case study on article 14 in india

Important Cases on Article 14 of Constitution of India

• Constitutional Law
• June 29, 2021

Introduction

In this article I have talked about the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which gives every citizen of India a Fundamental Right to Equality as it reads “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 when read with other Articles as stated by the Supreme court in Maneka Gandhi  v.  Union of India [1] , where it was said that “various fundamental rights must be read together and must overlap and fertilize each other”, following this Article 14 along with Article 15 of the Indian Constitution provides fundamental Right to Protection against “discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth” to Indian Citizen, when read with Article 16 it provides fundamental “ Right to Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment ”, when read with Article 17 of the Indian Constitution it provides for right against ‘Untouchability’, when read with Article 18 it provides fundamental right of “Abolition of titles” by the state unless academic or military.

Article 14 can be said to confer two types of individual rights on the citizens. First is Positive right of equal protection of law as derived from American Constitution and negative right of equality before law as derived from British Constitution as was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2] .

Further Article 14 can be said to be founding principle in enabling the concept of Justice. Thus in this Article I have tried to explain what Article 14 actually means and its practical application through various Case laws and as decided by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme court.

Moreover as said by B.R. Ambedkar “ Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. [3] ” Article 14 is its constitutional epitome.

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India [4]

Coram- 5 Judges

Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Lalit, Justice J.Abdul Nazeer.

Facts : In this case a Muslim woman named Shayara Bano was married to a Muslim man named Rizwan Ahmed for fifteen years. In 2016 Rizwan Ahmed divorced Shayara Bano by invoking talaq-e-biddat, popularly known as triple talaq. She challenge his act in the Supreme court through a writ petition through which she urged that Talaq e biddat, polygamy and Nikah Halala, three acts legalized by Muslim Personal law should be declared as unconstitutional as they are violative of Fundamental rights of Muslim Women as grated to them under Article 14 and Article 15. Her petition was taken up by a constitutional bench of five judges by the Supreme court and it was supported by the Union of India, several Women Rights organizations and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan. The Opposite party in this case was The All India Muslim Personal Law Board which said that Uncodified Personal laws are not subject to Constitutional Judicial review.

Issue : Whether the practice of Talaq-e-biddat is violative of Fundamental rights such as Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Muslim women?

Arguments :

Petitioner (Represented by Senior Advocate Amit Chadha.):

1. Quran permits dic=vorce for reasonable cause however Triple Talaq was being abused by Muslim men and thus has no Quranic sanction.

2. An uncodified power allocating arbitrary pwers to Muslim men is against Justice and Articlee and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.

Respondent (Represented by Mr. Kapil Sibal.):

1. Muslim marriage is a private contract and hence can’t be changed by the State government.

2. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) application act, 1937 doesn’t codify its customary laws but only provides for its application as a rule of decision in cases where parties are Muslim and hence are not subject to Judicial review or State legislation.

3. It would be violation of freedom to practice religion under Article 15 clause 2 if a Personal customary practice of a particular religion was to be abolished while allowing other religions to materialize their own.

4. Personal laws doesn’t come under the definition of law of Article as it in’t expressly mentioned there however it has been expressly mentioned in Concurrent list thus showing the mindset of our constitutional faters whon wanted to exclude Personal laws from ambit of Article 13.

Judgment : By a 3:2 majority, the practice of triple talaq was declared unconstitutional.

While reaching the above Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case gave a in depth analysis of Article 14 stating:

• “ Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a facet of equality of status and opportunity spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Article naturally divides itself into two parts—(1) equality before the law, and (2) the equal protection of the law.”
• Also talked about “intelligible classification” of subjects under Article 14 as was discussed in State of U.P.  v.  Deoman Upadhyaya [5]
• However Lachhman Dass  v.  State of Punjab [6] was also noted which satted that “overemphasis on Reasonable classification ” will subdue Article 14’s glorious contentand hence referred to it as a “subsidiary rule.”
• “If an action is found to be arbitrary and, therefore, unreasonable, it would negate the equal protection of the law contained in Article 14 and would be struck down on this ground.”
• Along with many other cases  Maneka Gandhi  v.  Union of India [7]   was also referred to where it was observed that “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.”

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [8]

Facts : In 2009 in NAZ foundation v. N.C.T of Delhi [9] – Delhi High court declared Section 377 of IPC as unconstitutional which was challenged in 2014 In Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. NAZ foundation [10] in Indian Supreme Court (SC) which was overturned by a two Judge bench. The SC judgment was again challenged in 2016 in Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI and was presided over by a five Judge bench of SC. In this case the petitioner, Navtej Singh Johar was a dancer who belonged to LGBTQ community who filed a writ petition in SC under Article 32.

Issue : Constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC and its application in consensual sexual conduct of adults of the same sex in private and whether it is violative of right of equal protection by law under Article 14?

Law :  Indian Constitution

Article 14= Right to equality before the law.

Article 21 = Right to life.

Article 15= Right to protection from discrimination on the ground of sex.

Article 19= Freedom of Expression.

Article 25= Freedom of conscience and religion.

Indian Penal code :

Section 377

Analysis : Section 377 of IPC was found to be violative of Article 21, 14, 15, 19 and 25 of Indian constitution by relying on principle of Transformative Constitutionalism and Progressive realization of rights.

Judgment : Section 377 was declared Unconstitutional by a bench of then acting Chief justice Dipak Mishra, J. Khanwilkar, J. Nariman, J. Chandrachud and J. Malhotra. Five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decriminalized Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent that it criminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults. The LGBT community has a choice of choosing the same sex partner legally. The above segment of Section 377 was held to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and Article 15 -right to equality in law and right to equality on the ground of sex. 

3. Indian Young lawyers association and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors. [11]

  Facts : This case was filed in 2006 by the Indian Young Lawyer’s Association through public interest litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The case deals with the Entry of menstruating women between the age of 10 years to 50 years in the Sabarimala Temple. The petitioners claimed that the practice was violative of Equal protection of law under Article 14 and there was discrimination on the basis of sex and hence was violative of Article 15. The Sabarimala Temple is situated in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. This temple is famous for Lord Ayyappa.

  Issue : Whether the exclusionary practice based on biological factor of different sex against females amount to “discrimination” and if it is violative of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 17 of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment : By a majority of 4:1, of the 5 judge constitutional bench, the Supreme Court declared the Sabarimala Temple’s custom of not allowing mensurating women from entering the temple premises as unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi:

“Having guaranteed equality before the law and the equal protection of laws in Article 14, the draftspersons specifically continued the theme of an equal entitlement as an intrinsic element of the freedom of conscience and of the right to profess, practice and propagate religion.”

“While guaranteeing equality and the equal protection of laws in Article 14 and its emanation, in Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, the Constitution does not condition these basic norms of equality to the other provisions of Part III.”

Thus clearly stating that rights under Article 25(1) is not an absolute right and can be practiced but in conferment and confirmation of equal treatment of every individual without discrimination.

4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [12]

Facts : M Nagraj case was dealt with by a five judge constitutional bench by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of “reservation in promotion” in light of principles of Constitutional law. In this case the insertion of Arts. 16 (4A) and 16 (4B) by the Indian Parliament via Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which inserted Article 16 (4A) retrospectively for being against the rule of equality, the basic structure doctrine and the judgment in the case of  Indra Sawhney and Ors  v.  U.O.I. [13]

Issue: Whether Article 16(4A) and 16(4 B) were violative of Article 14 and thus the basic structure doctrine?

Judgment: The constitutional validity of arts. 16 (4A) and (4B) were upheld and thus, 77th, 81st, and 85th amendments were upheld to be constitutional. The Court observed that while the doctrine of equality was a part of the basic structure doctrine, the rule that prevented conferring seniority was not one and thus, the doctrine of basic structure could not be attracted.

The Court stated that State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in promotion but if it intends to do so, it must provide relevant data.

While coming to the above conclusion Hon’ble Supreme court in detail speculated and discussed Article 14 in the Obiter dicta and Ratio Decidendi of this case and it was stated as-

Role of enabling provisions in the context of Article 14

In Para 106-  “The gravamen of Article 14 is equality of treatment. Article 14 confers a personal right by enacting a prohibition which is absolute. By judicial decisions, the doctrine of classification is read into Article 14. Equality of treatment under Article 14 is an objective test. It is not the test of intention. Therefore, the basic principle underlying Article 14 is that the law must operate equally on all persons  under like circumstances . (emphasis added) Every discretionary power is not necessarily discriminatory. According to the  Constitutional Law of India , by H.M. Seervai, 4th Edn., p. 546, equality is not violated by mere conferment of discretionary power. It is violated by arbitrary exercise by those on whom it is conferred. This is the theory of “guided power”. This theory is based on the assumption that in the event of arbitrary exercise by those on whom the power is conferred, would be corrected by the courts. This is the basic principle behind the enabling provisions which are incorporated in Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B). Enabling provisions are permissive in nature. They are enacted to balance equality with positive discrimination. The constitutional law is the law of evolving concepts. Some of them are generic, others have to be identified and valued. The enabling provisions deal with the concept, which has to be identified and valued as in the case of access vis-à-vis efficiency which depends on the fact situation only and not abstract principle of equality in Article 14 as spelt out in detail in Articles 15 and 16. Equality before the law, guaranteed by the first part of Article 14, is a negative concept while the second part is a positive concept which is enough to validate equalising measures depending upon the fact situation.”

In Para 118.  “The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents distinctions that are not properly justified. Justification needs each case to be decided on case-to-case basis.

5. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar [14]

Facts : In State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar , in the State of West Bengal by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 enacted by State legislature special Courts were set up by the State government Under Section 3 and Section 5 provided these courts power to try certain class of offences for achieving speedier trial. Through this act the State Government arbitrarily tried any individual as it deemed fit and advantageous for its party.

Issue : Whether Section 5 is violative of Article 14 in the absence of any prescribed grounds for classification of such offence which are to be tried by these Special Courts?

Judgment : The Supreme Court held that the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, was unconstitutional as it conferred arbitrary power to the state government to classify classes of offences or any offence as it pleased because there was no specific guideline for classification of such offence. This Act was in violation of Article 14 which grants fundamental right of equality before law to every citizen as this Act enabled the State government to try any individual for any offence through this special court as it pleased.

[1] (1978) 1 SCC 248

[2] ( 2017) 9 SCC 1

[3] B. R. Ambedkar, Annihilation Of Caste 105 (1936)

[4] (2017) 9 SCC 1

[5] (1961) 1 SCR 1

[6] (1963) 2 SCR 353

[7] (1978) 1 SCC 248

[8] (2018) 10 SCC 1

[9] WP(C) No.7455/2001, DELHI HIGH COURT; Decision on 2 nd July, 2009

[10] CIVIL APPEAL 10972 OF 2013

[11] (2009)11 SCC 1

[12] (2006) 8 SCC 212

[13] AIR 1993 SC 477

[14] 1952 AIR 75 SC

Author- Nalin Kumar, (Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.)

You might like

Bhikaji vs State of MP

Randhir Singh v Union of India

Khatri vs state of bihar, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Post Comment

Home / clat pg / Landmark Cases on Article 14

Landmark cases on article 14, introduction.

Article 14 is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. It falls under Part III, which deals with fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens. Article 14 is based on the principle of equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on various grounds.

It states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This fundamental right ensures that all individuals, irrespective of their caste, race, religion, sex, or place of birth, are treated equally and fairly under the law. Article 14 plays a crucial role in upholding the principles of justice, non-discrimination, and rule of law in the country, fostering an inclusive and just society for all citizens.

Article 14 basically states that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. The fundamental tenet of liberalism is that all citizens should be treated equally, and Article 14 guarantees this for all the citizens.

Landmark Judgements on Article 14

In this instance, it was discovered that the State of Bengal abused its authority to arbitrarily send any matter to the Special Court that they established. In light of this, it was decided that the Act of State of Bengal breaches the right to equality.

Simply put, it permits the State to classify subjects differently (which is otherwise prohibited by Article 14) as long as the classification is based on comprehensible differences (i.e., objects within the class are easily distinguishable from those outside) and has a rational connection to the goal it seeks to pursue.

If the statute in the first instance does not pass the reasonable categorization test, it is invalid. In the latter scenario, only the executive action will be deemed illegal and not the statute itself if the statute offers directions, whether explicitly stated or implicitly suggested, to the executive to make classification.

• In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ,  Bhagwati, J. proposed the second test of Article 14—also known as the “new doctrine” or the “arbitrariness test”—in his ruling. The test assumes that the equality envisioned by Article 14 includes a protection against state action that is arbitrarily taken. In spite of its somewhat ambiguous phrasing, this test has now won the Supreme Court’s approval and, on several occasions, has served as the foundation for declaring State conduct to be in violation of Article 14.

Seats or openings may be reserved as part of a classification. The main goals of Articles 14 and 16 are equality and equality of opportunity, and Article 16 Clause (4) is a method for achieving this goal. Given that both articles reiterate the equality principle found in Article 14 of the Constitution, they must be reconciled.

Seats may be reserved or there may be openings in a classification. Equal opportunity and equality are the primary goals of Articles 14 and 16, and Article 16 Clause (4) is a method of accomplishing these goals. Both sections must be reconciled while keeping in mind that they both reiterate the equality principle stated in Article 14.

• In Shayara Bano v. UOI , the Triple Talaq Case, the Supreme Court ruled that the practise of instantaneous triple talaq (Talaq-ul-biddat) was unlawful. The Bench noted that the equality of status was a manifestation of the fundamental right to equality protected by Article 14 of the Constitution.

According to Article 14, the guarantee of equality is intimately linked to the values of gender equality, gender equity, and gender justice. It is utterly irreconcilable with the word and spirit of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution to grant a social standing based on patriarchal norms or on the goodwill of the male population.

Subscribe to our newsletter and get daily news & updates directly to your inbox!

Please provide a valid email address.

Join our WhatsApp Channel

Join our Telegram Group

In-Depth Analysis of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Introduction to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 of the Constitution of India is one of the most fundamental provisions in the Indian Constitution . It guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all citizens of India. This article lays down the foundation of equality and non-discrimination in the Indian society and is considered as the cornerstone of the Constitution of India . In this blog, we will delve into the details of Article 14 and explore its significance, scope, and interpretation over the years.

Understanding the Legal Framework of Article 14

The Constitution of India, which came into force on 26th January 1950, consists of a preamble and 448 articles divided into 25 parts and 12 schedules. Article 14 is the first article of Part III of the Constitution, which deals with the fundamental rights of the citizens of India. This article plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Indian citizens and provides a legal basis for equal treatment under the law.

The Principle of Equality and Non-Discrimination

The wording of Article 14 is simple and straightforward. It 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 article lays down the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for all persons, regardless of their caste, creed, religion, gender, or any other personal characteristic. The phrase “equality before the law” means that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without any discrimination. The phrase “equal protection of the laws” means that the law shall operate equally and impartiality on all persons and that no person shall be discriminated against on any ground.

Significance and Scope of Article 14

The significance of Article 14 lies in its ability to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals against arbitrary and discriminatory actions of the State. It provides a legal framework to challenge any State action that is violative of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. This article is a safeguard against the State’s power to discriminate against individuals or groups and provides a level playing field for all citizens.

The scope of Article 14 is broad and encompasses all aspects of State action, including legislation, executive action, and administrative action. The State is prohibited from discriminating against any person on any ground, including religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or any other personal characteristic. The provisions of Article 14 apply to all State actions, whether they are enacted by the Parliament or by the State legislatures. The article also applies to executive and administrative actions of the State, such as the issuance of licenses, permits, or approvals, and the provision of government services.

Interpretation of Article 14 Over the Years

Over the years, the interpretation of Article 14 has undergone several changes. The courts in India have developed a rich jurisprudence on the scope and interpretation of Article 14 and have used this article to strike down laws and actions that are discriminatory and violative of the right to equality. The courts have held that Article 14 requires that the State shall not discriminate between persons in like circumstances and that equal laws must apply to all in the same situation.

In a famous case, the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of Article 14 to cover not only the actions of the State but also the actions of private individuals and corporations if they have a close connection with the State. The Court held that the provisions of Article 14 are not limited to State action but extend to all actions, including those of private individuals, that affect the rights and freedoms of individuals.

In recent times, the courts have also used Article 14 to strike down laws and policies that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. In the landmark case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India recognized the rights.

Article 14 and the Principle of Reasonableness

The Supreme Court has also used Article 14 to enforce the principle of reasonableness and fairness in State action. The Court has held that any State action that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or lacking in fairness is violative of Article 14. In the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court held that the State must act reasonably and fairly and that the principles of natural justice must be followed in all State actions. This decision laid down the foundation for the principle of fairness in State action and has been widely used by the courts to strike down actions that are arbitrary and violative of the right to equality.

The Principle of Horizontal Application of Article 14

Another important aspect of Article 14 is the principle of horizontal application. This principle holds that the provisions of Article 14 apply not only to the State but also to private individuals and corporations. The Supreme Court has used this principle to strike down discriminatory actions by private individuals and corporations that have a close connection with the State. For example, in the case of Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, the Court held that the provisions of Article 14 apply to private educational institutions that receive government aid or recognition.

Article 14 and Affirmative Action

The interpretation of Article 14 has also evolved in the context of affirmative action or reservation policies. The Supreme Court has held that reservation policies that are aimed at providing equal opportunities to historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups are not violative of Article 14. However, the Court has also held that such reservation policies must be reasonable and proportional and must not result in the creation of a permanent class of underprivileged citizens.

Article 14 and the Right to a Fair Trial

Article 14 also acts as a shield against discrimination by the State in the administration of justice. The provisions of Article 14 ensure that all citizens have equal access to the judicial system and that they are not subjected to any discrimination in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has used Article 14 to strike down laws and actions that are discriminatory and undermine the right to a fair trial.

For example, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court held that the State must follow the principles of natural justice and that a person cannot be deprived of their personal liberty without a fair hearing. This decision was a major milestone in the development of the right to a fair trial in India and has been widely cited in subsequent cases.

Article 14 and the Protection of Minority Rights

Article 14 also plays an important role in protecting the rights of minority groups in India. The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Article 14 apply to both majority and minority groups, and that the State must take positive steps to protect the rights of minority groups and ensure that they are not subjected to discrimination. In the case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Court held that the State must take steps to protect the rights of minority groups and that any attempt to undermine the secular character of India would be violative of Article 14.

Article 14 and the Rights of Transgender Persons

In recent years, the Supreme Court has also used Article 14 to protect the rights of transgender persons in India. The Court has held that the provisions of Article 14 apply to transgender persons and that they have the right to equality and non-discrimination. In the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Court held that transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender and that the State must take steps to provide them with equal opportunities and protections.

Finally, it is important to note that the provisions of Article 14 are not absolute and can be restricted by reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interests of the general public. However, such restrictions must be reasonable, proportionate, and not discriminatory, and must be narrowly construed by the courts. The Supreme Court has held that the State must justify any restriction on the right to equality by showing that it is necessary and in the public interest, and that there is a reasonable and justifiable connection between the restriction and the objective it seeks to achieve.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution protects civil liberties by stipulating that all citizens should be provided with equal rights and protection before the law, regardless of their race, religion, caste or gender. It ensures fairness in both social and civil spheres by guarding against discriminatory laws and practices. The Right to Equality established through Article 14 also enables citizens to take up legal challenges when their fundamental rights are violated. While the Right to Equality ensures protection against any discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race, religion, caste or gender, it does not guarantee absolute equality. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution allows for some deviation from this framework when regulations are made regarding government reservations in jobs and education institutions. Additionally, if a law is intended to benefit weaker sections of society or promote national integrity, then Article 14 also permits a certain amount of differentiation between different social classes in order to achieve those objectives.

Conclusion: The Role of Article 14 in Upholding Equality and Non-Discrimination

In conclusion, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Indian citizens. The provisions of Article 14 guarantee the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all citizens of India, regardless of their caste, creed, religion, gender, or any other personal characteristic. The Supreme Court of India has used Article 14 to strike down laws and actions that are discriminatory and violative of the right to equality, and to enforce the principle of fairness and reasonableness in State action. The continued interpretation and application of Article 14 by the courts in India has helped to strengthen the foundation of equality and non-discrimination in Indian society. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a vital component of the Indian Constitution and has been widely used by the courts to protect the rights and freedoms of Indian citizens. The provisions of Article 14 have been interpreted and applied by the courts to protect the right to equality, the right to a fair trial, the rights of minority groups, and the rights of transgender persons. The continued application and interpretation of Article 14 by the courts in India will play an important role in strengthening the foundation of equality and non-discrimination in Indian society.

Remedies in case of breach of Article 14 of Indian Constitution

In case of a breach of the provisions of Article 14, individuals can seek remedy through various legal avenues.

One of the most common remedies is to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the right to constitutional remedies to individuals and provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to equality under Article 14. Through a writ petition , individuals can challenge any State action that is violative of Article 14 and seek a remedy from the Supreme Court or a High Court.

In addition to writ petitions, individuals can also file public interest litigations (PILs) to challenge State actions that are violative of Article 14. PILs allow individuals and public-spirited organizations to approach the courts to seek a remedy for violation of fundamental rights, including the right to equality under Article 14.

Finally, individuals can also file a regular suit in a civil court to challenge State actions that are violative of Article 14. In such cases, the court may grant relief in the form of damages or injunctive relief, depending on the nature of the breach and the relief sought by the individual.

It is important to note that the remedies available in case of a breach of Article 14 are not limited to these legal avenues, and individuals can seek a remedy through any other legal mechanism that is available to them.

In conclusion, the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India provide for an important remedy in case of a breach of the right to equality and non-discrimination. Individuals can seek remedy through writ petitions, public interest litigations, regular suits, and other legal avenues to challenge State actions that are violative of Article 14 and to enforce their right to equality and non-discrimination. The courts play a crucial role in providing remedies in case of a breach of Article 14 and in ensuring that the provisions of Article 14 are upheld and protected. In recent years, the right to equality as stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution has faced considerable challenges due to increasing governmental regulations, changing social structures and a lack of political will. In addition, due to globalization and removal of trade barriers around the world, people have been able to migrate more easily, which leads to several cultural clashes. As a result, enforcing the right to equality becomes increasingly difficult in such diverse societies. It is important that lawmakers remain aware of these potential challenges and strive to ensure equality between all citizens.

Century Law Firm: Your Trusted Partner for Constitutional Law Cases and Writ Petitions

At Century Law Firm , our team of experienced lawyers has a deep understanding of the complexities involved in writ petitions .

Writ Petition – Types, Important Judgements, How and When to File | Lawyer for Writ Petition

Review, Revision, Appeal in CPC and CrPC : Complete Analysis

Expert Legal Consultation in a Wide Range of Areas

Popular Posts

• Section 302 IPC: Detailed Analysis, Punishment for Murder, and Legal Implications
• Section 86 Indian Penal Code (IPC) – All you need to know
• Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code : Dishonestly receiving stolen property – All You Need to Know | IPC

Related Posts

Habeas Corpus – Legal Maxim of the Day

Automobile accident lawyers – what they do, how much they charge, and more.

Landmark judgements related to Article 14 of Indian Constitution

12 Jul 2023  · 58 mins read

Introduction

Article 14, a beacon of equality and justice in the Indian Constitution, enshrines the fundamental principle of ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the laws’. It 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 right is universal, extending its protective shield to every person, citizen or non-citizen, within the territory of India.

The essence of Article 14 lies in its two facets - ‘equality before law’, which ensures that no individual can be above the law, and ‘equal protection of the laws’, which guarantees that similar individuals in similar circumstances will be treated similarly by the law. It is a promise of equal treatment, but it also recognizes that treating different individuals or classes of individuals the same way can lead to inequality. Therefore, it permits reasonable classification, but prohibits class legislation.

Over the years, the Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting and expanding the scope of Article 14. It has been instrumental in shaping the contours of equality and non-discrimination in India, ensuring that the spirit of Article 14 permeates through the legal and societal structures.

In the forthcoming discussion, we will delve into the landmark cases related to Article 14. These cases, each contributing to the jurisprudence of equality, have illuminated the understanding of Article 14, and have guided its application in various contexts. Through these cases, we will journey through the evolution of the right to equality in India, understanding its implications and impact.

1. Joseph Shine v UOI, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676: Ushering in a New Era of Gender Justice and Equality

Joseph Shine v Union of India (UOI), 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676, stands as a momentous legal battle that has indelibly reshaped the landscape of gender justice and gender equality in India. This landmark judgment challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an archaic law that criminalized adultery. Joseph Shine, a non-resident Indian (NRI) and a passionate advocate of gender equality, took up the cause to decriminalize adultery and propel progressive changes in the Indian legal framework. This article delves deep into the background of the Joseph Shine case, examines the profound observations made by the Supreme Court, and explores the transformative impact of this judgment on women’s rights and the notion of marital equality in India.

Background of the Case

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860 during British colonial rule, criminalized adultery, defining it as a crime committed solely by a man having sexual intercourse with a married woman without her husband’s consent. This regressive law reduced married women to the status of their husbands’ property and shielded them from being held criminally liable for adultery. Consequently, Section 497 perpetuated the patriarchal narrative within society and infringed upon women’s agency and autonomy.

Joseph Shine, a progressive individual committed to gender equality and women’s empowerment, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of Section 497. He contended that the law violated the principles of gender justice, equality, and individual autonomy, enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court’s observations in the Joseph Shine case were transformative and trailblazing:

Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court resolutely reaffirmed that the right to equality (Article 14) guarantees equal protection under the law for men and women alike. It held that Section 497’s selective criminalization of men for adultery, while exonerating women, was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Individual Autonomy and Privacy: The judgment recognized that adults possess the right to make choices about their intimate relationships, and the state should not intervene unless it impacts the sanctity of marriage or society at large.

Overturning of Section 497: The Court rendered Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional and struck it down, effectually decriminalizing adultery for both men and women.

Marital Equality: The judgment emphasized the principle of marital equality, treating husbands and wives as equal partners in a marriage, and holding them equally accountable for their actions.

Impact and Aftermath

The Joseph Shine case has left an indelible impact on the legal and social landscape of India:

Decriminalization of Adultery: The judgment decriminalized adultery, recognizing that adults have the right to make choices about their relationships, free from state interference.

Enhanced Gender Justice: The case underscored the importance of gender justice and the imperative to challenge discriminatory laws that perpetuate gender-based inequalities.

Empowerment of Women: The judgment empowered women by recognizing their agency and autonomy within marital relationships, breaking the shackles of traditional notions that subjugated them.

Marital Equality: The judgment reinforced the concept of marital equality, fostering a more equitable partnership between spouses, with shared responsibilities and mutual respect.

Legal Precedent: The case set a powerful legal precedent, inspiring further reforms in archaic laws that hinder gender justice and perpetuate gender stereotypes.

Challenges and Ongoing Efforts

While the Joseph Shine case marked a momentous step forward, challenges persist:

Changing Mindsets: Eradicating deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes about women’s roles and agency requires persistent efforts through education and awareness.

Social Acceptance: Achieving social acceptance and fostering progressive ideas about gender equality demands sustained awareness campaigns and inclusive dialogue.

Implementation: Ensuring effective implementation of the judgment and its practical implications is crucial for tangible change.

Joseph Shine v Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676, stands as a beacon of hope and progress in India’s pursuit of gender justice, individual autonomy, and marital equality. The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirmed the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and individual freedom, accentuating the imperative for laws to evolve with the changing dynamics of society. The case represents a seminal moment in the quest for a more equitable and just society, where gender-based discrimination finds no refuge. As India moves forward, the Joseph Shine case will continue to inspire further efforts to dismantle regressive laws, ushering in a new era of gender justice and equality for all.

2. Navtej Singh Jauhar v UOI, WP (C) 572/2016: Pioneering LGBTQ+ Rights in India and the Triumph of Equality

Navtej Singh Jauhar v Union of India (UOI), WP (C) 572/2016, is a momentous legal battle that has indelibly altered the landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in India. This historic case challenged the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual homosexual acts. At the heart of this legal battle was the aspiration to decriminalize same-sex relationships and secure equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community. This article delves deep into the background of the Navtej Singh Jauhar case, examines the profound observations made by the Supreme Court, and explores the transformative impact of this landmark judgment on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals in India.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, dating back to 1861 during British colonial rule, criminalized “unnatural offenses,” including consensual homosexual acts. This archaic law perpetuated discrimination, stigma, and fear within the LGBTQ+ community, relegating them to the fringes of society. For decades, LGBTQ+ individuals faced persecution, harassment, and social exclusion under the shadow of Section 377.

Navtej Singh Jauhar, an eminent classical dancer and a vocal LGBTQ+ rights activist, joined forces with several other petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377. They argued that the law violated their fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and equality, guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s observations in the Navtej Singh Jauhar case heralded a watershed moment for LGBTQ+ rights in India:

Right to Privacy and Personal Autonomy: The Court recognized that the right to privacy is an intrinsic facet of individual autonomy. It held that adults have the right to make choices about their intimate relationships free from state interference.

Equality and Non-Discrimination: The judgment underscored that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a grave violation of the principle of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It proclaimed that the Constitution embraces all, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Dignity and Identity: The Court emphasized that criminalizing same-sex relationships was an affront to the dignity and identity of LGBTQ+ individuals. Section 377 perpetuated stigma, causing immense psychological harm.

Overturning of Section 377: The Court declared Section 377 unconstitutional insofar as it applied to consensual adult homosexual relationships. This landmark ruling effectively decriminalized same-sex acts.

Inclusivity and Acceptance: The judgment called for a shift in societal attitudes, urging acceptance, and compassion towards the LGBTQ+ community, fostering a more inclusive society.

The Navtej Singh Jauhar case has left an indelible impact on LGBTQ+ rights in India:

Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relationships: The judgment decriminalized same-sex relationships, ensuring LGBTQ+ individuals’ legal protection and safeguarding their right to personal autonomy and privacy.

Empowering the LGBTQ+ Community: The ruling empowered the LGBTQ+ community, instilling a sense of pride and acceptance by the legal system.

Dismantling Stigma and Discrimination: The case challenged deep-rooted social stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, fostering a more empathetic and understanding society.

Advancement of LGBTQ+ Rights Movement: The judgment galvanized the LGBTQ+ rights movement in India, inspiring greater activism, awareness, and advocacy.

Celebration of Diversity: The case rekindled discussions about diversity, inclusivity, and respect for all identities and orientations.

Despite the significant progress made by the Navtej Singh Jauhar case, challenges remain:

Societal Acceptance: Attaining full social acceptance and inclusivity for LGBTQ+ individuals necessitates continuous efforts to challenge deeply ingrained prejudices and promote empathy and understanding.

Legal Protections: While Section 377 was struck down, comprehensive legal protections for LGBTQ+ rights are still needed to address issues such as discrimination, hate crimes, and adoption rights.

Cultural Change: Initiating a cultural shift to embrace diversity and equal rights for all individuals irrespective of their sexual orientation is an ongoing endeavor.

Visibility and Representation: Ensuring LGBTQ+ individuals’ visibility and representation in various spheres of life is essential for normalizing their identities and experiences.

Navtej Singh Jauhar v Union of India, WP (C) 572/2016, stands as an epoch-making milestone in the journey toward LGBTQ+ rights and social justice in India. The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirmed the constitutional principles of equality, privacy, and dignity for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. The judgment effectively decriminalized same-sex relationships, offering LGBTQ+ individuals newfound acceptance and protection under the law. While the struggle for full equality continues, the Navtej Singh Jauhar case serves as an enduring testament to the power of the judiciary in advancing the cause of justice, equality, and inclusivity for all.

3. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala, WP (C) 373/2006: Pioneering Women’s Rights and the Struggle for Gender Equality at Sabarimala Temple

Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala, WP (C) 373/2006, is a groundbreaking case that has etched its place in the annals of India’s legal history. This historic judgment revolves around the age-old tradition at the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women of menstruating age were prohibited from entering the sacred shrine. The Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, along with other activists, contested this discriminatory practice, arguing that it violated the fundamental rights of women guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. This article delves into the intricate background of the Sabarimala Temple case and examines the profound observations made by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the far-reaching impact of this landmark judgment on women’s rights and the ongoing struggle for gender equality in India.

The Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, holds a special place in the hearts of millions of devotees who throng to seek blessings and spiritual solace. However, until the 2018 Supreme Court verdict, women of menstruating age, typically between 10 and 50 years, were barred from entering the temple. This prohibition was based on the belief that women were impure during menstruation and could disturb the temple’s sanctity.

The Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, led by prominent activists and legal minds, decided to challenge this centuries-old custom that denied women their right to worship at Sabarimala. They contended that the ban amounted to discrimination and was a violation of women’s fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of religion, and dignity.

The Supreme Court’s observations in the Sabarimala Temple case were a testament to the pursuit of gender justice and equality:

Upholding Constitutional Rights: The Court unequivocally upheld that women possess the same constitutional rights as men and cannot be subjected to discrimination based on gender, age, or biological factors.

Religious Practices and Constitutional Morality: While acknowledging the importance of respecting religious beliefs and practices, the Court emphasized that these practices must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals.

Gender Justice over Tradition: The judgment highlighted that age-old customs that perpetuated gender discrimination must be scrutinized in light of constitutional principles that guarantee equality and non-discrimination.

Reforming Religious Practices: The Court urged society to reassess and reform regressive practices that hindered the empowerment of women and hindered their participation in places of worship.

Inclusivity and Equal Access: The Court recognized that women’s exclusion from places of worship based on biological factors perpetuated stereotypes and impeded their right to religious freedom.

The Sabarimala Temple case has had a far-reaching impact on various facets of Indian society:

Celebrating Women’s Agency: The judgment celebrated women’s autonomy and agency, recognizing their right to participate in religious practices on an equal footing with men.

Legal Precedent for Gender Equality: The judgment established a formidable legal precedent that prioritizes gender equality and individual rights over age-old customs.

Social Awakening and Discourse: The case sparked a nationwide debate on women’s rights, gender equality, and the need for inclusive religious practices.

Empowerment and Inclusivity: The judgment reinforced the need for religious institutions to promote inclusivity and empower women to exercise their rights without discrimination.

Despite the significant progress made by the Sabarimala Temple case, several challenges persist:

Cultural Resistance: Overcoming deeply ingrained cultural norms and patriarchal attitudes that hinder gender equality remains an ongoing challenge.

Implementation and Compliance: Ensuring the effective implementation of the judgment and garnering compliance from religious institutions is crucial.

Awareness and Education: Raising awareness and educating communities about gender equality and women’s rights are essential steps towards societal change.

Balancing Tradition and Equality: Striking a balance between religious practices and constitutional principles continues to be a complex challenge.

Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala, WP (C) 373/2006, is a monumental chapter in India’s journey toward gender justice and equality. The Supreme Court’s observations affirmed the rights and dignity of women, underscoring the importance of constitutional principles over discriminatory customs. The case prompted nationwide conversations on women’s rights and the need to challenge age-old practices that perpetuated gender-based discrimination. However, the struggle for gender equality and social justice is ongoing, requiring sustained efforts to dismantle discriminatory norms and ensure the empowerment and dignity of all individuals, irrespective of their gender.

4. Shayara Bano v UOI, WP (C) 118/2016: A Landmark Judgment for Gender Justice, Personal Liberty, and Women’s Rights

Shayara Bano v Union of India (UOI), WP (C) 118/2016, is a historic legal battle that has left an indelible mark on India’s legal and social landscape. This landmark case centers around the contentious practice of “Triple Talaq” or instant divorce prevalent in the Muslim community. Shayara Bano, a brave woman hailing from Uttarakhand, challenged the constitutionality of Triple Talaq, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights and inflicted grave injustices upon Muslim women. This article provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the background of the Shayara Bano case, along with the profound observations made by the Supreme Court, underscoring the profound implications of this judgment on gender justice, personal liberty, and women’s rights in India.

The Shayara Bano case emerged from the deep-rooted and contentious issue of Triple Talaq, a practice that allowed Muslim men to divorce their wives by pronouncing “talaq” three times, often in a single sitting, without any scope for reconciliation or legal recourse for the affected women. This arbitrary and unilateral practice left countless Muslim women vulnerable, disempowered, and without any means of sustenance or support.

Shayara Bano’s life changed forever when her husband divorced her through a letter, invoking the dreaded words of Triple Talaq. Left without any financial or emotional support, Shayara Bano decided to challenge this regressive practice that denied her the dignity and autonomy she deserved as a woman and a citizen of India.

The Supreme Court’s observations in the Shayara Bano case were groundbreaking and transformational, setting new precedents in the pursuit of gender justice and personal liberty:

Fundamental Rights: The Court reaffirmed that the right to equality (Article 14), right to life with dignity (Article 21), and right to freedom of religion (Article 25) were fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It emphasized that these rights were available to every citizen, regardless of their religion.

Unconstitutional and Arbitrary: The Court held that Triple Talaq, in its practice, was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violated the principles of gender justice and equality. It recognized the need to protect Muslim women from this unjust and archaic practice.

Personal Laws and the Constitution: The judgment reiterated that personal laws, irrespective of their religious origin, must conform to the principles of the Constitution. Personal laws cannot override fundamental rights and principles of justice and equality.

Protection of Women’s Rights: The Court acknowledged the severe implications of Triple Talaq on women’s rights and dignity. It recognized that women must be accorded equal respect and protection under the law, without discrimination based on religious customs.

Need for Legislative Action: While the Court declared Triple Talaq as unconstitutional, it left the matter open for legislative intervention. It called upon the Indian government and Parliament to enact a suitable law to address the issue.

The Shayara Bano v UOI judgment had a far-reaching impact on Indian society and the legal framework:

Empowerment of Women: The judgment empowered Muslim women by acknowledging their agency, autonomy, and rights, even within personal laws.

Legal Precedent: The judgment set a strong legal precedent, reaffirming the primacy of the Indian Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights over any personal or religious practices.

Legislative Reforms: The case prompted the government to take swift legislative action, leading to the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act in 2019, which declared Triple Talaq as void and illegal.

Public Discourse and Awareness: The case ignited public debates and discussions on gender justice, personal laws, and the need for reforms to safeguard women’s rights.

Despite the significant progress made by the Shayara Bano case, certain challenges persist:

Societal Attitudes: Eradicating deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes and prejudices remains an ongoing challenge in promoting gender justice and equality.

Effective Implementation: Ensuring the effective implementation of the legislative reforms and the protection of women’s rights requires continuous efforts and vigilance.

Access to Justice: Ensuring access to legal resources and support for women facing the brunt of Triple Talaq or other gender-related issues is vital.

Awareness and Sensitization: Efforts to raise awareness and sensitize communities about gender equality and women’s rights must continue.

The Shayara Bano v UOI, WP (C) 118/2016 judgment will be remembered as a defining moment in India’s struggle for gender justice, personal liberty, and women’s rights. The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirmed the supremacy of the Indian Constitution and the importance of upholding fundamental rights, even in matters of personal laws. The case spurred legislative reforms and legislative measures to protect Muslim women from the injustice of Triple Talaq. However, the journey towards gender equality and social justice is ongoing, necessitating sustained efforts to challenge regressive practices and ensure the empowerment and dignity of all individuals, irrespective of their gender or religious affiliation.

5. Harsh Mander v UOI, 2018 Del HC: A Critical Legal Battle for India’s Marginalized Communities

The case of Harsh Mander v Union of India (UOI), 2018 Delhi High Court, is a critical legal battle that centers around the rights and welfare of India’s marginalized communities. Harsh Mander, a prominent human rights activist and former bureaucrat, filed the petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking urgent judicial intervention to address the dire conditions faced by the homeless and destitute in the national capital, New Delhi. This article delves into the background of the Harsh Mander case and examines the Supreme Court’s observations, shedding light on the importance of this landmark judgment in upholding the rights of vulnerable sections of society.

The case of Harsh Mander v UOI originated from the grim realities faced by the homeless and destitute individuals in New Delhi. Harsh Mander, an ardent advocate for the rights of marginalized communities, highlighted the severe lack of shelters, food, and essential services available to those without a home or livelihood in the city.

Mander, backed by non-governmental organizations and activists, petitioned the Delhi High Court, seeking immediate relief measures for the homeless and destitute. He emphasized that the right to life and dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, extended to all citizens, including those living on the fringes of society. The petition underscored the state’s duty to protect and uplift the vulnerable sections of the population.

The Supreme Court’s observations in the Harsh Mander case were reflective of its commitment to safeguarding the rights of India’s marginalized communities. The Court acknowledged that the homeless and destitute faced multiple challenges, including lack of shelter, food, healthcare, and education. It recognized that the state’s obligation to provide for these basic needs was essential for ensuring the fundamental right to life and dignity.

The Court appreciated the efforts of Harsh Mander and other activists in bringing to light the plight of the homeless and destitute. It underscored the importance of empowering the marginalized and implementing comprehensive welfare measures to uplift their socio-economic status.

Moreover, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to adequate shelter and livelihood was an integral component of the right to life. The judgment emphasized the need for the government to take proactive steps to provide shelter homes and basic facilities for the homeless.

The Harsh Mander v UOI judgment had a profound impact on the treatment of India’s homeless and destitute communities:

Immediate Relief Measures: In response to the court’s observations, the Delhi government took immediate steps to improve the conditions of shelters for the homeless, providing them with better facilities and essential services.

Awareness and Empowerment: The case generated widespread awareness about the struggles faced by the homeless and destitute, prompting civil society and government agencies to work towards empowering and uplifting these vulnerable sections of society.

Policy Reforms: The judgment highlighted the need for comprehensive policy reforms to address the root causes of homelessness and destitution, advocating for sustainable solutions to uplift marginalized communities.

Social Justice Discourse: The Harsh Mander case contributed to shaping the discourse on social justice, underscoring the importance of inclusive policies and initiatives to protect the rights of the marginalized.

While the Harsh Mander case marked a significant step towards social justice and inclusivity, challenges persist:

Resource Allocation: Adequate allocation of resources remains a challenge, as addressing the needs of the homeless and destitute requires sustained financial commitment from the government.

Effective Implementation: Ensuring effective implementation of welfare schemes and policies at the grassroots level remains a challenge due to administrative complexities and bureaucratic hurdles.

Integration and Inclusion: Integration of homeless individuals into society and ensuring their active participation in decision-making processes are ongoing challenges.

The Harsh Mander v UOI, 2018 Delhi High Court judgment, stands as a testament to the power of legal activism in upholding the rights and dignity of India’s marginalized communities. The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to ensure the right to life and dignity for all citizens, irrespective of their socio-economic status. The case inspired widespread awareness and action to uplift the homeless and destitute, advocating for comprehensive welfare measures and sustainable policies. As India continues its journey towards social justice and inclusivity, it is imperative to build upon the foundations laid by this landmark judgment and strive for a more equitable and compassionate society.

6. Visakha v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SCC 3011: A Landmark Case in India’s Fight Against Sexual Harassment

In 1997, the Supreme Court of India delivered a groundbreaking judgment in the case of Visakha v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SCC 3011. This landmark case is a crucial milestone in India’s legal history and has had a profound impact on the country’s fight against sexual harassment.

The Visakha case arose from a deeply troubling incident of sexual harassment that occurred in a government office in Rajasthan. A female government employee was subjected to persistent and unwanted advances by her superior, creating a hostile and unsafe work environment for her. Despite her attempts to seek help, her complaints were met with indifference and inaction, leaving her with no choice but to take legal recourse.

Filing of the Case

With the support of various human rights organizations and activists, the victim filed a petition against the State of Rajasthan, seeking justice and accountability for the traumatic experience she endured. The case reached the Supreme Court, which brought to light the absence of explicit laws and guidelines to address sexual harassment in workplaces across the country.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Visakha case was a watershed moment in the fight against sexual harassment. The Court recognized that sexual harassment violates a woman’s fundamental right to a safe and dignified workplace. It laid down comprehensive guidelines, often referred to as the “Vishaka Guidelines,” to prevent and address sexual harassment in all workplaces until specific legislation was enacted.

The Vishaka Guidelines mandated the establishment of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in every organization to provide a mechanism for employees to report incidents of harassment. These committees were required to be composed of both internal and external members, ensuring impartiality and transparency in the redressal process. The Court also emphasized the importance of sensitizing employees and employers about the issue through awareness programs.

Key Takeaways from the Case

The Visakha case had far-reaching implications and brought about significant changes in India’s approach to combating sexual harassment. Some key takeaways from the judgment include:

Recognition of Sexual Harassment as a Violation of Rights: The judgment recognized that sexual harassment is not just a personal matter but a violation of a woman’s fundamental right to equality and a safe workplace.

Establishment of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs): The Vishaka Guidelines mandated the establishment of ICCs in all workplaces to provide a safe platform for victims to report incidents and seek redressal.

Awareness and Prevention: The Court emphasized the importance of awareness programs to sensitize employees and employers about sexual harassment and ways to prevent it.

Precedent for Legislative Action: The case set a precedent and laid the groundwork for the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act in 2013.

The Visakha judgment had a profound impact on India’s legal landscape and social consciousness. It sparked nationwide discussions about workplace safety and the rights of women. Organizations across the country began taking sexual harassment more seriously, implementing the Vishaka Guidelines and adopting preventive measures.

The case also brought about a significant change in legislation. In 2013, India enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, which built upon the Vishaka Guidelines and provided a more robust legal framework for addressing sexual harassment.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the Visakha judgment was a significant step forward, it also faced challenges and criticisms. Some of the criticisms include:

Lack of Specific Legislation at the Time: The lack of specific legislation at the time of the judgment led to the formulation of the Vishaka Guidelines, which some argued were not binding.

Need for Ongoing Awareness and Implementation: Despite the guidelines and subsequent legislation, ensuring effective implementation and awareness continues to be a challenge in various workplaces.

Inequality in Access to Redressal Mechanisms: In some cases, victims might face barriers to accessing redressal mechanisms, particularly in marginalized and informal sectors.

Global Implications

The judgment in the Visakha case garnered attention beyond India’s borders and served as a precedent for other countries grappling with the issue of sexual harassment. It inspired several nations to enact or strengthen their own laws and policies against workplace harassment.

The Visakha v State of Rajasthan case was a watershed moment in India’s fight against sexual harassment. It led to the formulation of the Vishaka Guidelines, which provided a much-needed interim framework until specific legislation was enacted. The case has left a lasting impact, reshaping workplace safety measures, and fostering awareness about the importance of combating sexual

harassment. While challenges persist, the Visakha case remains a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggle for gender equality and a safe work environment for all.

7. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477: A Watershed Case on Reservation and Affirmative Action

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, holds a prominent position in India’s legal history as a landmark judgment that significantly impacted the country’s affirmative action policy and reservation system. The case dealt with the constitutionality of providing reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for socially and educationally backward classes. It stirred widespread debates on social justice, equity, and the principles of affirmative action. In this in-depth article, we explore the background of the case, delve into the legal intricacies presented, and meticulously analyze the Supreme Court’s observations, which have had far-reaching consequences on the implementation of affirmative action in India.#

The origins of the case can be traced back to the report of the Second Backward Classes Commission, popularly known as the Mandal Commission. The Commission was constituted in 1979 by the Indian government with the mandate to examine the social and educational conditions of the socially and educationally backward classes. It was tasked with identifying groups and communities that were historically disadvantaged and recommend measures for their advancement.

Based on the Mandal Commission’s extensive research and recommendations, the Indian government decided to introduce reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The government’s decision was aimed at addressing historical injustices and providing opportunities for social upliftment and representation to marginalized communities.

However, the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations triggered widespread protests, particularly from certain sections of society who argued that it would compromise meritocracy and lead to reverse discrimination. Several individuals and organizations challenged the constitutional validity of the government’s decision before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Issues Presented

The Indra Sawhney case presented a complex web of legal issues that intersected with questions of social justice, affirmative action, and the principle of equality:

Constitutional Validity of Reservations for OBCs: At its core, the case fundamentally questioned the constitutional validity of providing reservations for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions. It sought to determine whether such affirmative action policies were in consonance with the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Extent and Nature of Reservations: The case delved into the extent and nature of reservations, including the permissible quantum of reservations and whether it should exceed 50% of available seats. The Court had to grapple with the delicate balance between affirmative action and the need to maintain merit-based selection processes.

Backwardness and Social Justice: The case raised crucial questions about the identification of backward classes and the criteria for determining their backwardness. It examined whether the reservation policy effectively addressed the historical disadvantages faced by marginalized communities and contributed to social justice.

Creamy Layer Exclusion: One of the critical aspects of the case was the concept of the “creamy layer” exclusion from reservations. The Court had to decide whether relatively better-off members of OBCs should be excluded from the purview of reservations to ensure that benefits reached those who genuinely needed them.

Judicial Proceedings

The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India, the highest judicial authority in the country, to address the intricate legal issues surrounding affirmative action and reservation policies. The Court, renowned for its commitment to upholding constitutional principles, embarked on a comprehensive examination of constitutional provisions, precedents, and principles of social justice.

In its seminal judgment, the Supreme Court undertook a thorough analysis of affirmative action, reservation policies, and the principle of equality.

The Court recognized that reservations were an essential tool for promoting social justice and ensuring the inclusion of marginalized communities in various spheres of public life. It emphasized that reservations were not intended to perpetuate caste-based divisions or foster mediocrity but to rectify historical injustices and uplift the disadvantaged.

However, the Court also acknowledged that reservations must be balanced to ensure that merit and efficiency were not compromised. It held that the total quantum of reservations should not exceed 50% of available seats to maintain a fair and equitable distribution of opportunities.

To address concerns of reverse discrimination and to ensure that benefits reached those who needed them the most, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of the “creamy layer.” This exclusionary principle sought to prevent the relatively better-off members of OBCs from availing reservation benefits, thus directing affirmative action to the most marginalized sections.

Impact and Legacy

The Indra Sawhney case had a profound and lasting impact on India’s affirmative action policy and reservation system. The Supreme Court’s observations provided legal clarity on the constitutionality of reservations and affirmed their importance in promoting social justice and inclusivity.

The introduction of the “creamy layer” exclusion brought nuance to the reservation system, ensuring that it targeted the most vulnerable and disadvantaged sections of society. The judgment set a framework for implementing reservations in a fair and balanced manner, striving to uplift the most marginalized and preventing any abuse or misuse of reservation benefits.

The case sparked significant debates on the identification of backward classes, the criteria for determining backwardness, and the role of affirmative action in achieving social justice. It fostered a broader discussion on the need to address historical inequalities while ensuring that affirmative action policies are tailored to the specific needs of different communities.

In conclusion, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477, remains a watershed judgment that shaped India’s affirmative action policy and the implementation of reservation systems. The Supreme Court’s recognition of reservations as a means to achieve social justice, along with the introduction of the “creamy layer” exclusion, has had far-reaching consequences on the quest for equality and social inclusion in the country.

The case serves as a testament to the transformative potential of affirmative action in addressing historical injustices and providing opportunities for marginalized communities. It reaffirms the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding constitutional values and promoting a just and equitable society.

The legacy of the Indra Sawhney case endures as a guiding precedent in cases involving affirmative action and reservation policies. It continues to shape affirmative action policies in India, contributing to the pursuit of an inclusive society where every individual is provided with equal opportunities to thrive.

8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: A Watershed Case on Personal Liberty and Procedural Due Process

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, holds a prominent position in India’s legal history as a landmark case that significantly impacted the understanding of personal liberty and procedural due process. This case not only redefined the contours of the right to travel but also elucidated the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution. It stands as a watershed moment that strengthened the protection of individual rights and established the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional values. In this in-depth article, we delve into the background of the case, explore the legal intricacies presented, and meticulously analyze the Supreme Court’s observations, which have had far-reaching consequences on the protection of individual rights and the principles of justice and fairness in administrative actions.

The case revolves around Maneka Gandhi, a prominent political activist and journalist known for her vocal opposition to the government’s policies. On November 3, 1977, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, issued a passport impounding order against Maneka Gandhi under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967. The order restrained her from leaving the country and effectively curtailed her right to travel abroad.

Maneka Gandhi challenged the passport impounding order, arguing that it violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. She contended that the order was arbitrary, lacked any reasonable basis, and was issued without providing her an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, she raised concerns about the government’s attempt to silence dissent and curtail individual liberties through such administrative actions.

The case presented a complex array of legal issues that significantly impacted the protection of individual rights and administrative actions:

Constitutional Validity of Passport Impounding Order: The case fundamentally questioned the constitutional validity of the passport impounding order issued by the government. It sought to determine whether such an order, which restricted an individual’s right to travel, infringed upon their fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Scope of Personal Liberty and Right to Travel: The case delved into the expansive meaning of personal liberty and its inherent connection with the right to travel abroad. It examined whether the right to travel was an essential facet of personal freedom and whether any restriction on it required robust justifications.

Procedural Due Process and Fair Hearing: The case raised critical concerns about procedural due process and fair hearing in administrative actions affecting individual rights. It questioned whether individuals must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before their rights are restricted or curtailed.

Constitutional Review of Administrative Actions: The case also highlighted the judiciary’s role in reviewing administrative actions to ensure they conform to constitutional values. It explored whether the “procedure established by law,” as mentioned in Article 21, must meet higher standards of reasonableness and fairness.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India, the highest judicial authority in the country, to address the intricate legal issues and provide clarity on personal liberty and procedural due process. The Court, renowned for its commitment to constitutional principles, engaged in a comprehensive examination of constitutional provisions, human rights principles, and precedents related to individual liberty and administrative actions.

In its seminal judgment, the Supreme Court embarked on a profound exposition of personal liberty, procedural due process, and the right to travel.

The Court underscored that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not a mere abstraction but a cherished right that ensures a meaningful existence. The right to life and personal liberty encompasses various essential freedoms, including the right to travel abroad, which is intrinsic to individual autonomy and self-expression.

The Supreme Court emphasized that any restriction on an individual’s personal liberty must be reasonable, just, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the passport impounding order issued against Maneka Gandhi, without giving her a fair opportunity to be heard, was arbitrary and violated procedural due process.

Moreover, the Court recognized that the “procedure established by law,” as mentioned in Article 21, must not be a mere formality but must be just, fair, and reasonable. The Court clarified that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must adhere to principles of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and justice.

The Maneka Gandhi case had a profound and lasting impact on the protection of individual rights and procedural safeguards in India. The Supreme Court’s observations expanded the scope of personal liberty, affirming that it includes various essential freedoms, such as the right to travel.

The case also set a precedent for the importance of procedural due process and fair hearing in administrative actions that restrict individual rights. It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the protector of constitutional values, ensuring that the government’s exercise of power is just, reasonable, and in adherence to fundamental rights.

The judgment established a robust framework for constitutional review of administrative actions, necessitating adherence to principles of reasonableness and fairness. It strengthened the protection of individual liberties and established the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding constitutional guarantees.

In conclusion, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, stands as a landmark case that reshaped the understanding of personal liberty and procedural due process in India. The Supreme Court’s elucidation of personal liberty as a cherished right, encompassing essential freedoms like the right to travel, reinforced the constitutional significance of individual autonomy and self-expression.

The judgment’s emphasis on procedural due process and fair hearing underscored the importance of ensuring that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights adhere to principles of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and justice. It set a powerful precedent for protecting individuals from arbitrary executive actions and upheld the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

Moreover, the case established a robust framework for constitutional review of administrative actions, ensuring that the “procedure established by law” is not a mere formality but a guarantee of just and fair treatment. It strengthened the protection of individual liberties and established the judiciary’s pivotal role as the guardian of constitutional guarantees, safeguarding the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The legacy of the Maneka Gandhi case endures as a beacon of hope for the protection of individual rights in India. Its profound impact on administrative law, human rights, and the rule of law continues to shape judicial decisions and inspire legal scholars to advocate for a just and equitable society.

The judgment not only vindicated Maneka Gandhi’s fundamental right to personal liberty but also reaffirmed the Constitution’s promise to secure to all citizens the right to life and liberty. It serves as a reminder that every individual’s dignity and freedom are sacrosanct and must be upheld and protected by the state.

In contemporary India, the Maneka Gandhi case remains relevant as a guiding precedent in cases involving personal liberty and administrative actions. It stands as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and constitutional values, ensuring that the state’s exercise of power is always tempered with respect for individual rights and the rule of law.

9. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555: A Watershed Case on Equality and Administrative Discretion

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555, stands as a landmark case in India’s legal history, profoundly impacting the understanding of equality before the law and the scope of administrative discretion. This case not only challenged the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive but also emphasized the principle of reasonableness in administrative actions. It redefined the contours of administrative law, administrative discretion, and the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional values. In this comprehensive article, we delve into the background of the case, explore the legal intricacies presented, and meticulously analyze the Supreme Court’s observations, which have had far-reaching consequences on administrative law and public administration.

The case originated from a contentious dispute between E.P. Royappa, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), and the State of Tamil Nadu. Royappa, a competent and dedicated officer, found himself at the receiving end of frequent and arbitrary transfers within a short period, disrupting his career and personal life. These transfers lacked any apparent reason or rationale, prompting Royappa to question the State’s actions before the judiciary.

Royappa contended that the State’s decisions to transfer him without any valid grounds violated his fundamental right to equality before the law, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. He argued that the arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion infringed upon his right to a meaningful and dignified livelihood, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The primary legal issues in the E.P. Royappa case were multifaceted and intricately intertwined:

Constitutional Validity of Administrative Action: The case fundamentally questioned the constitutional validity of the State’s administrative actions, particularly the frequent and arbitrary transfers of Royappa. It sought to determine whether such actions were in harmony with the principles of equality and the rule of law enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Scope of Administrative Discretion and Reasonableness: The case delved into the scope and limitations of administrative discretion. It raised the pertinent question of whether administrative authorities possess unbridled discretion or if such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of reasonableness and fairness, respecting constitutional values.

Fundamental Rights and Administrative Decisions: The case explored the delicate balance between fundamental rights and administrative decisions. It examined whether administrative

authorities’ actions should be consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-arbitrariness.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India, the highest judicial authority in the country, to address the intricate legal issues and provide clarity on administrative discretion and its conformity with the Constitution. The Court, renowned for its meticulous and impartial approach, undertook a comprehensive examination of constitutional provisions, administrative law principles, and precedents related to equality and administrative actions.

In its seminal judgment, the Supreme Court embarked on a profound exposition of the principles of equality, administrative discretion, and the rule of law.

The Court acknowledged that administrative authorities indeed possess a degree of discretion in performing their functions. However, it vehemently cautioned against any form of arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of such discretion. The Court stressed that administrative actions must be guided by the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination, firmly rooted in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to equality does not imply a rigid or mechanical uniformity in administrative decisions. Instead, it recognized that administrative authorities may, on rational and objective grounds, treat different individuals differently. However, the Court clarified that such differential treatment must always be reasonable and founded on legitimate and non-arbitrary reasons.

Regarding the transfers of E.P. Royappa, the Court found them devoid of a valid and reasonable basis. The frequent and arbitrary transfers were deemed to be in clear violation of Royappa’s right to equality and dignity. The Court declared the transfers null and void, highlighting the imperative for administrative authorities to exercise their discretion in a manner consistent with constitutional values.

The E.P. Royappa case left an indelible impact on administrative law and public administration in India. The Supreme Court’s observations redefined the contours of administrative discretion, requiring that public authorities exercise their powers reasonably, fairly, and in adherence to the principles of justice and equality.

The judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, safeguarding the rule of law and constitutional values in administrative actions. It laid the foundation for a robust and transparent administrative framework, promoting accountability, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.

In conclusion, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555, remains an enduring testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of equality and the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s elucidation of administrative discretion and its emphasis on reasonableness in administrative actions have had a profound and lasting impact on India’s legal landscape. The case continues to be cited as a seminal precedent in administrative law, promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in public administration.

10. Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009: A Landmark Case on Property Taxation

Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009, stands as a landmark case in India’s legal history, leaving an indelible impact on the principles governing property taxation. This case not only examined the constitutional validity of property tax imposition but also delved into the scope and limitations of such taxation powers vested in municipal corporations. In this comprehensive article, we explore the background of the case, delve into the legal intricacies presented, and meticulously analyze the Supreme Court’s observations, which have had a far-reaching impact on property taxation practices across the country.

The genesis of the case lies in the fiscal dispute between Magan Lal Chaggan Lal, a prominent property owner in Greater Bombay, and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (MCGM). The MCGM, like other municipal corporations, was empowered to levy property tax on properties within its jurisdiction, with the aim of generating revenue for public services and urban development.

Magan Lal Chaggan Lal contested the imposition of property tax on specific properties owned by him, contending that the tax levied was arbitrary, unreasonable, and exceeded the statutory limits prescribed by law. He argued that the MCGM had overstepped its authority and violated his fundamental right to property, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.

The Magan Lal Chaggan Lal case presented two significant legal issues:

Constitutional Validity of Property Tax: The case questioned the constitutional validity of the property tax levied by the MCGM. It examined whether the MCGM’s power to impose property tax was in harmony with the provisions of the Indian Constitution and the relevant statutes.

Excessiveness of Taxation: Magan Lal Chaggan Lal contended that the property tax imposed on his properties was excessive and went beyond the limits prescribed by law. The case delved into the reasonableness of the tax levied and whether it adhered to the statutory provisions.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India, the highest judicial authority in the country, to resolve the intricate legal issues at hand. The Court embarked on a meticulous examination of the constitutional provisions, relevant statutes, and precedents related to property taxation. The objective was to ascertain the legality and reasonableness of the property tax imposed by the MCGM on the properties owned by Magan Lal Chaggan Lal.

In its seminal judgment, the Supreme Court enunciated the constitutional framework governing property taxation and laid down essential principles to evaluate the validity and reasonableness of such taxes.

The Court recognized property taxation as a legitimate and essential means for municipal corporations to raise funds for public welfare and urban development projects. However, it emphasized that the power to impose property tax was not unbridled and must be exercised within the boundaries set by the Constitution and relevant statutes.

The Supreme Court held that property tax could not be levied arbitrarily or excessively, as it would violate the fundamental right to property protected under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. The tax levied must be based on a rational and fair assessment of the property’s value, considering its actual worth and the prevalent market rates.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that any excessiveness in taxation beyond the statutory limits would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. It stressed that municipal corporations must adhere to the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination while levying property tax to protect the rights of property owners adequately.

The Magan Lal Chaggan Lal case left a profound and far-reaching impact on property taxation practices in India. The Supreme Court’s observations and principles established clear guidelines for municipal corporations while levying property tax. The judgment reinforced the importance of constitutional validity and reasonableness in taxation and safeguarded property owners’ fundamental rights.

Since this landmark judgment, municipal corporations across India have been guided by the Supreme Court’s principles, ensuring that property tax is levied fairly and in accordance with the law. The case continues to be cited as a significant precedent in property taxation disputes, and its principles remain relevant and applicable to this day.

In conclusion, Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009, stands as a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the constitutional rights of citizens. The Supreme Court’s elucidation of the principles governing property taxation and the limitations on municipal corporations’ power to tax have had a lasting impact on India’s legal landscape. The case’s legacy lies in its contribution to establishing a fair and just framework for property taxation, protecting property owners’ rights, and ensuring the constitutional validity of municipal corporations’ actions.

11. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538: A Pioneering Case in India’s Judicial History

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, holds an eminent position in India’s judicial history as a landmark case that not only addressed the intricacies of judicial independence and impartiality but also left a profound impact on the constitutional safeguards protecting the sanctity of the judiciary. In this comprehensive article, we delve into the background of the case, explore the legal issues it presented, and meticulously examine the Supreme Court’s observations, which have had a lasting influence on India’s legal system.

The genesis of the case can be traced back to the year 1957 when the Parliament of India decided to probe into the affairs of certain companies, including the renowned Dalmia-Jain group of companies. To conduct the investigation, a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was constituted. Initially, Justice M.C. Chagla, the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, was appointed to chair the JPC. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, he had to resign from the position.

As a replacement, Justice S.R. Tendolkar, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, was appointed as the new chairman of the committee. It was at this juncture that Ram Krishna Dalmia, a prominent industrialist and a member of the Dalmia-Jain group, raised objections and challenged Justice Tendolkar’s appointment. Dalmia alleged that Justice Tendolkar was biased and had preconceived opinions against him, rendering his appointment unfair and prejudicial.

The crux of the legal dispute in the Ram Krishna Dalmia case centered on whether Justice Tendolkar’s appointment as the chairman of the JPC violated the principles of natural justice and compromised the independence and impartiality of the committee. The case raised crucial concerns about the fundamental right to a fair and unbiased hearing and the imperative to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, especially in matters of public interest.

To resolve the complex legal issues involved, the case was brought before the Supreme Court of India, the apex judicial authority in the country. The Court, known for its meticulous and unbiased approach, embarked on a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding Justice Tendolkar’s appointment and the specific allegations of bias made by Ram Krishna Dalmia.

In a momentous and historic judgment, the Supreme Court laid down vital principles concerning the independence and impartiality of investigative bodies. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were of paramount importance and any appearance of bias could gravely undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and the investigative process.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the JPC, as an investigative body, must function with complete impartiality and independence, given the grave nature of the allegations it was tasked to inquire into. The Court stressed that the credibility and validity of the committee’s findings hinged on the integrity

of its members, and even the slightest taint of bias could seriously compromise the legitimacy of its conclusions.

Regarding Justice Tendolkar’s prior expressions of opinion on related matters, the Court opined that the mere existence of such opinions did not automatically disqualify him from chairing the JPC. However, the Court concluded that Justice Tendolkar’s conduct and statements before his appointment gave rise to reasonable apprehensions of bias, and as a consequence, he should recuse himself from presiding over the committee.

The Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar case had far-reaching ramifications on India’s legal landscape. The Supreme Court’s observations and pronouncements on the significance of impartiality and independence in the functioning of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies served as a beacon for future cases involving allegations of bias and lack of fairness.

This seminal judgment also established a vital precedent for ensuring the highest standards of integrity and transparency in public institutions, especially in those entrusted with investigating matters of significant public interest. The case became a shining example of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and guaranteeing a fair and unbiased hearing for all parties involved.

In conclusion, Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, stands as an enduring testament to the importance of judicial independence and the protection of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court’s meticulous scrutiny of the case and its unyielding commitment to upholding the integrity of the judiciary have left an indelible mark on India’s legal system. The case serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to safeguard the fundamental right to a fair hearing and ensure the impartiality of investigative bodies. Moreover, it epitomizes the judiciary’s unwavering dedication to the preservation of the rule of law and the sanctity of the judicial process.

12. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 SC: A Landmark in India’s Legal History

The case of State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 SC, holds a significant place in India’s legal history as a landmark judgment that shaped the country’s criminal justice system and emphasized the importance of upholding fundamental rights. This article explores the background, legal issues, Supreme Court’s observations, and the case’s impact on subsequent legal proceedings and academic discussions.

During the early 1950s, the state of West Bengal witnessed an upsurge in revolutionary activities and underground movements. In response to this perceived threat to national security, the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, was enacted. The Act sought to expedite the trial process for certain offenses and established Special Courts to handle cases related to revolutionary activities.

In 1952, Anwar Ali Sarkar faced charges under the West Bengal Special Courts Act for his alleged involvement in revolutionary activities. Sarkar, however, challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, asserting that it infringed upon his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

Examining the Legal Issues

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, were in harmony with the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The relevant constitutional rights that came under scrutiny included:

Article 14 (Right to Equality): This article ensures equality before the law and the equal protection of laws to all individuals within the territory of India.

Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression): It guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to every citizen of India.

Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): This article protects the life and personal liberty of every individual, stating that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

Article 22 (Protection against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention): It safeguards an arrested person’s rights by requiring that they be informed of the grounds for arrest and be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.

The Supreme Court’s Observations

In a momentous judgment, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, in detail. The Court observed that certain provisions of the Act did not provide adequate safeguards for the accused individuals. It held that these provisions led to a violation of their fundamental rights.

The Court emphasized the significance of a fair and impartial trial, asserting that even in cases concerning national security, the principles of justice and fairness must be upheld. The judgment reiterated that the Constitution exists to protect individual rights and that any law infringing upon these rights would be declared void.

The State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar case had a profound impact on India’s legal landscape. The judgment reaffirmed the supremacy of fundamental rights and underscored the importance of due process and a fair trial for all accused individuals. It became a guiding light for future cases and influenced subsequent legal proceedings in matters related to fundamental rights and criminal justice.

The case also sparked extensive academic and legal discussions, making it a subject of interest for scholars, lawyers, and law students alike. The principles enunciated in this landmark judgment continue to hold relevance today, serving as a constant reminder of the delicate balance between national security concerns and safeguarding individual rights.

The State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 SC, remains an enduring testament to India’s commitment to upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice for all. The Supreme Court’s observation on the paramount importance of preserving individual rights, even in the face of perceived threats to national security, continues to resonate in the country’s legal discourse. This landmark case stands as a cornerstone of India’s legal history and an inspiration for the protection of fundamental rights in a democratic society.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution – Explanation & Notes

Table of contents, understanding human rights – what does it mean.

Understanding the concept of human rights is essential before delving into Article 14. Human rights, as we know them, are the fundamental rights and freedoms to which every individual is entitled. They are universal and applicable to every human being, irrespective of their nationality, sex, ethnicity, religion, or any other status. Rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to work and education are just a few examples.

Examples of Human Rights

Some prominent examples of human rights are:

• Right to Life : Every individual has the right to live without the fear of extrajudicial killing.
• Right to a Fair Trial : This safeguards individuals from unjust punishment without proper legal proceedings.
• Right to Education : This emphasizes that every individual should have access to primary education regardless of background.

Equality Before Law: An Insight into Article 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution firmly emphasizes ‘Equality Before Law’, a principle that no individual, regardless of rank or position, is above the law.

This cornerstone of justice ensures equal subjection of all individuals to the ordinary law of the land, thereby eliminating any special privilege in favour of anyone – a concept that A.V. Dicey, a constitutional theorist, coined as the ‘ Rule of Law .’ This doctrine implies the supremacy of law, equality before the law, and the predominance of the legal spirit.

Every citizen, from the Prime Minister to a farmer, is accountable for their actions similarly. The same set of responsibilities and legal consequences apply to every act committed without lawful justification. However, ‘Equality Before Law’ is not an absolute rule and comes with its exceptions, as stipulated in Article 361 of the Constitution.

This comprehensive principle embedded within Article 14 prevents arbitrary use of power and assures that justice is not denied to anyone. It ensures that justice is delivered without any discrimination, symbolizing that everyone, irrespective of their status, wealth, or position, is equally subject to the laws of the land.

Equality Before Law: An Example

Consider a situation where a high-ranking official is found guilty of corruption. They would be tried and penalized just like a common citizen despite their position. In essence, the rule of ‘Equality Before Law’, articulated in Article 14, reinforces the democratic nature of the Indian legal system.

Equal Protection of Laws: The Other Half of Article 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution emphasizes not only ‘Equality Before Law,’ but also spotlights ‘Equal Protection of Laws.’ The principle of ‘Equal Protection of Laws,’ as found in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, signifies equality of treatment in equal circumstances.

Understanding ‘Equal Protection of Laws’

This principle advocates that the law should be equal and equally administered, treating those in similar situations alike. It implies that legal privileges conferred should be similar for individuals in analogous cases, but the liabilities imposed should also be on par.

The Nuances of Equal Treatment

The emphasis of ‘Equal Protection of Laws’ on equal treatment does not suggest a universal application of every law, neglecting the differences in circumstances. Instead, it upholds the concept that laws should address the variability of situations and apply accordingly. This provision in Article 14 ensures that laws, policies, and procedures are non-discriminatory, strengthening the legal system’s foundation of justice and fairness.

Equal Protection of Laws in Legal Precedents

This aspect of Article 14 was vividly illustrated in legal cases like the Special Courts Bill of 1979 and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (1952) .

In the case of the Special Courts Bill of 1979, the underlying principle of Article 14 is that all persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.

In the case of the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, it was declared that the provision of ‘Equal Protection of Laws’ is a corollary to the ‘Equality Before Law.’ The Court opined that both parts of Article 14 combine to form a single code of law, aiming at ensuring fairness, justice, and righteousness, strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation. This case set a precedent that influenced subsequent interpretations of Article 14.

Equal Protection of Laws: An Example

Consider a scenario where two individuals are charged with the same type of crime under the same circumstances. Even though one individual may come from an affluent background and the other from a more modest background, the ‘Equal Protection of Laws’ under Article 14 ensures that both individuals receive the same legal treatment, protection, and penalties.

For instance, if they both were to receive a sentence, it would be identical, with no leniency granted based on social standing or wealth. The principle of ‘Equal Protection of Laws’ thus ensures uniformity and consistency in the legal process, regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status. This principle, hence, champions the cause of justice and fairness in the legal system, reinforcing the democratic ethos of the nation.

Reasonable Classification vs. Class Legislation: Understanding through Article 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution brilliantly balances the need for equal treatment with the practical reality that certain situations require special attention. It prohibits class legislation that arbitrarily grants special privileges to specific groups, creating unwarranted distinctions. At the same time, it permits reasonable classification that supports the legislative power to group or classify persons, objects, and transactions to achieve specific goals.

What is Prohibiting Class Legislation?

Class legislation refers to laws that confer unique privileges upon a specific group of individuals arbitrarily selected from the larger population, thereby creating an improper distinction. Article 14 prohibits such laws as they fundamentally violate the principle of equality.

What is Permitting Reasonable Classification?

On the other hand, reasonable classification is a principle that allows the legislature to group individuals or things based on distinctive characteristics. To be deemed reasonable, the classification must meet two criteria:

• It must be based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those within the class from those outside it.
• The differentia should have a rational relation or nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the act.

Examples and Comparisons

Several landmark judgments have clarified the difference between reasonable classification and class legislation. Two such cases are ‘ Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, 1950 ‘ and ‘ State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952. ‘

Case Study: Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India (1950)

In this case, the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. (Emergency Provision) Act, 1950, was challenged by a company shareholder on the grounds of it being violative of Article 14. The act had allowed the government to take control of the company’s management due to mismanagement affecting the production of essential commodities and causing widespread unemployment among labourers. Despite this action focusing on one company, leaving other similar companies untouched, the Court held the act valid. It underscored that a single individual or company could be treated as a class by itself if the circumstances were unique, like in this case.

Case Study: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)

This case challenged the West Bengal Special Courts Act 1950 because it allowed the government to refer any cases or classes of cases to special courts without reasonable classification. The act was deemed violative of Article 14 because it failed to provide a clear basis for classification and did not specify the kind of cases to be directed for trial by the Special Court.

These cases highlight how Article 14 balances prohibiting class legislation and permitting reasonable classification. They underline how laws must not arbitrarily discriminate but can, for legitimate purposes, differentiate among persons or entities based on intelligible and significant distinctions. This subtle interpretation strengthens the legal system’s enforcement of equality and justice.

Doctrine of Arbitrariness and Article 14: A New Perspective on Equality

Article 14 has been subjected to numerous interpretations to understand its depth and magnitude in ensuring equality and justice. One such perspective is the Doctrine of Arbitrariness, which brought a new dimension to the understanding of Article 14.

Case Study: E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

In the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu in 1974, a fresh perspective on Article 14 was introduced. It was declared that equality is essentially antithetical to arbitrariness. In simpler terms, any arbitrary law or action, i.e., based on random choice or personal impulse rather than any reason or system, is considered in violation of Article 14. Hence, Article 14 fundamentally strikes at arbitrariness in State action, thereby ensuring fairness and equality of treatment.

Case Study: Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India in 1978 further consolidated the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This judgment enshrined the principle of reasonableness as an essential component of equality or non-arbitrariness. The verdict stated that the procedure outlined in Article 21 must pass the reasonableness test to be in harmony with Article 14. It further elaborated that such a procedure must be ‘right, just, and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. If so, it would not qualify as a procedure at all, thereby failing the requirement of Article 21.

In conclusion, the Doctrine of Arbitrariness introduces a robust mechanism to ensure that State actions are fair and justified and adhere to the principles of equality and justice, echoing the spirit of Article 14.

Landmark Judgments: Critical Cases Shaping Article 14

Article 14 has evolved through a series of pathbreaking judgments. These cases have expanded its scope and reshaped its interpretation, ultimately solidifying its relevance in the contemporary era.

Case Study: Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)

In a landmark case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza 1981 , specific service regulations of Air India were challenged on the grounds of violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the regulation that allowed for the termination of an employee’s service due to pregnancy was discriminatory and, therefore, violated Article 14. Additionally, the Court struck down a part of Regulation 47, which gave excessive powers to the Managing Director without reasonable guidelines to exercise those powers.

Case Study: Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)

The Mithu v. State of Punjab landmark case dealt with the constitutionality of Section 303. The Court ruled this section unconstitutional as it mandated a death penalty for those who commit murder while serving a life sentence, but not for those outside this category. The Court found that this classification was not based on a rational principle.

Case Study: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

In a landmark judgment of Shayara Bano v. Union of India 2017 , the Supreme Court declared the Muslim law practice of triple talaq unconstitutional, stating that it was arbitrary and against the principle of equality upheld by Article 14.

Case Study: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

The high-profile case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala in 2018 challenged the prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 entering a temple. The Court ruled that such discrimination based on biological factors violated Article 14. Consequently, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965 was declared unconstitutional.

Case Study: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

In a landmark ruling in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court decriminalized a part of Section 377, considering it a violation of Article 14. The Court declared that the section no longer applies to the consensual sexual acts between LGBT adults, thereby affirming the rights of this community.

Article 14 and the UDHR: Global Influence and Impact

Article 14, a fundamental principle in the Indian Constitution, extends its influence on the global scale through its integral role in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) . This principle reverberates globally, strengthening our comprehension and execution of the concepts of equality and non-discrimination.

The Importance of Article 14 Globally

Internationally, Article 14 is viewed as a potent instrument for advocating human rights. Within the UDHR, Article 14 proclaims the right for individuals to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution. This proclamation aligns with equality and non-discrimination, echoing its Indian counterpart.

For example, the landmark case of Plyler v. Doe (1982) under the U.S. legal system reflects the values expressed in Article 14 of the UDHR. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children. It prohibited local school districts from charging tuition fees for these students. This decision was a precise instance of Article 14 principles at work, emphasizing equal protection and non-discrimination.

The Influence of UDHR on Indian Human Rights Law

The principles within Article 14 of the UDHR significantly shape Indian human rights law, fortifying India’s commitment to ensure equality before the law and protection against discrimination.

For instance, the case of the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) significantly showcases the influence of UDHR principles on Indian law. The Supreme Court of India recognized the rights of transgender people in this case, declaring them as the “third gender” and entitled to the same fundamental rights as any other citizen. This judgment, inspired by principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the UDHR, exemplifies how global human rights norms can guide national legal and social evolution.

Article 14 and E-commerce Directives: Exploring Digital Rights

In our increasingly interconnected digital world, Article 14 has evolved to protect rights within e-commerce. This adaptation ensures that the principles of equality and non-discrimination extend to digital spaces and transactions, contributing to a more equitable online environment.

Adapting Article 14 to the Digital Age

The expansion of e-commerce has created new challenges and opportunities for applying principles like equality and non-discrimination. In response, governments and regulatory bodies worldwide have used frameworks like Article 14 as a basis for digital rights and online equality, ensuring that these principles are not left behind in the transition to digital economies.

In the context of the European Union, Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive (2000/31/E.C.) plays a crucial role. This directive outlines the obligations of information society services, especially those that store the information provided by the service recipient – such as online marketplaces or cloud services.

Significance of Article 14 in E-commerce Directives

Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive defends “intermediary service providers” if they do not know about illegal activity or information. Upon obtaining such knowledge, these providers must act swiftly to remove or restrict access to the data.

A noteworthy case is Google France vs. Louis Vuitton (2010) . In this case, the European Court of Justice ruled that Google was not liable for trademark infringement by advertisers using brand names as keywords to trigger ads. The Court’s reasoning relied on Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive, as Google was considered an “intermediary service provider” that did not have the requisite knowledge of the advertisers’ activities.

Impact on Indian E-commerce Regulations

The principles laid down in Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive have influenced digital rights regulations even beyond Europe. With one of the fastest-growing digital economies, India has referenced similar concepts in framing its e-commerce policies.

The ‘ Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code ‘ introduced by the Indian Government in 2021 are a testament to this. The guidelines place due diligence requirements on intermediaries, mirroring the obligations in Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive. They mandate intermediaries to restrict access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving actual knowledge from a government agency or a court order.

Through such implementations, we see how the essence of Article 14 adapts to the e-commerce landscape, reinforcing the commitment to equality and non-discrimination in the digital world.

Wrapping Up: Article 14 in a Nutshell

As we wrap up our exploration, we find Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is not just a provision but an embodiment of justice permeating all life aspects. It ensures equality before the law and extends its influence beyond India’s borders, demonstrating its role in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and e-commerce directives.

To summarize, Article 14 is a guardian of equality and non-discrimination, shaping societies and ensuring these principles remain relevant in an evolving world. It reminds us of our shared humanity and equal standing in the eyes of the law. No matter where our digital age leads us, the spirit of Article 14 continues to guide us on the path of fairness and justice.

YouTube Video on ‘Article 14 | Equality Before Law, Equal Protection of Laws with Cases’

For further insight, Check out the video on my YouTube channel:

Download PDF Notes on Article 14

You can download the presentation used in my YouTube Video on ‘Article 14 | Equality Before Law, Equal Protection of Laws with Cases’ in PDF format for free here.

Hi, I’m Priya, a Creative Educator.

Law Categories

• Administrative Law
• Case Briefs
• Contract Law
• Indian Constitution
• Jurisprudence
• Law of Torts

You May Also Like

Case summary: shayara bano v. union of india 2017.

Theft Vs. Extortion: A Detailed Analysis & Comparative Study

Case study: navtej singh johar v. union of india 2018, download quality law study notes, other pages, privacy policy, free pdf notes.

©  2024 LegalFly | Built with ❤️ in India

• Write For Us
• Study Notes

Constitution of India

Equality before law

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, Constitution of India 1950

Article 14 of the Constitution of India 1950 was not a standalone provision in the Draft Constitution 1948. It was initially included in Draft Article 15 ( Article 21 ) which read:

‘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.’

Draft Article 15 was taken up for discussion on 6 and 13 December 1948 . The discussions that took place on these two days revolved around the first part, whereas the second – ‘ equality before law ’ – was not debated at all.

In its letter to the President of the Constituent Assembly dated 3 November 1949 presenting its revised Draft Constitution, the Drafting Committee mentioned that – “ We have considered it more appropriate to split this article into two parts and to transfer the latter part of this article dealing with ‘equality before law’ to a new article 14 under the heading ‘Right to Equality ‘”. Article 14 was thereby introduced into the Constitution of India 1950.

Search bar.

• Legal Queries
• Files 
• Online Law Courses 
• Lawyers Search
• Legal Dictionary
• The Indian Penal Code
• Juvenile Justice
• Negotiable Instruments
• Commercial Courts Act
• The 3 New Criminal Laws
• Matrimonial Laws
• Data Privacy
• Court Fees Act
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law
• The Constitutional Expert
• Matrimonial
• Writs and PILs
• CrPC Certification Course
• Criminal Manual
• Execution U/O 21
• Transfer of Property
• Domestic Violence
• Muslim Laws
• Indian Constitution
• Arbitration
• Matrimonial-Criminal Law
• Indian Evidence Act
• Live Classes
• Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Article 14 Landmark Judgements

INTRODUCTION

Present in Part III of the Indian Constitution, Articles 14, 19 and 21 form ‘The Golden Triangle’ of the Indian Constitution. All three of these articles are essential to understand the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution of India. This piece talks about the important landmark judgements regarding Article 14 of the Constitution. Basically, Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection before law and states that the state shall not make any laws which are discriminatory or arbitrary towards any person or group of persons. These landmark cases will help in understanding the multi-dimensional nature of the Article and how it has evolved over the years. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #01 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

This was one of the earliest landmark cases dealing with Part 3 of the constitution of India. In this case the Supreme Court interpreted the fundamental rights present in the Indian Constitution under Part III. In this case, the question before the court was weather the Detention Act of Madras was violative of article 14, article 19, and article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held in its judgement that none of the sections of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 are violative of provisions of part 3 of the Indian Constitution apart from section 14 of the act and restrictions of the declaration on the grounds of detention. Section 14 of the preventive detention act was declared unconstitutional, and it was struck down, but this did not affect the validity of the act as a whole. The court also held in this case that the word "Law" used under Article 21 of the Constitution means procedural due process. The court held that Gopalan's detention was lawful even though some of his fundamental rights were violated under section 14, 19, and 21. The Court also observed that same words used in two different provisions cannot be understood in the same light. The court said that the words "procedure established by law" does not amount to "due process". The judgement of the court in this case was however overruled in the year 1977, in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #02 Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs Union of India

The question before the court was that weather the act in question was in contravention with Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner claimed that the enactment rejects equality before law and equal protection of the law and therefore it is against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court in its judgement held that not only individuals but companies can also approach the court under Article 32 of the Constitution as these companies also have protection under fundamental rights. The doctrine of Eminent Domain was applied in this case where the state has the power to take possession of the property and use it for public purpose even without the permission of the owner. Both the conditions were met as the property was used for public good and the payment of compensation was made to the owner. The court also observed that clause 1 of Article 31 is irrelevant in the present case. Answering the question of equal protection before law, the court held that this does not mean that same laws should be made applicable for all the persons within the country in spite of different circumstances and conditions. However, there should be no discrimination between two persons. The court also observed in this case that corporations and other entities also have fundamental rights. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #03 State of Bombay v. FN Balsara

In this case, the validity of provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act was in question. The doctrine of pith and substance was applied in this case. The petitioner pleaded that Bombay Prohibition Act was violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and thus, it must be struck down. Provision under the Bombay Prohibition Act stated that alcohol mixed medicines and cleaning goods (like toilet products) having alcohol contents in it were prohibited from selling and buying. The Honourable High Court agreed with the petitioners’ prayers. The High Court held that some provisions of this Act were valid, and some were invalid. Aggrieved with the decision, the petitioner moved before the Supreme Court filing an appeal against the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court observed that the state legislature is well within its right to prohibit keeping, selling, and using intoxicated wine under list 2 therefore there was no dispute. The court also observed that some provisions were invalid, but the complete Act cannot be struck down on this basis. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #04 State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar

To conduct speedy trials for certain offences, the West Bengal Special Courts Act,1950 was introduced in 1950. In the Act, provisions mentioned in Section 3 empowered the state government to form such Special Courts, and under Section 5 of the same act the special courts were given power to try such offences according to the orders of state government. The constitutionality of Section 5 was challenged in this case on the ground that no clear classification can be made between different offences under this act and the fact that the State government has powers to interfere with the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court struck down the act stating the reason that it gives arbitrary powers to the government to classify offences at its pleasure and violates reasonable classification principle vested under article 14 of the constitution. Furthermore, no clear policy or guideline was mentioned in the act for classification of these offences. There was a necessity of speedy trial, but the provisions mentioned were very vague and uncertain and there was need for reasonable classification of offences. This was one of the initial cases to lay down the basic principles incorporated in article 14 of the constitution.

Brief Case Analysis – State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #05 Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal

In the year 2006, the West Bengal government agreed to let Tata Motors build and operate a car manufacturing unit in the state. As a result, for this project they acquired approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land under the land acquisition act. The livelihood of approximately 25,000 people was affected. After huge protest, compensations were given to some to those people. When a new Act was passed regarding land acquisition, Tata Motors challenged the constitutionality of the new Act before the Supreme Court arguing that it conflicts with the earlier land acquisition act. The Court however rejected Tata Motors plea and stated that the state legislature can change its laws. The court further held that the land that was previously acquired by Tata Motors was not for public purpose and the present government exercised its eminent domain. The Court quashed the acquisition of landowners and declared it illegal and void ordering the Government of Bengal to conduct a survey on what land needed to be returned. The court also ordered that the compensation that has already been paid to the landowners shall not be returned and shall serve as a penalty for the company.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #06 Ramkrishna Dalmia vs Justice S.R. Tendolkar

In this famous case law, the Supreme Court of India describes and defines the jurisprudence of equality before law under Article 14 of Indian Constitution. The very popular "classification test" was given while delivering the judgement in this case. In simple words it means that this principle allows the states to make differential classification of subjects  (which would generally be restricted by the provisions of Article 14) provided that such a classification is made on the basis of intelligible differentia (which in simple words mean that objects within the class are clearly distinguishable from those objects which are outside such class) and there must be a presence of rational nexus with the objective which is sought to be achieved by such classification. The Court held this while determining if the statute is valid or is in violation of Article 14. The Court also held that the onus of proof that any law is violative of the Constitution lies upon one who asserts that. And a general presumption has to be made that any law was passed by the legislature was made in good faith as well as knowledge of existing circumstances. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #07 Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

When it comes to constitutional cases and cases on reservation in India this judgement cannot be neglected as it is one of the most important cases in both the areas. In this case the bench while delivering the judgement interpreted the relationship between Article 14 and Article 16. This case recognised right to equality as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and the Court held that Article 14 applies to all persons and is not restricted only to the citizens of the country. It was held that Article 16 (1) is an aspect of Article 14. Just like Article 14, Article 16 also provides reasonable classification, and such classification may involve reservation of seat or vacancies. The fundamental principle of both these articles is equality and equality of opportunity. The under-question clause 4 of Article 16 is only a means to achieve the same goal of equality. Both the provisions need to be harmonized and equality shall not be neglected. 

Continuation of Reservation.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #08 EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu

This was one of the earliest cases which provided a test for Article 14. The test which was introduced in this case was referred to as the "new doctrine" or "the arbitrariness test" and was pronounced in the judgement by Justice Bhagwati. The court in its judgement held that there was absence of any ground for a conclusion to be reached that the government had bad faith or improper motive against the petitioner. The test which was introduced states that the equality guaranteed under article 14 includes a guarantee against arbitrariness against any state action. This test was later entertained by various courts including the supreme court despite its vague ideas on the time of formulation. And the principle laid down in this judgement have helped in guiding a number of cases against state actions as a proper test was now in place to test whether the state action is violative of fundamental right of equality which is guaranteed under article 14 of the Indian Constitution or not.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #09 Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain

In this case, the constitutional validity of the 39th amendment of Constitution, 1975 was challenged. The claims were made that this amendment was violative of Article 14 of the constitution as it did not pass the 'classification test' and also destroys the basic structure of the constitution. It was the first landmark judgement in which the principles laid down in the case of Kesavananda Bharti case were applied. The court found Clause 4 of Article 329A to be unconstitutional. The court further added that this clause damages the democratic feature of the constitution and violates the basic features of the constitution.  The bench found this amendment to be violative of the principle of Separation of Power as it deliberately transferred a completely judicial function into the hands of legislature. Also, this amendment is also violative of Article 14 as it presents an unequal position for several persons against others. Therefore, on these grounds, the court struck down the 39th amendment of 1975 finding it unconstitutional and violative of Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #10 Maganlal Chagganlal Pvt Ltd vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay

This case was much needed when it comes to Article 14 of the Constitution because while delivering the judgement in this case the court provided the much-needed clarification to the "reasonable classification test" which helped in a better understanding of the test. In this case the court may declare distinction between the statutes which make a classification themselves and those statutes which make a classification which is authorised to the executive. In the case where the classification is made by the statute itself the statute will be held invalid if it fails to meet the reasonable classification test. The other case where the classification is made by executive given authority if guidelines are provided in such statute (be it either express or implied) to the executive to make such classification and if the executive fails the test of reasonable classification, then action will be invalid and not the complete statute itself. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #11 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

This is one of the most important judgements when it comes to cases related to Constitution. In this case a seven-judge bench discussed the question on violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and stated that all these articles have to be read together to be understood and hold a very special place in the Constitution of India. And if any law interferes with the personal liberty of an individual, it must satisfy the following three points - (a) there must be a prescribed procedure, (b) the prescribed procedure shall withstand the test of one or more rights guaranteed under Article 19 in a given situation and (c) it must also be tested with Article 14. And the law in question interfering with personal liberty of an individual must also be just and fair and it shall not be discriminatory or arbitrary. 

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (Detailed analysis)

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #12 In Re: The Special Courts Bill vs Unknown

The Supreme Court in this case had warned the legislation against over emphasising on the process of classification under equality. The court also observed that the doctrine of classification is a secondary or ancillary rule which has been used by the various courts to facilitate the doctrine of equality. And if there is an undue emphasis upon the doctrine of classification, it would without any doubt result in in the doctrine of equality under Article 14 to erode. And this over in fishes will result in substitution of the doctrine of equality by doctrine of classification. The court held that this was a serious inroad on the independence of the judiciary and should be fraught with serious consequences. It was therefore necessary to be put down otherwise it would have given rise to a prospect to gruesome to investigate and too dangerous to be allowed to have the sanction of law. Ultimately the court held that clause 5 and 7 of the bill are constitutionally invalid and hence, struck down. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #13 Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab

In this landmark case the Supreme Court explained the new dimensions of equality under Article 14. Justice Bhagwati held that the rule of law pervades the complete fabric of the Indian Constitution and Article 14 helps in excluding arbitrariness of any shape or form. The Court also held in this case that whenever there is any arbitrariness there is also a denial of rule of law. The Court also held that rule of law and equality before law is one of the strongest provisions of a democratic country. In the judgement the Court also held that every action by the state shall be free from arbitrariness otherwise if the court finds it arbitrary it will strike the act as unconstitutional. The Court also held that this is the new scope of Article 14 and it is far greater than just being equated with the principles of reasonable classification. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #14 Air India vs Nargesh Meerza

This case was brought forward when Air India rules were regulated and it was made mandatory that a female attendant need to retire under these circumstances - (a) upon completion of 35 years of age, (b) upon getting married, or (c) upon their first pregnancy. It should also be noted that before these amendments the retirement age for male attendants was 58 and the retirement age of female attendants was 50. When petition was brought before the Supreme Court regarding these rules the Supreme Court observed that the same rules were not applicable to male attendants. As a result, the Supreme Court struck down the rules stating that these requirements are clear examples of official arbitrariness and hostile discrimination and it is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #15 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib

In this case, the petitioner applied for admission in a college for the course of B.E. in response to an admission notice issued by the college. There was a hundred mark written test as well as an interview of 50 marks. As the petitioner was denied admission a contested before the court that this was violative of Article 14 on the grounds that the admission process was arbitrary as marks obtained by the candidates were ignored. He also claimed that relying on a viva interview and allocating 50 marks for it was arbitrary in nature as it only took place for 2-3 minutes. The Court held that, the test for determining if an institution or authority falls within the definition of state under the ambit of Article 12 is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the government. And the fact that weather the corporation is created by a statue is immaterial. This test is also applicable for companies and societies. The court also relied upon the test laid down in the case of RD Shetty. The court held that the society of the college is registered under Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act. Hence, it does fall within the meaning of Article 12. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #16 D.S. Nakara vs Union of India

In this case, a rule of Central Services Rule was challenged, under which a classification was being made between the pensioners who retired before a given date and the pensioners who retired after such date. The court held that such classification was arbitrary and was violative under Article 14. This classification is a clear violation of right to equality of the individuals who come under the ambit of this Act. As a result, the Supreme Court in this case struck down rule 34 of the Central Services Rules declaring it violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and thus unconstitutional. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #17 Deena vs Union of India

The petitioners who had been sentenced to death for the offence of murder were awaiting execution of the sentence. Their plea was that hanging by rope is a cruel and barbarous method of executing of the sentence and Section 354(5) Cr. P.C. which prescribes that method, is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The respondent contended that a sentence lawfully imposed by a court can and has to be fulfilled, though by causing the least pain and suffering and by avoiding torture or degradation of any kind; that the method prescribed by Section 354(5), Cr. P.C. for executing the death sentence is a humane and dignified method involving the least amount of pain and cruelty; that no other method of executing the death sentence is quicker or less painful; and that Article 14 or 21 does not postulate that no pain or suffering whatsoever shall be caused in the execution of a sentence lawfully imposed by a court, including the sentence of death.

In India, the mode of execution of death sentence is hanging. Section 354 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code provides that when any prisoner is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. Hanging is still the most common method of executing convicts. The issue regarding the constitutionality of the Section 354 first came up before the Supreme Court in this case. Though the Court asserted that it was a judicial function to investigate into the reasonableness of a mode of punishment, it refused to hold the mode of hanging as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 

The court held that Section 354(5) of the I.P.C., which prescribed hanging as a mode of fair execution which is just and reasonable procedure within the meaning of Articles 14 and 21 and hence is constitutional. Although, death by shooting is contemplated under the Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. They provide for the discretion of the Court Martial to either provide for the execution of the death sentence by hanging or by being shot to death.

More information is available here .

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #18 Indian Express Newspapers v. UOI

The petitioners in this case challenged the import duty levied on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981, as modified by orders and notifications under the Customs Act 1962 with effect from March of 1981. Prior to this order, newsprint had enjoyed exemption from customs duty.

The petitioners contended that the imposition of these duties and taxes had a negative effect on costs and circulation and, therefore, had a crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. They also submitted that the classification of newspapers into small, medium, and large newspapers violated the principle of non-arbitrariness guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The bench observed that the newspaper industry had not been granted exemption from taxation in express terms and that the presence of entry 92 of List I of the Schedule Seven of the Constitution of India empowered the Parliament to levy taxes on the sale and purchase of the newspapers.

The court also referred to the amendment of the Constitution of USA and observed that while the freedom of press in that country was almost absolute, still the American courts recognized the power of the government to levy taxes on the newspaper establishments.

The Court also noted that as long as the tax is within reasonable limits and does not contravene the limitations of Article 19(2), it is constitutional, instead of quashing the impugned legislation, the Court directed the Government to carefully reconsider within six months the entire process of the levy of import duty or auxiliary duty payable by the petitioners.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #19 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India

This case was brought forward after the horrendous incident of Bhopal Gas leak disaster of 1984. There was a massive leakage of the methyl isocyanate gas from the company gas plant which led to death of nearly 3000 inhabitants of the city and many more were severely injured. The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was passed by the Government of India as a result of this disaster. Through this Act, the government wanted the legal claims arising out of the Bhopal Gas leak case to be dealt speedily, effectively, and equitably. Charan Lal Sahu, who was a practicing advocate in Bhopal High Court, questioned the constitutional validity of this act. The petitioner claimed that the Act in question is violative under Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was constitutionally valid. The court also held the view that till the proceedings and adjudication process continues and until the claims are obtained or realised from the delinquents, that is, Union Carbide Company or Union Carbide India Limited; the interim compensation to the victims is to be paid by the Central Government. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #20 Mohini Jain v state of Karnataka

In this case the petitioner challenge notification issued by the Karnataka Government that permitted private medical colleges to charge higher fees from students who were not allocated government seats on the name of ‘capitation fee’ as it was violative of Equality guaranteed under article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that even if the Right to Education was not explicitly guaranteed under the constitution as a fundamental right, it is essential to the fulfilment of the fundamental right to life and human dignity under article 21 of the constitution. The supreme court held that the charging of this capitation fee by private education institutions violated the right to education as inferred from right to life and human dignity and the right to equal protection of law under article 21 and 14 of the constitution, respectively. The right to life under article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state government is under an obligation to make endeavours to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizen. Capitation fee is nothing but a price for selling of education the concept of 'teaching shops' is contrary to the constitutional scheme of this country and is wholly abhorrent of the Indian culture and heritage. Such a provision is a clear violation of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution. 

Click here to read more about the same.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #21 Srinivasa Theatre vs Government of Tamil Nadu

The two concepts of "equality before law" and "equal protection of law" have a different meaning this was first observed by the Supreme Court in this case. In this judgement the court held that the expression equality before law means that the state has an obligatory duty to restrain from preforming any act which is discriminatory in nature. Both these expressions however make the provisions of equal treatment binding on the state. The supreme court explained in this case that both these expressions might appear to be same, but they have very different meanings. The term equality before law is a very dynamic concept with various aspects within itself. One such aspect present in the provision of equality before law is that there should be an absence of any privilege for a person against law or a person being above the law. The court also observed that the term equal protection of law was introduced in the 14th amendment of the Constitution of United States of America and it states that there should not be any privileges or favouritism towards any person or any group of persons. 

More information about the concept is available here.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #22 Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries  

In this case, the doctrine of legitimate expectations was clearly explained by the Supreme Court. The court held in this case that the duty to act fairly on part of public authorities and entitles every citizen or person must have legitimate expectations to be treated in fair and just manner and such an expectation must be given due importance and such expectations of fair treatment should be satisfied. The requirements of such fair treatment and non-arbitrariness in state action or otherwise if not satisfied would amount to abuse of power. Further, the court also made a significant point stating that such reasonable/legitimate expectations may not be expressly or directly enforceable legal right but failure in taking into amount may deem a decision arbitrary in nature. The fact that the expectations are legitimate or not must be decided on a case-to-case basis. 

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #23 Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan

This is a case which deals with the unfortunate sexual harassment of women at workplace. This case was brought forward when Banvari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan tried to stop a child marriage in the state but in her attempt while doing so she was gangraped in front of her husband. Later when she reported the case she was treated very poorly by the medical officials and the police officers. When the accused was released from the jail, a PIL was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while delivering its judgement held that Sexual Harassment violates the fundamental rights of a woman of gender equality which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is also violative of article 21 (Right to have a dignified life). The Supreme Court observed that even though there are no express provisions provided in the constitution for protection against sexual harassment, but it is protected in various fundamental rights. The court also held that a safe working environment especially for women should be a prerequisite for any work or job. 

Vishakha Guidelines .

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #24 National Legal Service Authority vs Union of India

In the year 2012, the National Legal Services Authority, which is an Indian statutory body set up to give legal representation to marginalised sectors of the society, filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court. The petition prayed for a legal declaration of their gender identity other than the one which is assigned at the birth. The petitioners name that such non recognition of their gender identity is violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners wanted recognition for people falling outside the male-female gender binary and including persons who identify as "third gender". While noting the fact that such transgender people are subjected to extreme discrimination in all the spheres of society. The court in its judgement held that right to equality which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution was framed in gender neutral terms (i.e., all persons). As a result, the right to equality would extend to transgender persons also. 

Third Gender and their Basic Rights

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #25 Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala

This case was brought forward when a petition was filed against the custom of restricting women in their menstruation years from entering in the Sabarimala temple. With a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that the temple's restriction upon women between the ages of 10 to 50 from entering the temple is violative of the fundamental rights of women guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court further struck down the rule and held that Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules was unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra presenting a dissenting opinion said that in a secular country, courts shall not interfere with the affairs of temples and such matters should be left to those practicing the religion. More than 50 review petitions were filed in response to the judgment of the Supreme Court, a few are still pending before the court for the final review.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #26 Shayara Bano vs Union of India

In this landmark case a five-judge bench (with 3:2 majority) announced its decision in the triple talaq case, finally clarifying that such a practice was unconstitutional. This decision was delivered on 22nd August 2017. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court observed that the fundamental right to equality was guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution also demands an equality of status. Values which are incorporated under Article 14 include gender equality and gender justice as well. The enforcing of such traditions of social status based on rigid patriarchal values or which are based on mercy of men is absolutely incompatible with the spirit of Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The majority bench also held that triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) is upfront unconstitutional and arbitrary as it provides the husband to irrefutably divorce his wife by saying the word talaq 3 times in succession. It was also held that triple talaq was also against the religious text of Quran. 

Triple Talaq.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #27 Harsh Mander vs Union of India

On 8th August 2018, the Supreme Court deliver this judgement. In this case, the court address the petition which was filed seeking basic Human Rights for beggars, the bench comprising of Justices Gita Mittal and Hari Shankar held that some provisions of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 are unconstitutional as it criminalises begging. The bench while delivering the judgement also stated that the state government is well withing their rights to bring in an alternate legislation in order to shut down the multiple rackets of ‘forced begging’ in the state. The court also clarified that the complete act does not need to be struck down because it does not directly or indirectly criminalize begging only certain provisions will be scraped off. Ultimately, various of the provisions of the act were decriminalized as they violated Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and around 25 such Sections were struck down. The court further held that begging is not any disease, and such a thinking has led to stigmatization towards it and ultimately criminalization in the society. It was also held that criminalising begging is a direct attack on the fundamental rights of the poorest people in the country and it is violative of their basic necessities like food and shelter. 

Decriminalizing Begging.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #28 Joseph Shine vs Union of India

In this case, the question before the Court was whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises adultery is sexist in nature. The five-judge bench with full majority struck down the section of the IPC and decriminalized adultery. The section was struck down on the ground that it was violative of Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that Section 497 of the IPC is archaic and paternalistic law which infringes a woman's autonomy and dignity in a very cruel way. In this case the bench overruled the judgements which were delivered in the cases of Sowmithri Vishnu and Y Abdul Aziz in which the constitutionality of Section 497 was earlier proven valid by the court. 

The Concept of Adultery.

Article 14 Landmark Judgement no #29 Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India

In this case a petition was filed by Navtej Singh Johar, who was a dancer by profession challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code on the grounds that it was violative of constitutional Right to Privacy (Article 21), Freedom of Expression (Article 19), Equality (Article 14), Human dignity, etc. While delivering the judgement, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court with full majority, struck down Section 377 of the IPC but only to an extent that same-sex relationships between two consenting adults were now decriminalized. And from now on in the country LGBT individuals are legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. The provisions of the section which was struck down were held violative of article 14 as it was against equality for the same sex couples. Justice Malhotra while delivering the judgement stated that homosexuality is not an abbreviation, but merely a variation of sexuality (page no. 445). Justice Chandrachud held that the law cannot discriminate against same-sex relationships, but it must take positive steps to achieve an equal protection and to grant the community and all individuals are subject to equal treatment before law, protected under article 14 of the constitution (para. 7 on page no. 270).

Section 377 of IPC. 

After understanding all these landmark cases of Article 14 it can be understood how the article has evolved over the years and what comes under its ambit. Various courts of the country have helped in deciding the true meaning of the article and the protection it gives to the citizens of the country. Equality before law is one of the most basic fundamental rights present in any democratic country. The scope of this article has been changing over the years and becoming broader and broader in nature and it is fair to expect that the scope of Article 14 will continue to expand in the future as well. 

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

28144 Views

Category Others , Other Articles by - Ishaan  

Recent Articles

• Is It Time to Find A Child Support Lawyer?
• Dissolution Of Marriage Under Muslim Law
• Electronic Voting Machines In India: Evolution, Advantages And Controversies
• Transfer Of Property Mcqs � Pyq Series: Judiciary Special
• �five-year Duration For Ll.b. Course Unreasonable�- Plea In Supreme Court For Three-year Law Degree Course After 12th Standard
• Kerala HC Lays Down Guidelines For DNA Test Of Children Born To Rape Victims And Given In Adoption
• Although Adultery Is Ground For Divorce, It Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay HC
• SC Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Wife's Father For Filing False Cases At Different Places To Harass Husband
• Important Constitution MCQs - PYQ Series: Judiciary Special
• Gratification Of Electors During Elections Demolishes Basic Structure Of Constitution And Democracy: Madras HC

More »

Popular Articles

• Brief Note On The Registration Act (act No.16 Of 1908)
• A Comprehensive Analysis Of S.53 A: Unravelling The Basic Procedure For Examination Of Rape Accused, Evidentiary Value, And Constitutional Validity
• Constitution Mcqs - Pyq Series: Judiciary Special
• Compilation Of Pivotal Judgements Concerning Article 12 Of The Indian Constitution

LCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to email

Browse by Category

• Business Law
• Constitutional Law
• Labour & Service Law
• Legal Documents
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Property Law

• Top Members
• Share Files
• LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,48,251 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

• We are Hiring
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Before the period of independence, we faced gross discrimination based on our caste, colour sex, etc. The forefathers of our Constitution also suffered this agony in their life. So, to remove this taboo from our society, the drafters of our Constitution made provision of equality in our supreme constitutional document. This principle of equality is enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution and it ensures that there shall be no discrimination among the people and arbitrariness is removed in the state action.

This article will explore the Concept of Equality before the law, equal protection of law and rule of law. Further, we will also explore the exception of the right to equality along with the doctrine of reasonable classification and the doctrine of non-arbitrariness.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 of the Indian constitution is the touchstone of the right to equality in our society. It states that every person is equal in the eyes of law and there shall be no discrimination. Further, it also provides for the concept of equality of opportunities and special treatment for the backward section of the society.

Ingredients of Article 14

There are mainly three Ingredients of Article 14 which are as follows –

Equality before Law

This concept is derived from the constitution of England. As per this doctrine, every person is equal in the eyes of the law ranging from a president to a peon. In other words, It states that every person in our society should be treated equally and the same punishment shall be granted for the same offense to every person in the society. There shall be no discrimination on the ground of their wealth, caste, colour, race, etc. The state can’t give a special purpose to any person. It is also known as legal equality. This is a negative concept as it provides for the deprivation of any special privilege or honour to a particular person in society.

Equal Protection of the Law

This concept is derived from the constitution of the United States of America (USA).  As per this doctrine, the state is obliged to provide equality of opportunities to its citizens. The spirit of this principle states that the “equals should be treated equally”. In other words, this provision states that there is no comparison between equal and unequal thus the state should adopt the mechanism of positive discrimination. The term positive discrimination means some socio-economic steps aimed to improve the condition of a particular section of society. For example – Reservation for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe is also an example of positive discrimination.

In Stephens College v. The University of Delhi case, the admission quota involved a specific percentage of reservations for Christian students. It was challenged on the ground of equality but our Hon’ble Supreme court held that this treatment doesn’t violate the principle of equality and minority institutions that receive aid from the state can reserve some seats for their particular community.

Rule of Law

In our Constitution, the rule of law is enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution. The term rule of law is derived from the French phrase ‘La Principe de Legalite ’ which means the governance of a state on the principle of equality and justice. The rule of law is the fundamental principle of a democratic setup and it is totally against the policy of arbitrariness. The concept states that democracy shall function as per the law and not by the arbitrary actions of men.

This concept of “rule of law” is derived from Magna Carta and was given by Professor Dicey. This concept has 3 elements namely –

• The supremacy of law – As per Professor Dicey, this concept of “Rule of Law” stands for absolute supremacy of law. Every person ranging from a common man to a government minister needs to abide by the holy Constitution. Further, no person shall be prosecuted except in situations where the breach of law occurs and this offence is proved in a court of law.
• Equality before law – As discussed earlier, this means that the law is equal for everyone no one shall be accorded special treatment on account of his wealth, caste, sex, race, etc. The law shall treat everyone equally.
• The dominance of Legal Spirit – The term legal spirit denotes the spirit of justice. It states that the law shall always follow the principle of justice and no one shall be deprived of his life and liberty except due process. The right of an individual shall be given due importance.

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that that “rule of law” enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution is a part of the basic structure of the constitution . It cannot be curtailed or destroyed even by an amendment to the constitution.

The doctrine of legitimate Expectation

As the name suggests, this doctrine talks about the expectations of the individual from their lawmakers. This doctrine put a moral obligation on the part of a state to make laws that impart equality to all sections of society. It is not a legal right and it gives the right of judicial review of the action of administrative authorities to protect the rights of citizens. However, It is important to note that the expectations of citizens must be reasonable and rational.

The exception to Right to Equality

It is pertinent to note that the right to equality is not absolute in nature and several exceptions are provided for it. In the case of the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar , the hon’ble supreme court held that the right to equality is not absolute and it includes some meaningful exceptions.

In the Special Courts Bill case, the validity of the establishment of special court was challenged before the hon’ble supreme court on the ground of violating Article 14 of the constitution. The court held that there was reasonability and rationality behind the motive of the establishment of these courts, thereby it is not in violation of Article 14 of our Constitution.

Other Exceptions of Article 14

• Article 361 of our Constitution confers a special privilege that during the tenure of the President and the Governor of the State of his office, there shall be no criminal proceedings against them in any court of law.
• Foreign diplomats are also immune from the jurisdiction of our court
• The judges and the police officers also enjoy the protection for the act being done as per their scope of authority and power. However, if any act exceeds their domain of power, they can be held liable for the same. For example – In extrajudicial killing, the police officer concerned may be held personally liable.
• Special groups like some Trade Union and other organizations also enjoy privileges or immunity against proceedings in certain matters.
• Some certain classes of people also enjoy freedom against persecution. These include our doctors and armed forces etc

Test of Reasonable Classification

As we already discussed, the right to equality is not absolute and some special treatment may be provided to an individual as per the circumstances. Thus, the doctrine of reasonable classification was derived by our hon’ble Supreme Court. This doctrine permits the reasonable classification of individuals, things, etc for achieving a particular objective in society. However, it is important to note that this doctrine also forbids “class legislation”.

Class Legislation refers to making improper discrimination and conferring special privileges to a certain class of person which is arbitrarily selected. In other words, the people who are at the receiving end are equal in status with other people and there is no special need for that provision. So, we can say that class legislation makes unreasonable discrimination between various classes which all are on equal footing.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India laid down the test that determines whether the special treatment is based on reasonable classification or not. The classification will be considered reasonable if 2 conditions are satisfied which are described below –

• The classification must be based on reasonable differentia. It means that the people who are selected must be different in status or position from those who are left out. In simple words, the statute or the Act must demonstrate that there are some special or considerable grounds of difference between both groups.
• There must be sufficient nexus between the differential classification and the object sought with the act. In simple words, it is essential to demonstrate that the classification is necessary for achieving a particular objective.

For example – The government wants to curtail the rate of poverty in our country. With this objective, it designated a certain class of people as “below the poverty line” based on their economic condition. This is an example of reasonable classification as there is a reasonable classification based on their economic condition and this classification is necessary for achieving the objective of reducing poverty in our society.

In the absence of reasonable classification or a situation when there is no nexus between the object and the impugned Act, it will be declared unconstitutional and discriminatory.

In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar , the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately explained the various facets of this doctrine of reasonable classification. These are as follows –

• An individual can constitute a class and it will be deemed as a reasonable classification if that particular individual is conferred certain privileges on account of reasonable conditions or circumstances.
•  It will be presumed that the Act of the state is constitutionally valid and the burden of proof will lie on the person who challenges its validity on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination.
• This presumption will be reversed if it is prima facie evidence that the object of the statute doesn’t aim for special treatment of a particular set of an individual and yet the classification is incurred among individuals or classes.
• It will be presumed that the classification is reasonable as the state considers the needs of their citizens and some special treatment is needed for improving their condition.
• While assuming constitutionality, the court will take into consideration the intent of the legislation while enacting the Act. Further, other factors like a matter of reports, basic knowledge and historical backdrop shall also be duly recognised.
• The classification can be based on numerous grounds including geographical, economic and social factors etc.
• The discrimination or the classification incurred in the doctrine applies to both the substantive and the procedural law. If the aforesaid 2 tests are satisfied, then the impugned Act will be declared constitutional.
• The classification should not be scientifically perfect or mathematically proved. The essential element of classification is reasonability and rationality which is a very subjective phenomenon and it is determined by case to case basis.

Doctrine of Non-arbitrariness

It is well-settled law that equality is totally against the arbitrariness action. In the case of E.P Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu , t he doctrine of reasonable classification was challenged before the hon’ble supreme court. In this case, a new doctrine or a new facet of the right to equality was evolved. This was known as the doctrine of Non-arbitrariness. The court held that equality is a very dynamic concept and cannot be confined to the existing limit.

As per this doctrine, equality is the antithesis to arbitrariness. So, any form of arbitrariness in political, social or administrative action will make the entire Act unconstitutional as it will violate the principle of equality. In the landmark case of Meneka Gandhi vs Union of India , It was held that Article 14 struck down arbitrary actions. The doctrine ensures fairness, responsibility and equality of treatment. This concept of reasonability and non-arbitrariness is the golden thread that binds all the fabric of the constitution. Thus, there shall be reasonability and rationality in every Act of the legislature or the Act of administrative authorities.

The right to equality is an integral element of our Constitution and it is the most commonly used mechanism to assess the legality of the act of the legislature or the executive body. Article 14 encompasses the concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The former state that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and the latter states that the like should be treated alike and allowed positive discrimination for the benefit of society.

Salient Features of the Indian Constitution

However, the right to equality is not absolute and certain exceptions are there. The state can make a reasonable classification among the individuals. However, while doing so, it needs to ensure that the classification must be reasonable and it has sufficient nexus with the object sought. Article 14 also struck against the arbitrary act of the state and made them constitutional. Thus, in a nutshell, we can say that Article 14 is one of the most important elements that is enshrined in Part III of the constitution.

You can follow us on  Instagram   and  Linkedin  to get notifications of new articles published by Legal Study Material.

Mayank Bansal

Related articles.

SEBI new regulations on Buyback of Shares

Understanding the Differences Between Mediation and Other Resolution Options in Divorce

What is Plea Bargaining in India?

What is bail & types of bails in India

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Don't have an account?

How Article 14 Of Indian Constitution Is Helpful In Maintaining Equality In Gender Justice

Introduction.

Equality expresses the symmetry of equal opportunities between various people, objects, processes and situations. Since the concept of equality has a close connection with morality and justice it bounds every individual equivalent fortuity irrespective of their background.

The dynamics of equality have evolved throughout history, society is no longer allied with powerful upperclassmen men but instead, it admits those who are from different positions and aspects. However, there is an ongoing struggle to attain equality by several groups and categories of society. One such category is gender equality ; Kofi Annan has rightly voiced out his opinion on gender equality by stating that “gender equ [1] ality is more than a goal itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance”.

Indian Constitution from the time of its independence has ensured equal justice to all citizens of the country be it by providing voting rights irrespective of their gender or be it providing equality to everyone irrespective of their race, caste or gender

Understanding Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 14 specifically states that:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India” [2]

The concept of equality has been taken from the “equal protection clause” of the American Constitution. Article 14 precludes discrimination on a basic level. According to Article 14, the State cannot refuse equality to any person and it can neither decline the protection of individual laws within the territorial boundary of India.

Article 14 can be divided into two parts:

Equality before Law:

This concept of equality before law is a negative concept as it certifies that every individual is equal in front of the Constitution of the land and nobody is above the law despite their rank or position, this validates the influence of Rule of Law given by Sir A.V Dicey.

However, Article 14 is not an absolute right and pertains to certain exceptions under Article 105, 194, Article 361 and Article 364.

Equal protection of Law:

Unlike the former concept, equal protection of the law is a positive concept, it appoints the mandatory advances on behalf of the State to guarantee equal treatment of all citizens without any distinction and that the law of the land should be fairly regulated irrespective of a person’s race, caste, gender, place of birth etc.

In the case of Stephen’s College vs. The University of Delhi [3] , the main issue of giving preference to Christian students during admissions was raised. The Supreme Court held that the different treatment of candidates in the admission process does not violate Article 14 as the institution entertains financial aid from the State to allot reserved seats for students of a specific community or background.

Thus the purpose of Article 14 is to provide equality to all citizens irrespective of their matrix and to subdue any arbitration that may exist.

Decoding Gender Equality and Justice

Gender equality can be simplified by explaining it as equality is not only social, economical and political aspects of life but also in rights, opportunities and lifestyle choices. Gender equality and justice does not necessarily mean equal treatment of all genders but it means to value the needs and goals of all genders equally.

Gender inequality affects everyone– men, women, transgender and non-binary people as it ignores the requirements of every other gender and prioritizes only one (or few). It has been witnessed throughout history how the male population has been given the advantage and authority of power which lead to their domination over other genders. Gender equality and justice strive to overcome these barriers and furnish justice to every individual.

Equality between all genders can be achieved through education and through a neutral population in the workplace, it is also important to increase the awareness of people on the importance of gender equality and promote gender equality.

Gender Equality and Justice in India

The basic proposition of gender equality has been embodied in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights , as well as the Fundamental Duties . The right to equality has been mentioned in the Indian Constitution from Article 14 to 18, these articles brief on how every individual is equal in front of the law and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of their race, caste, gender or place of birth.

It is important to understand that women in India have been oppressed and neglected by the male dominant society for a long time. The sense of morality and jurisdiction in India has evolved from one end to the other, practices like Sati and child marriage have been abolished, women have the right to vote and express their opinions, there are laws that ensure that women get reservations in education and employment sectors and laws related to gender basic needs of women such as maternity leave is also implied. Yet, women are still facing trouble in achieving the social, political and economic equalities the Constitution claims to provide them.

In the landmark case of Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan [4] , Bhanwari Devi was raped by five men after she attempted to stop child marriage in rural Rajasthan. This lead to the filing of a petition by an organization called ‘Vishaka’ asking for guidelines on sexual abuse at the workplace . The esteemed court interpreted Article 14, 19 and 21 and then laid down Vishaka guidelines for a safer workplace environment. Irrespective of the various laws and acts pulled into the action, a survey done by Research Department in 2018 revealed that India is there are over 338 thousand [5] cases reported in India against harassment.

Another historic decision made by the court was when it announced that all Hindu women have the right to inherit property even after their marriage. This ruling was another green flag towards gender equality since it gave a hold of power and stability to Indian women. When a Christian Syrian woman was not allowed to inherit a property in Kerala due to the age-old patriarchal rules, Mary Roy filed a case against her elder brother after the death of her father. Despite the rejection of the plea in the lower court, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in favour of the plaintiff and got an equal share in her father’s property. The case Mary Roy vs State of Kerala [ 6] channeled that every individual has equal protection of law and it pertains that women have the right to hold a share in the property.

The case of Air India vs Nargesh Meerza [7] phrased Article 14 and laid down that a person’s gender cannot hinge their employment, the Air India service only permitted women to work up till the age of 35 years and if they got married or conceived a child, they were fired. This condition was disparaging and authoritative for a woman and therefore they were struck down by the court for being arbitrary.

Observing these are some acclaimed examples in the Indian Judicial history that demarcate the importance of Article 14 for the female population; it is to be noted that India still fights with female inequality and injustice. The condition of women in the country is far from ideal and although Article 14 is a powerful part of the Constitution, it will add more potential to itself when it will reduce the gap between the inequality and injustices done on women.

Apart from females, the “third gender” that is the transgender population has also faced discrimination. Transgenders were not recognized in Indian society; they were deprived of basic rights such as medication and health care facilities. Despite the stereotypical image of transgenders that abided in the Indian society, denying them of their basic rights was unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states to provide equality and justice to every individual, similarly, the court has given Constitutional rights to transgenders too.

In 2019 the Government passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,2019 after the revision of its earlier versions as launched in 2016 and 2018 bill. Under article 14, 15,16 and 21 the court has granted them equal rights, the Supreme Court has underlined the importance of dignity and recognition that the third gender deserves in India. In the case of National Legal Service Authority vs Union of India [8] the court interpreted Article 14 and declared that the respective Article ensures equality and equal protection of law to ‘any persons’, with the following words the leverage of including transgenders was taken. Furthermore, Article 15, 16, 19 (1) (A) and Article 21 were also interpreted and the transgender community got recognized under the “third gender” and the apex court ordered to initiate normalize the trans community.

Regardless of the new bill and various actions are taken in favour of the trans community, there is still a need for a plan of action where transgenders are endured not only because of the legal implementation but because of social acceptance as well.

As a growing nation, the Indian Constitution has always exhibited its stand and belief inequality. The law of the country delivers justice and protection to all citizens of the country, despite its continuous attempt to administer equality to all individuals, India actively demands a strong policy to manage equality to not only men and women who come from different background but also to the non-binary genders as they are an equal part of the country.

[1] https://www.africa.undp.org/content/rba/en/home/blog/2018/gender-equality-is-so-much-more-than-a-goal-.html

[2]   https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/constitution-india-full-text

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1545248/

[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/

[5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/633412/reported-cases-women-harassmen-india/

[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1143189/

[7] https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=meerza&pagenum=21

[8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193543132/

This Article is written by Amna Ali, B.A. L.L.B Student at Amity Law School / Amity University, Noida.

Share This Post

Related posts.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Article-14 of Indian constitution(a analysis)-Eshan pandit BA(hons) LLB(hons)(4th semester

Related Papers

Tarun Khaitan

Discusses the Indian Supreme Court's jurisprudence on unconstitutionality challenges against statutes for violation of the right to equality

CNLU Law Journal

Harshad Pathak

Kartikey Chauhan

Daisy Changmai

Kalpana Kannabiran

Cheng Nishang

Brett Pollack

In the Letter from the editors: Brett Pollack gives a descriptive and prescriptive picture of the Constitutional equality framework in which he critics the current case law and submits a proposition regarding what it is that the Constitution actually requires. He analyses and criticises the Harksen Test. He submits there is a paradox both the vindication of the equal treatment provision and the violation of the prohibition against unfair discrimination. (http://blogs.sun.ac.za/responsa/files/2013/06/Letter-from-the-editors-2010.pdf)

Gautam Bhatia

In early 2014, it was widely reported that the Indian government had proposed the setting up of an “Equal Opportunities Commission”, [“EOC”] in response to the report of the Sachar Committee. The task of the EOC, like its counterparts in the United States and European countries , would be to check discrimination against minority communities in employment, education, accommodation and so on. After the 2014 election, little has been heard about the EOC, and it would perhaps be safe to assume that it has been shelved for the foreseeable future. In this paper, I will address the core issue that necessitates the existence of an EOC. This is the problem of horizontal discrimination, i.e., discrimination suffered by private entities at the hands of other private entities (individuals or corporations), on the basis of constitutionally proscribed markers: sex, race, caste, religion, place of birth etc. I will argue that in contrast to countries like the United States, where horizontal discrimination had to be tackled by federal government legislation (such as the Civil Rights Act ), the Indian Constitution contains the tools to address horizontal discrimination within its fundamental rights chapter - specifically, under Article 15(2) of the Constitution.

Contributions to Indian Sociology

Upendra Baxi

RELATED PAPERS

Flipe Ramirez

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Leonard Mboera

Lacramioara Moise

FARUK MUSYAFFA

Postscriptum Polonistyczne, 2016 • 2 (18)

Postscriptum Polonistyczne

Journal of Neuroinflammation

Yoram Finkelstein

Andrei V . Zinoviev

The European Physical Journal A

Keval Gandhi

Prof Ashish Verma

Science Bulletin

Rustam Orozbaev

BMC Women's Health

AREGAHEGN WUDNEH

2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Conference Quo Vadis …

Leonie Newnham

Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Mehdi Azami

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

luisa marquez

Marc Piechaczyk

American Journal of Transplantation

E. Stockfleth

Vishal Shah

Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry

K. Hekmatyar

Imran ul Islam

Akbar Satrio

10th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society & EXPOGEF 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 19-23 November 2007

Hedison Sato

Water Research

LOUNICI Hakim

Wound Repair and Regeneration

Francesco Sartorio

Physical Review B

Ivan Schuller

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Right to equality and equal protection of laws - Article 14 to 18

Article 14 to 18 is defined equality of our country's citizens and race, caste, sex, religion, place of birth. Our Indian Constitution is liberal. And each and everything persons has equal right to speech, work, live & any other and equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the state. The right is available to citizens only. In Indian Constitution Untouchability is abolished and it's practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of disabilities arising out of Untouchability Shall be an offences punishable in accordance with law. Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Now the discussion of the Article can conveniently be divided in four parts:

• Nature of the guarantee.
• To whom the guarantee is available?
• against whom the guarantee is enforceable/
• What is the ambit of protection?

Article 15 says that the state shall not any discriminate against any citizen on ground only of religio, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. According to Oxford dictionary, the word 'discrimination' used in Article 15 means to distinguish unfavorably and preference are twin and inseparable. There cannot be discrimination in favour of someone else. The validity of an act under Article 15 is not to be judged on the basis of the motive behind or object of the act but by method of its operation and effect on fundamental right. If the effect of the operation of an act is to discriminate again citizens on any ground mentioned in the article the act is unconstitutional. Article 16 guarantee equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the state. The right is available to citizens only. In matters of employment also, it is impossible to treat all persons alike. Equality only means equal treatment to equals. A reasonable classification is not prohibited by Article 16. Article 17 deals with a peculiar problem of our country. Howsoever praiseworthy the caste system in its origin might have been, it certainly proved to be a disgrace to humanity, a threat to unity and a serious hindrance to social, educational and economic progress of our country. The treatment gives to schedule caste in India by higher caste Hindus can be comparable to that given to Negroes by white people in America at least upto the middle of the twentieth century, though in the eyes of law schedule castes in India enjoyed slightly better status than Negroes of the United States of America. Gandhi ji and other freedom fighters had realised that equal treatment yo these castes was not only necessary for winning freedom for the nation but also for peace and progress of the country after independence. Meaning of Untouchability Untouchability In a wider sense would include persons whom are treated as untouchables temporarily or otherwise for various reasons, such as suffering from as are associated with brith or death or social boycott resulting from caste or other duspute or women of other families under some moral precepts. While Article 17 was being considered by the constituents assembly, Nasiruddin Ahmed and K. T. Shah pointed out that in the absence of a precise definition, lawyer might make capital out of such an article and an amendment was moved by Mr. Nasiruddin Ahmed but it could not be carried out. In Devarajiah v. Padmanna Mysore high court held that the subject- matter of article 17 is not Untouchability In its liberal or grammatical sense but the practice as it developed historically India. The court emphasizes that the untouchability In Article 17 was placed in inverted commas. Article 18 Abolition of titles No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State Right to Freedom. Abolition of title

• No title, not being ba military or academic distinction shall be conferred by the state.
• No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign state.
• No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of the president any title from any foreign state.
• No person holding any office of profit or trust under the state shall, without the consent of the president, accept any present emolument or office of any kind from or under any foreign state.

Case-1. Yet again in a recent decision in State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh a Bench of three learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty and Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy has reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled.(1). Case-2 . R.Appunatesan Vs. the Chief Secretary and ors. Court: Chennai Decided on : Nov-30-2011 ... cannot be entertained. 14. in balaji raghavan vs. union of India {1996 (1) scc 361}, a constitution bench of the supreme court considered the question as to whether the national awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan And Padma Sri are titles within the meaning of article 18(1) of the constitution. while holding that what was sought to be put an end ..... to, by article 18(1) of the constitution was only the conferment of titles of nobility and that the constitution did not intend to prohibit the state from recognizing merit or work of extraordinary nature.... decision did not deal with the question as to whether the decision taken by the selection committee to confer the award, is justifiable or not. the anguish expressed by the constitution bench of the supreme court in the above decision shows that the court may not be averse to the idea of at least examining in appropriate cases, as to whether ..... to feelings of respect rather than suspicion, need to be examined by a high level committee that may be appointed by the prime minister in consultation with the president of India. even otherwise it is time that such a committee looks into the working of the existing guidelines in view of the experience gained. we say no more as we have .(2). Special provision for women and Children and SC,ST & backward classes: Article 14 of Indian constitution law says that all are equal in the eye of law. No one can prevent the state from making any special provisions for women and children. For a examples, special seating arrangement for women in buses, trains, metros trains is not unconstitutional. It was held by court that reservation of some seats for women in college. According to section 497 of Indian penal code, adultery is consider as offence when it committed by men , not consider offence if committed by women thus women cannot be Prosecuted for abetters. It is clear that it makes special provision for women and which is valid Under constitution law article 15(3). Section 437 of cr.p.c., 1973 restricts the release of an accused person a capital offence on Bail except women, children under age of 16 years or ill or infirm persons. in Choki v. State of Rajasthan , the court has held that it valid on the grounds make special Provision for women and therefore, it is protected under article. Article 15(4) has been inserted by the constitution ( first amendment ) Act, 1951. This amendment has been changed in the supreme court case state of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan . In this case, the reservation of seats for the admission to state medical and engineering colleges was made on the ground of caste and religion. The court said that it unconstitutional on the ground that it was based on communal matter. Article 15(4) was interested in the Indian constitution law after the amendment. the aim to empower the government to make special provisions for the betterment of educationally and socially backward classes of citizen of India and for the Scheduled tribes and scheduled castes. State has made many special provision for the weaker sections such as ST, SC and educationally and socially backward classes of citizens of India., Meaning of Scheduled Caste means such castes, race, or tribes or parts of or groups within Such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be scheduled castes for the purposes of this constitution. article 341(1) provide additional protection to the members of the scheduled castes having regard to the social, economical, educational, backwardness from which they suffer because of their caste.(3). Written By: Uma

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Information Act 2005 and it...

RTI Act-2005: Public Intere...

Right To Be Forgotten

RTI Act, 2005: Exemptions, ...

Analysis Of Article 32 Of T...

Severability: Unlocking the...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

• Call for Papers
• Competitions
• World Legal
• Legal Drafting
• Know Your Rights

• Constitutional Law
• Law Academic

Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution And Case Laws

Introduction

Equality as a general concept simply means the equitable principle of fairness and non-discrimination amongst individuals. Hence, it is to create the full maximization of potentials nature has provided on an equitable platform.

Equality as a concept of law (legal egalitarianism) is a principle of law that seeks to provide the same legal benchmark and standards for all individuals irrespective of background, status or any other divisive parameter.

The general principle of equality and non-discrimination is a foundational element of international human rights law. It is evident that the right to equal treatment requires that all persons be treated equally, fairly and justly before the law, without discrimination.

Equality, before the law is the attribution of fundamental rights accrued from a body of generally accepted rules which seeks to give a humane face to the law while ensuring no individual, is above the law.

Therefore, all are viewed with the same parameters under the law irrespective of individual differences. This fundamental human right is enshrined and protected in the constitution of democratic countries around the world.

One of the countries worthy of focus with respect to this principle is India. Equality is one of the foundational rights in the Constitution of India.

This principle is as contained in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India and also recited in the Preamble to the Constitution of India . This principle of rule of law is enshrined in Article 14 while Articles 15 to 18 detailed out the application of the principle in Article 14 .

Article 14 guarantees equal protection before the law and equality before the law, while the concept of equality before the law has its roots in the English Common law.

The concept of equal protection before the law was taken from section 1 of the fourteenth (14th) amendment Act of the constitution of the United States . As the term implies, each person within the territory of India irrespective of citizenship will be guaranteed equal protection under the law.

The principle of equality before the law sprung out from the doctrine of Rule of Law as propounded by an erudite scholar, Professor A.V. Dicey in his book “ The Law of the Constitution ” published in the year, 1885 where he highlighted the three (3) implications of the doctrine of Rule of Law. These implications are:

• The predominance of Law/Absence of Erratic wield of Power – Only a breach can trigger punishment. The absence of same makes punishment unjustifiable and unlawful. It means that no man should be subjected to any form of punishment unless as expressly stated by the law and the said punishment must be stipulated by the law which was allegedly breached.
• Equality before the Law – By this, every person is under the control and dictate of the law. There is no preferential treatment rendered in the operation of law of the land as administered by the courts of law created by law.
• The preeminence of the Rights of the Individual –  This implies that the Constitution births the various rights of individuals. It acts as a medium for the documentation of such rights. However, those rights predate the Constitution; hence, the revered status given to the concept.

However just like every law, there are exceptions to the Rule of law. It should be noted that despite these exceptions, the rule of law ensures that the existing discretion conferred upon all authorities must be contained within clearly defined limits. The rule of law is deeply rooted in the foundation of the Constitution of India and it forms one of its standout features.

The import of Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not state that all laws must be uniform in nature and applicable to all persons. The distinct demands of different classes of persons more often than not require differing arguments and discussion.

What the concept of Equality frowns against the article, is the legislation according to Class. But, it does not outlaw reasonable classification which is in place to aid proper enforcement of the principle.

The parameters employed to ensure the same includes the prevention of arbitrary actions as all acts must arise from a legally justifiable laid down distinction which reflects the purpose of the legislation.

Article 14 abhors class legislation which embodies unfair and illegal discrimination by conferring privileges upon a class of persons without any legal and fundamental distinction evidence which would, in turn, justify the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.

An example of the above are instances where states make special provisions for a certain class of society.

Women and children are an example of this. There is a special seating arrangement which is made for women in buses, trains, metros trains and such cannot be referred to as unconstitutional for reasons enshrined in the paragraphs above.

A sharp contrast can be evidenced in the instructive case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India , where the Supreme Court held that R ule 34 of the Central Services(Pension) Rules, 1972 was unconstitutional.

It is so, on the ground that the classification made by it between pensioners retiring before a certain date and retiring after that date was not pursuant to any rational principle of law.

Thus, it was deemed arbitrary by the court which further held same to be an infringement of Article 14 of the Indian constitution.

Articles 15 – 18

The provision of Article 15 seeks to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

In an effort to render protection to particular classes of persons, the constitution permits the making of a unique nature for women and children and for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens who may be collectively called persons under legal disability.

The judgment of the court in the case of State of U. P. v. Pradeep Tandon (1975) 1 SCC 267; AIR 1975 SC 563 is instructive. It was held on the need to apply these legal reservations/exceptions as expressed.

This application is in the support of certain areas on the ground that these areas were instances of socially and educationally backward class citizens. As mirrored in the decided cases, circumstances of birth and place of abode contribute immensely to a person’s perception of laws.

Therefore, the intervention of law by making special provisions for them does not run contrary to the spirit of the law regarding the doctrine of equality before the law.

Article 16 throws light on the need to give equality of opportunity with respect to employment in the public or government-owned establishments. By the dictates of Article 16 of the Constitution of India , it is guaranteed that equal opportunity is to be granted to the citizens where employment or appointment in the government-owned establishment is an issue.

This provision, however, does not forestall the setting of the requisite qualifications benchmark for recruitment.

The Constitution of India in Clause 4 of Article 16 in the obvious attempt at protecting the special class of persons who are under legal disability, permits some exception to the positions for persons who are under the legal disability, who are in fact, inadequately represented in the employment sector of the government.

More light on this was thrown in the case of N. M. Thomas v State of Kerala Article [1976 AIR 490, 1976 SCR (1) 906] where the Supreme Court opined that the preferential treatment of under-represented backward classes was not illegal; so far as such treatment was reasonable and can be rationalized in line with the object sought to be attained which in turn makes such an action valid.

The focus of Article 17 was because of the social disabilities imposed from time immemorial on a certain category of people by reason of their birth in certain castes.

This constantly triggered social boycott as same was duly abolished by virtue of this commendable provision. It abolished what was commonly referred to as “untouchability” and made the practice of such a penal offense and this helped to discourage the practice of same.

The unmeritorious conferment of titles and recognition by the State on the citizens violates the dictates of equality as provided by the constitution for it will create unworthy stratification in the society.

Article 18 abolished such acts which restored equilibrium/balance and restored the principle of equality the existence of the former eroded.

By Clause (2) of Article 18 of the Constitution , citizens are barred from accepting or acknowledging any title from a foreign country but this limitation does not extend to academic and military accolades.

The erstwhile practice of conferring titles and investiture into various Order of the British Empire on the good wishers and supporters of the British regime created an undesired result. This further occasioned inequality contrary to the doctrine of equality which the law upholds.

The limitation as enshrined in Clause 2 of Article 18 of the Constitution is to the extent that accepting any presents in any form whatsoever from a foreign State while occupying a public office or any office of profit or trust in India.

The principle of equality as stipulated in the Constitution of India is the basis of the democratic structure in India.

In a society like India where the values such as social justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity are envisaged by the Constitution, it follows that the constitution against the background of the attendant diversity in India is seeking through these aforementioned values to mind the society.

The important role played by the judiciary in enforcing the dictates of the Constitution has and will continue to consolidate the values as already enshrined in the constitution.

The foresight and the legislative valor displayed by the founding fathers of the India Society is quite commendable as many countries such as America fought for years in order to have these values enshrined in their constitution.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Contract of guarantee, kinds, functions under the indian contract act, 1872, adr- arbitration vs conciliation vs mediation and their differences, advantages, know the formation, independence and functions of the election commission of india, leave a reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Economic Times daily newspaper is available online now.

Right to equality a vested right and is enforceable against state and its instrumentalities: sc.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna allowed the appeal filed by 318 ex-employees of now closed Azam Jahi Mills seeking parity with a group of 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost.

Read More News on

Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.

This app is striking at the core of Uber, Ola business model and succeeding.

Ok, Tata, bye: Six things that can treat India’s EV range-anxiety.

A 1 pm mail, two top exits: Is IndiGo heading for a deep restructuring?

Zepto CEO Aadit Palicha doesn’t run the quick-commerce app. Then who does?

Trucks taking trains! This is how Amul milk is reaching you faster, cheaper

This summer look beyond AC stocks: 4 stocks from consumer electrical space with upside potential of up to 34%

Find this comment offensive?

Choose your reason below and click on the Report button. This will alert our moderators to take action

Reason for reporting:

Your Reason has been Reported to the admin.

To post this comment you must

Log In/Connect with:

Fill in your details:

Will be displayed

Will not be displayed

Share this Comment:

Stories you might be interested in

Advancing the entrepreneurship ecosystem of India: A qualitative study with Chevening Fellows

• Published: 26 December 2023

Cite this article

• Kamal Gulati 1 ,
• Amrik Sohal 2 ,
• Tharaka de Vass 2 &
• Nrupal Das 3  

271 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Using social cognitive theory as a guide, this research seeks to explain the perceptions of current and aspiring Indian entrepreneurs. A multiple case study approach using 19 interviews with intellectuals provided qualitative data to conduct a cross-case analysis of the two groups with the qualitative analysis software NVivo. Rare insights from current and aspiring opportunity-motivated entrepreneurial Chevening Fellowships from a predominantly necessity-motivated context offer valuable insights into entrepreneurship in India. The findings reveal what entrepreneurship means to established entrepreneurs, their motivation for embarking on the entrepreneurial journey, the skills they require to be successful, the challenges they face and their strategies to sustain are mostly different to what aspiring entrepreneurs believe how it would be. Compiled recommendations may help strengthen the entrepreneurial ecosystem, particularly in developing economy contexts, to help improve the 10% startup success rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Entrepreneurship: Practice-Based Theorizing

Social Entrepreneurship and Social Learning: The View from Mount Nebo

Foundations for Social Entrepreneurship: An Integrative Indian Perspective

Abosede, A. J., & Onakoya, A. B. (2013). Intellectual entrepreneurship: Theories, purpose and challenges. International Journal of Business Administration , 4 (5), 30.

Al Halbusi, H., Soto-Acosta, P., & Popa, S. (2022). Entrepreneurial passion, role models and self-perceived creativity as antecedents of e-entrepreneurial intention in an emerging Asian economy: The moderating effect of social media, Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09857-2

Al-Shaikh, F. N. (2013). Opportunities and challenges of entrepreneurship in developing countries: The case of Jordan. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 7 (2), 163–178.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amit, M., Carpenter, M. K., Inokuma, M. S., Chiu, C.-P., Harris, C. P., Waknitz, M. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., & Thomson, J. A. (2000). Clonally derived human embryonic stem cell lines maintain pluripotency and proliferative potential for prolonged periods of culture. Developmental Biology, 227 (2), 271–278.

Amorós, J. E., Cristi, O., & Naudé, W. (2021). Entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: Does the motivation to start-up a firm matter? Journal of Business Research, 127 , 389–398.

Atiase, V. Y. (2017). Impact of credit risk management practices on micro financing the poor for poverty alleviation in Africa: Insights from Ghana . Central University of Technology, Free State.

Google Scholar  

Baron, R. A. (2013). Enhancing entrepreneurial excellence: Tools for making the possible real . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Chevening Fellowships. (2023). Available at: https://www.chevening.org/fellowships/

De Vass, T., Nand, A. A., Bhattacharya, A., Prajogo, D., Croy, G., Sohal, A., & Rotaru, K. (2023). Transitioning to a circular economy: lessons from the wood industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34 (3), 582–610.

Diandra, D., & Azmy, A. (2020). Understanding definition of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 7 (5), 235–241.

Eniola, A. A. (2021). The entrepreneur motivation and financing sources. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity , 7 (1), 25.

Frank, A. I. (2007). Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning education? Planning Practice and Research, 22 (4), 635–648.

Ghafar, A. (2020). Convergence between 21st century skills and entrepreneurship education in higher education institutes. International Journal of Higher Education, 9 (1), 218–229.

Goyal, S., Sergi, B. S., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2016). Understanding the challenges and strategic actions of social entrepreneurship at base of the pyramid. Management Decision, 54 (2), 418–440.

Hassan, A., Anwar, I., Saleem, I., Islam, K. M. B., & Hussain, S. A. (2021). Individual entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of entrepreneurial motivations. Industry and Higher Education, 35 (4), 403–418.

Hessels, J., & Naudé, W. (2019). The intersection of the fields of entrepreneurship and development economics: A review towards a new view. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33 (2), 389–403.

Human Development Report. (2020). https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdr2020pdf.pdf . (Page No. 405).

IBEF. (2023). India Brand Equity Foundation 2013 . Available at: https://www.ibef.org/

Jha, S. K. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystem in India: Taking stock and looking ahead. IIMB Management Review, 30 (2), 179–188.

Kalyanasundaram, G. (2018). Why do startups fail? A case study based empirical analysis in Bangalore. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 7 (1), 79–102.

Kapinga, A. F., & Montero, C. S. (2017). Exploring the socio-cultural challenges of food processing women entrepreneurs in Iringa, Tanzania and strategies used to tackle them. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 7 (1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-017-0076-0

Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (1), 1–17.

Murnieks, C. Y., Klotz, A. C., & Shepherd, D. A. (2019). Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41 (2), 115–143.

Naradda Gamage, S. K., Ekanayake, E. M. S., Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J., Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S. B., & Rajapakshe, P. S. K. (2020). A review of global challenges and survival strategies of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Economies, 8 (4), 79.

Ratten, V. (2014). Encouraging collaborative entrepreneurship in developing countries: The current challenges and a research agenda. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 6 (3), 298–308.

Sariwulan, T., Suparno, S., Disman, D., Ahman, E., & Suwatno, S. (2020). Entrepreneurial performance: The role of literacy and skills. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7 (11), 269–280.

Shastri, S., Shastri, S., Pareek, A., & Sharma, R. S. (2021). Exploring women entrepreneurs’ motivations and challenges from an institutional perspective: Evidences from a patriarchal state in India. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 16 (4), 653–674.

Smallbone, D., Welter, F., & Ateljevic, J. (2014). Entrepreneurship in emerging market economies: Contemporary issues and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 32 (2), 113–116.

Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56 (2), 809–832.

StartupBlink. (2023). Startup Ecosystem Report 2022-2023 . Available at: https://lp.startupblink.com/report/

Sun, S. L., Shi, W., Ahlstrom, D., & Tian, L. (2020). Understanding institutions and entrepreneurship: The microfoundations lens and emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37 (4), 957–979.

World Bank. (2023). Ease of doing business rank 2019-2023 . Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/businessready

Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46 (3), 729–778.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage Publications.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Chevening fellows who consented to participate in this study, Chevening Secretariat, Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office, Prof. Richard Briant, University of Oxford, Prof. John Hoffmaire, Chairman, Oxford Pharmaceuticals, Ms. Sarah Fallon, Regional Director, Science and Innovation, British High Commission New Delhi, Ms. Supriya Chawla, Head Chevening Scholarships India for their support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centralized Core Research Facility, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Kamal Gulati

Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Amrik Sohal & Tharaka de Vass

Paysafe, Jacksonville, FL, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amrik Sohal .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gulati, K., Sohal, A., de Vass, T. et al. Advancing the entrepreneurship ecosystem of India: A qualitative study with Chevening Fellows. Asia Pac J Manag (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09940-2

Download citation

Accepted : 19 November 2023

Published : 26 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09940-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Entrepreneurship
• Cross case analysis
• Motivations
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Spurred by Teen Girls, States Move to Ban Deepfake Nudes

Legislators in two dozen states are working on bills, or have passed laws, to combat A.I.-generated sexually explicit images of minors.

By Natasha Singer

Natasha Singer has covered student privacy for The Times since 2013.

Caroline Mullet, a ninth grader at Issaquah High School near Seattle, went to her first homecoming dance last fall, a James Bond-themed bash with blackjack tables attended by hundreds of girls dressed up in party frocks.

A few weeks later, she and other female students learned that a male classmate was circulating fake nude images of girls who had attended the dance, sexually explicit pictures that he had fabricated using an artificial intelligence app designed to automatically “strip” clothed photos of real girls and women.

Ms. Mullet, 15, alerted her father, Mark , a Democratic Washington State senator. Although she was not among the girls in the pictures, she asked if something could be done to help her friends, who felt “extremely uncomfortable” that male classmates had seen simulated nude images of them. Soon, Senator Mullet and a colleague in the State House proposed legislation to prohibit the sharing of A.I.-generated sexually explicit depictions of real minors.

“I hate the idea that I should have to worry about this happening again to any of my female friends, my sisters or even myself,” Ms. Mullet told state lawmakers during a hearing on the bill in January.

The State Legislature passed the bill without opposition. Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, signed it last month.

States are on the front lines of a rapidly spreading new form of peer sexual exploitation and harassment in schools. Boys across the United States have used widely available “nudification” apps to surreptitiously concoct sexually explicit images of their female classmates and then circulated the simulated nudes via group chats on apps like Snapchat and Instagram.

Now, spurred in part by troubling accounts from teenage girls like Ms. Mullet, federal and state lawmakers are rushing to enact protections in an effort to keep pace with exploitative A.I. apps.

Since early last year, at least two dozen states have introduced bills to combat A.I.-generated sexually explicit images — known as deepfakes — of people under 18, according to data compiled by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a nonprofit organization. And several states have enacted the measures.

Among them, South Dakota this year passed a law that makes it illegal to possess, produce or distribute A.I.-generated sexual abuse material depicting real minors. Last year, Louisiana enacted a deepfake law that criminalizes A.I.-generated sexually explicit depictions of minors.

“I had a sense of urgency hearing about these cases and just how much harm was being done,” said Representative Tina Orwall , a Democrat who drafted Washington State’s explicit-deepfake law after hearing about incidents like the one at Issaquah High.

Some lawmakers and child protection experts say such rules are urgently needed because the easy availability of A.I. nudification apps is enabling the mass production and distribution of false, graphic images that can potentially circulate online for a lifetime, threatening girls’ mental health, reputations and physical safety.

“One boy with his phone in the course of an afternoon can victimize 40 girls, minor girls,” said Yiota Souras , chief legal officer for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, “and then their images are out there.”

Over the last two months, deepfake nude incidents have spread in schools — including in Richmond, Ill. , and Beverly Hills and Laguna Beach , Calif.

Yet few laws in the United States specifically protect people under 18 from exploitative A.I. apps.

That is because many current statutes that prohibit child sexual abuse material or adult nonconsensual pornography — involving real photos or videos of real people — may not cover A.I.-generated explicit images that use real people’s faces, said U.S. Representative Joseph D. Morelle, a Democrat from New York.

Last year, he introduced a bill that would make it a crime to disclose A.I.-generated intimate images of identifiable adults or minors. It would also give deepfake victims, or parents, the right to sue individual perpetrators for damages.

“We want to make this so painful for anyone to even contemplate doing, because this is harm that you just can’t simply undo,” Mr. Morelle said. “Even if it seems like a prank to a 15-year-old boy, this is deadly serious.”

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another New York Democrat, recently introduced a similar bill to enable victims to bring civil cases against deepfake perpetrators.

But neither bill would explicitly give victims the right to sue the developers of A.I. nudification apps, a step that trial lawyers say would help disrupt the mass production of sexually explicit deepfakes.

“Legislation is needed to stop commercialization, which is the root of the problem,” said Elizabeth Hanley, a lawyer in Washington who represents victims in sexual assault and harassment cases.

The U.S. legal code prohibits the distribution of computer-generated child sexual abuse material depicting identifiable minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Last month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an alert warning that such illegal material included realistic child sexual abuse images generated by A.I.

Yet fake A.I.-generated depictions of real teenage girls without clothes may not constitute “child sexual abuse material,” experts say, unless prosecutors can prove the fake images meet legal standards for sexually explicit conduct or the lewd display of genitalia.

Some defense lawyers have tried to capitalize on the apparent legal ambiguity. A lawyer defending a male high school student in a deepfake lawsuit in New Jersey recently argued that the court should not temporarily restrain his client, who had created nude A.I. images of a female classmate, from viewing or sharing the pictures because they were neither harmful nor illegal. Federal laws, the lawyer argued in a court filing, were not designed to apply “to computer-generated synthetic images that do not even include real human body parts.” (The defendant ultimately agreed not to oppose a restraining order on the images.)

Now states are working to pass laws to halt exploitative A.I. images. This month, California introduced a bill to update a state ban on child sexual abuse material to specifically cover A.I.-generated abusive material.

And Massachusetts lawmakers are wrapping up legislation that would criminalize the nonconsensual sharing of explicit images, including deepfakes. It would also require a state entity to develop a diversion program for minors who shared explicit images to teach them about issues like the “responsible use of generative artificial intelligence.”

Punishments can be severe. Under the new Louisiana law, any person who knowingly creates, distributes, promotes or sells sexually explicit deepfakes of minors can face a minimum prison sentence of five to 10 years.

In December, Miami-Dade County police officers arrested two middle school boys for allegedly making and sharing fake nude A.I. images of two female classmates, ages 12 and 13, according to police documents obtained by The New York Times through a public records request. The boys were charged with third-degree felonies under a 2022 state law prohibiting altered sexual depictions without consent. (The state attorney’s office for Miami-Dade County said it could not comment on an open case.)

The new deepfake law in Washington State takes a different approach.

After learning of the incident at Issaquah High from his daughter, Senator Mullet reached out to Representative Orwall, an advocate for sexual assault survivors and a former social worker. Ms. Orwall, who had worked on one of the state’s first revenge-porn bills, then drafted a House bill to prohibit the distribution of A.I.-generated intimate, or sexually explicit, images of either minors or adults. (Mr. Mullet, who sponsored the companion Senate bill, is now running for governor .)

Under the resulting law , first offenders could face misdemeanor charges while people with prior convictions for disclosing sexually explicit images would face felony charges. The new deepfake statute takes effect in June.

“It’s not shocking that we are behind in the protections,” Ms. Orwall said. “That’s why we wanted to move on it so quickly.”

Natasha Singer writes about technology, business and society. She is currently reporting on the far-reaching ways that tech companies and their tools are reshaping public schools, higher education and job opportunities. More about Natasha Singer