RIGHT TO EQUALITY UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

ABSTRACT

This study evaluates Article 14[1] of the Indian Constitution. The “right to equality” is protected by Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution. Since the right to equality is a global concept, no explanation is necessary. All of its residents are entitled to equality under Article 14, regardless of their caste, ethnicity, religion, sex, or colour. The article makes it clear that the state cannot treat citizens differently based on their caste, religion, race, colour, or any combination of these. The preamble of the constitution, which seeks to guarantee equality of position and opportunity for all of its citizens and to foster mutual advancement among them, also enshrines this provision. This article’s primary goal is to eradicate inequity and discrimination from society and establish a homogeneous society that was previously split along religious, caste, class, and sex lines. Both Indian citizens and non-citizens living on Indian soil are entitled to this article, which is one of the fundamental rights and is enforceable by law. However, in an emergency, this right may be suspended and is not absolute.

Keywords

Preamble, equality, protection, fundamental rights, homogeneous society, and discrimination.

INTRODUCTION

India is a huge country with many different cultures, languages, religions, and customs that harmoniously coexist. The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to live in equality and dignity in spite of these distinctions. India welcomes every soul, fusing varied lives into a one journey of hope and harmony. With a strong belief in justice, an open heart, and hands united in brotherhood, India cultivates a society where everyone is treated fairly and with respect. Since everyone is entitled to equal treatment, nobody should have to deal with any discrimination, which means that no one should face discrimination of any kind, no laws should be passed that violate a citizen’s right to equality, and public officials shouldn’t act without cause. Equality necessitates that government activities be impartial and grounded in legally mandated principles. According to equality, each and every individual is entitled to a free existence and the freedom to make their own decisions. This idea is Gandhian. Equal rights before the law and protection under the law are central to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. India’s citizens are all granted equal protection under the law and equality before it. Both citizens and foreign nationals have the right to this privilege. The right to equality is both natural and fundamental human rights. However, equality also includes the concept of special provisions for the weaker and backward section of the society. This type of pragmatic discrimination is accepted by the Indian Constitution. Its encourages the underprivileged classes to have equal status and chances and provide them representation in the society. This rings the concept of equity and justice in society.

ARTICLE 14

India is a vast nation, rich in diverse cultures, languages, religions, and traditions that coexists beautifully. There is an urgent need to introduce right to equality in the society due to the prevailing injustice and inequality in the society. The American Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are two examples of international documents that shocked the Indian Constitution’s drafters. The Indian Constitution of 1950’s Article 14 was not a distinct clause in the 1948 Draft Constitution. Draft Article 15[2] (Article 21)[3] states, “Protection of life and liberty and equality before law – No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India. Following that, on December 6 and 13, 1948, draft Article 15 was discussed. In the discussions that took place only the first part was debated, whereas the second – ‘equality before law’ was not debated at all. In its letter to Rajendra Prasad dated 3 November 1949 presenting its revised Draft Constitution, the Drafting Committee mentioned that they have found it more appropriate to divide this article in half, and move the section that deals with “equality before the law” to a new article 14 that is titled “Right to Equality.” Article 14 was this included into the Constitution of India in 1950. According to Article 14, the state is not allowed to deny anyone in India equal protection under the law or equality before the law. This article make it certain that the state provides equality before law and equal protection of laws to all its citizens. Article 14 is a fundamental right and is enforceable by law. This article covers two provisions, equality before law, and equal protection of laws. Equal protection under the law is an optimistic idea, while equality before the law is a gloomy one.

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

This idea supports the legal governance principle. Rule of law is an belief which states that every person within the territory of the country is under the authority of the same laws, including the policymakers and citizens. The 19th century saw the development of the rule of law by British jurist A.V. Dicey. This idea holds the feature of supremacy of law which means no matter who the person is or where does he live, the rule of law affects all in the same manner. The “constitution” of India is the ultimate law of the land. It ensures fairness, justice, equality, and protection of fundamental rights. It also limits the abuse of powers and protects democracy in the country. While equality before the law is necessary, its effectiveness depends on addressing systemic inequalities. There is a lot of social and economic inequality in the country, so equality before law is not practical otherwise it would create injustice in the society. It may increase the disparity between upper class and the lower class. Imagine a high-ranking government official and a small shopkeeper are both caught breaking the same traffic rule running a red light. Under the principle of equality before the law, both individuals should face the same penalty, pay the same fine, and follow the same legal procedures, regardless of the official’s power or the shopkeeper’s lack of influence.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS

Equal Protection of Laws seeks to balance fairness with equality, ensuring that the state not only avoids discrimination but actively promotes justice for all sections of society. It complements equality before the law, emphasizing not only that laws must apply equally but Also protect equally. Equal protection of laws consists the principle of reservation or enacting laws for promoting the backward sections of the societies like women, children, schedule caste, Schedule tribe and OBC’s. It is taken from American constitution. It allows discrimination Based upon intelligible differentia. The Intelligible Differentia concept is a test used to assess whether a statute’s classification aligns with or deviates from the

Constitution’s Article 14 mandate. For instance, consider a student from a backward class in a remote village who dreams of becoming a doctor but lacks access to quality education and resources. To bridge this gap, the government provides reserved seats in medical colleges, scholarships, and special coaching programs for students like them.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM

United States: Equal protection clause

Provisions and Approach:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state shall deny any individual “the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has been pivotal in addressing racial and other forms of discrimination, as seen in cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Unlike India’s broad interpretation, the U.S. employs a tiered approach to review laws that classify individuals, with “strict scrutiny” applied in cases involving race or fundamental rights.

Comparison with Article 14 in India

While both provisions emphasize equality, India allows a more flexible framework for reasonable classification, whereas the U.S. uses a structured scrutiny model to assess discriminatory practices.

United Kingdom: Rule of law Conceptual Framework:

The United Kingdom relies on the unwritten principle of the “Rule of Law,” as articulated by A.V. Dicey. This principle emphasizes equality before the law and the prevention of arbitrary power. However, it lacks a formal constitutional guarantee of equality comparable to Article 14.

Comparison with Article 14 in India:

India codifies the Rule of Law in Article 14, making it enforceable by courts, unlike the UK, where parliamentary sovereignty and judicial precedents uphold the principle.

REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

In the case of RK Garg V. Union of India[4], it was stated that the classification must not be arbitrary. It must be based upon some real and substantive distinction. It must be just and reasonable and must aim at promoting the backward classes. Article 14 allows for reasonable

classification but denies class legislation. Two mandates are to be passed for the test for permissible classification:

A discernible difference that separates the items or people in the group from those excluded must serve as the basis for classification; and The differentia must be rational and relate to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question. In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Delhi Administration[5], the Supreme court provided the guidelines for checking the preciseness of the classification made. These guidelines are:

If a law is created for a single person under particular conditions, it may still be constitutional even though it pertains only that person.
The person challenging the constitutionality of an act bears the burden of proof, and there is always a presumption in Favors of its legality.
It must be assumed that the legislature is aware of the needs of its own citizens and that its laws are intended to address issues that have been brought to light by experience.
The legislature may limit its prohibitions to situations where it is thought that the necessity is the most obvious and is free to acknowledge the various levels of harm
The state does grant criminals the right to equality. It is not possible to claim discretion based on the fact that someone has gained an unlawful benefit.
A classification does not have to be entirely logical or scientific..
The court may consider issues of common knowledge, issues of common report, historical context, and any possible state of facts that could have existed at the time of legislation in order to uphold the presumption of constitutionality.
A rule’s overall impact must be evaluated in order to determine its legitimacy, not by identifying exceptional instances. The court must determine whether the classification adopted simply takes into account all relevant factors.
The Court must apply the standard of “palpable arbitrariness” in the light of the perceived necessities of the times, looking beyond the apparent classification and towards the goal of the law.

IMPORTANCE OF ARTICLE 14

Article 14 ensures that no individual, regardless of their status, is above the law. It safeguards against arbitrary power and establishes uniform application of laws.
By mandating fair treatment for individuals in similar situations, it promotes justice and prevents discrimination.
Through judicial interpretation, it supports affirmative action and special provisions for disadvantaged groups, helping bridge socio-economic gaps.
The judiciary has expanded the scope of Article 14 over time. From recognizing formal equality to emphasizing substantive equality, it has evolved to address issues such as gender bias, caste discrimination, and economic disparities.
Article 14 plays a pivotal role in addressing modern challenges, including gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental justice, and data privacy
It Provides a sense of security and dignity, reminding citizens of their inherent rights and value.
It helps bridge societal divides, ensuring equal opportunities and respect for all.

CASE LAWS

As stated in the case of Air India V. Nargesh Mirza[6], Air India made a rule that the service of the women would be terminated upon her pregnancy. This rule was held unconstitutional.
Talak- e- biddat was held unconstitutional and violative of article 14, 15 and 21 by the Supreme court of India in the case law of Shayara Bano V. Union of India[7].
The Supreme Court nullified arbitrary classification and allowed reasonable classification in the case of State of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar[8] .
In the landmark case of Randhir Singh V. Union of India[9], the state held that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal but not a fundamental right.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[10], the court established the principle of golden triangle ( article 14, 19[11] and 21) and stated that these articles are linked with each other.
In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)[12], the court decriminalized consensual homosexual relationships under Section 377 of the IPC, stating that the law was discriminatory and violated Article 14.
Transgender were included in the definition of gender in the case of NALSA V. Union of India[13].
In the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)[14],the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC and held it unconstitutional and violative.
In the case of Mithu V. State of Punjab[15], section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860[16], death sentence for a person already serving a life sentence who committed murder was held violative of article 14.

CONCLUSION

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is an essential pillar of the country that ensures the principle of equality. It ascertains that every person in the nation is tested equally and there is no discrimination and injustice in the society. It underscores the importance of treating every individual with equal respect and protection under the law. This provision is crucial in maintaining social justice. By compelling that the state must not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws, this Article reinforces the foundational values of democracy , fairness and justice. It serves as a constant reminder of the commitment to uphold human dignity and the rule of law in India. It upholds the idea that India of Unity with integrity by recognizing all the sections of people from different communities, colour, and gender as equal. It also aims at minimizing the gap between rich and poor. It is more than just a legal provision; it reflects the values of dignity and inclusivity that form the backbone of a democratic society. By safeguarding equality, Article 14 serves as a constant reminder that no matter our differences, we share an inherent right to fairness and respect. Let us strive to uphold these principles in our daily lives, ensuring they are not merely words on paper but a living reality for all.

REFERENCES

Right to equality https://legalvidhiya.com/rig h t –t o –equality/?amp =1 ( 20^th December, 2024)
Rule of law https://worldjusticeproject.org/abo u t –us/overview/wh a t –ru l e –l a w ( 20^th December, 2024)
Article 14 of constitution https://www.wikipedia.org/ ( 20^th December, 2024)
Right to equality https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/l i b (20^th December,2024)
Equality before law https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-14-equality-before-Law (20^th December, 2024).

[1] Indian Constitution Article 14

[2] Indian Constitution Article 15

[3] Indian Constitution Article 21

[4] R.K. Garg v. Union of India [1982]133ITR239(SC)

[5] Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Delhi Administration 1962 AIR 1821 1963 SCR (1) 253

[6] Air India V. Nargesh Mirza 1981 AIR 1829, AIR 1981 SC 1829

[7] Shayara Bano V. Union of India AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4609

[8] West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SUPREME COURT 75

[9] Randhir Singh V. Union of India AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 879, 1982 (1) SCC 618

[10] Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

[11] Indian Constitution Article 19

[12] Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India 2018 INSC 790

[13] NALSA V. Union of India 2014 INSC 275

[14] Joseph Shine V. Union of India AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4898

[15] Mithu V. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 473 : 1983 Cri LJ 811

[16] Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 303, Act no. 45, Act of Parliament, India.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.