(1). Consequently, the exclusion of women from the temple was deemed discriminatory and unconstitutional.
This judgement was a landmark in advancing gender equality and reaffirming the principle that religious practices cannot override constitutional rights.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. R. Veeraswamy (1999)
This case dealt with the applicability of a new pension scheme to employees who had retired before the scheme’s introduction. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether retirees who had already received their retirement benefits could claim benefits under the new scheme.
The Court ruled that the classification between retirees before and after the scheme’s introduction was valid. It held that applying the new scheme retroactively would impose an enormous financial burden (approximately ₹200 crore) on the employer, which was not feasible.
The Court reasoned that retirees before and after the scheme’s implementation formed distinct classes. Hence, the principle of reasonable classification, an exception to Article 14, was upheld. This judgement underscored the importance of balancing equality with practical considerations and financial constraints.
Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2016)
This case challenged the constitutionality of the practice of Triple Talaq (instant divorce) among Muslims. Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman, filed a petition arguing that the practice violated her fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court declared Triple Talaq unconstitutional, holding that it violated Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25. The Court observed that the practice was arbitrary, as it allowed Muslim men to dissolve marriages instantly without providing women any recourse or protection.
The judgement emphasised that personal laws cannot override constitutional principles. The Court stated that the practice of Triple Talaq was discriminatory and violated women’s right to equality, dignity, and freedom of religion. It directed the legislature to enact laws ensuring gender equality in matters of divorce.
This landmark judgement was a significant victory for women’s rights and equality, as it abolished a practice that perpetuated gender inequality within personal laws.
In this case, the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised consensual homosexual acts, was challenged. The LGBTQ+ community contended that the provision violated their fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court decriminalised consensual homosexual acts, holding that Section 377 violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. The Court recognised that criminalising same-sex relationships perpetuated discrimination and denied individuals their right to equality, privacy, and dignity.
The judgement affirmed that sexual orientation is an inherent attribute of an individual and that the state has no right to interfere in consensual adult relationships. The Court declared that Section 377 stigmatised and excluded LGBTQ+ individuals, causing psychological harm and violating their fundamental rights.
This historic judgement marked a progressive shift towards inclusivity and equality, fostering a more accepting society for the LGBTQ+ community.
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018)
This case challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalised adultery. The provision penalised only men for engaging in sexual relations with a married woman without her husband’s consent, while exempting women from any liability.
The Supreme Court declared Section 497 unconstitutional, holding that it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Court observed that the law treated women as the property of their husbands and denied them autonomy and equality.
The judgement stated that the state should not interfere in personal relationships unless they impact public order or morality. It decriminalised adultery for both men and women, asserting that it could only serve as a ground for divorce, not criminal prosecution.
This ruling was a significant step toward gender equality, as it eliminated a law that perpetuated gender stereotypes and treated women as subservient to men.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
This case marked a historic judgement by the Supreme Court in protecting women’s rights and ensuring gender equality. The petitioner, Shayara Bano, challenged the constitutionality of the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), which allowed Muslim men to divorce their wives by pronouncing “talaq” three times in a single sitting.
The Court ruled that this practice was unconstitutional as it violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (right to life and dignity). The Court held that triple talaq was arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the principles of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. This judgement was a landmark victory for women’s rights in India, leading to the eventual legislative ban on triple talaq.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
This case addressed the contentious issue of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations for OBCs but imposed a 50% cap to maintain a balance between equality and affirmative action.
The Court recognised the importance of reservations to uplift disadvantaged groups but emphasised that excessive reservations could undermine meritocracy. The judgement established a framework for implementing reservation policies, ensuring they align with the principles of reasonable classification under Article 14. This case continues to influence debates on affirmative action and social justice.
Intelligible Differentia and Class Legislation
Class Legislation: Arbitrary laws that benefit a specific group without a rational basis are prohibited under Article 14.
Reasonable Classification: Laws catering to specific groups for welfare purposes (e.g., reservations) are permitted, provided they meet the criteria of intelligible differentia and rational nexus.
For example:
- Reservations for SC/ST/OBC: Affirmative action policies aim to uplift historically disadvantaged groups.
- Tax Laws: Progressive taxation applies different rates based on income levels, which is a form of reasonable classification.
Conclusion
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a testament to India’s commitment to equality and justice. By ensuring that every individual is treated fairly and impartially, it lays the foundation for a society that values inclusivity and non-discrimination. Through judicial interpretation and legislative action, the scope of Article 14 continues to expand, addressing emerging issues and challenges.
The landmark judgements under Article 14 reflect the judiciary’s commitment to upholding equality and eliminating discrimination in all its forms. Cases like Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza, Indian Young Lawyers Association, and Navtej Singh Johar have addressed issues of gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and workplace discrimination. Similarly, decisions like Shayara Bano and Joseph Shine have reinforced the principle that personal laws and societal customs cannot override constitutional rights.
Attention all law students!
Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?
Well, fear no more! With 1+ lakhs students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!
Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.