Unit-II: Constitutional Law-I-Right to Equality

Unit-II: Right to Equality

Table of Contents

Q Discuss the concept of equality before the law under Article 14. How does it ensure fairness?

📘 Article 14: Equality Before the Law and Equal Protection of Laws

🔷 I. Text of Article 14

“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 is one of the cornerstones of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India. It guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws to all persons, not just citizens.

🔷 II. Key Concepts under Article 14

✅ 1. Equality Before the Law (British Concept)

  • Negative aspect of equality.
  • Originated from the Rule of Law propounded by A.V. Dicey.
  • Implies absence of any special privilege in favor of any person.
  • Everyone, regardless of status, is subject to the same laws and courts.

✅ 2. Equal Protection of the Laws (American Concept)

  • Positive aspect of equality.
  • Requires the State to treat people equally under similar circumstances.
  • Allows reasonable classification, but not class legislation.

🔷 III. Rule of Law: The Backbone of Equality

As per A.V. Dicey, Rule of Law has three elements:

  1. Supremacy of law – Law is supreme, not arbitrary power.
  2. Equality before law – No person is above the law.
  3. Constitution is the result of ordinary law, not the source.

Indian courts have adopted and expanded these principles in interpreting Article 14.

🔷 IV. Reasonable Classification and Article 14

Article 14 does not prohibit classification, but it prohibits arbitrary classification.

✅ Essential Conditions for Valid Classification (from State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75):

  1. Intelligible Differentia – The classification must be based on intelligible differentia.
  2. Rational Nexus – There must be a reasonable relation between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.

🔷 V. Landmark Case Laws Interpreting Article 14

✅ 1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555)

Facts: Transfer of a civil servant was challenged on grounds of arbitrariness.

Held: The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.
Any arbitrary action by the State violates Article 14.

📌 Key Contribution:
Introduced the arbitrariness doctrine under Article 14.

✅ 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a chance to be heard.

Held: The court emphasized that any procedure established by law must be “just, fair, and reasonable.”

📌 Relevance to Article 14:
Procedure cannot be arbitrary or oppressive, thus extending Article 14’s reach into administrative actions.

✅ 3. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75)

Held: The court struck down a law allowing selective trials under Special Courts because the classification was vague and arbitrary, violating Article 14.

📌 Importance:
Laid the foundation for the doctrine of classification under Article 14.

✅ 4. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 487)

Held: State-aided educational institutions cannot practice discriminatory admission policies, as they are bound by Article 14.

📌 Principle:
Even non-governmental bodies receiving substantial government aid must comply with equality norms.

✅ 5. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130)

Facts: Pension benefits were denied to retirees before a specific date.

Held: The classification based on date of retirement was discriminatory and arbitrary.

📌 Relevance:
Extended Article 14 protections to socio-economic rights.

✅ 6. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Triple Talaq Case

Held: The practice of instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was declared unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

📌 Impact:
Affirmed that personal laws must also adhere to the principle of non-arbitrariness and equality.

🔷 VI. Doctrines Evolved Under Article 14

✅ 1. Doctrine of Arbitrariness

Any arbitrary or irrational State action violates Article 14.

  • Established in E.P. Royappa and Maneka Gandhi cases.
  • Later applied to legislation in Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India (2014).

✅ 2. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

If a person has a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by a public authority, denial of that expectation may violate Article 14.

✅ 3. Doctrine of Proportionality

Any restriction or classification must be proportionate to the goal it seeks to achieve.

  • Applied in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016).

✅ 4. Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness (Shayara Bano case)

Law is unconstitutional if it is manifestly arbitrary.

🔷 VII. Article 14 Ensures Fairness in Governance

  • Prevents arbitrary laws and policies.
  • Ensures transparent procedures and decision-making.
  • Mandates equal treatment to similarly situated individuals.
  • Acts as a check on executive and legislative power.

🔷 VIII. Criticism of Implementation

  • Despite the doctrine, many government actions escape judicial scrutiny.
  • Courts have sometimes upheld questionable classifications.
  • Access to courts is unequal, limiting Article 14’s effectiveness for the poor.

🔷 IX. Conclusion

Article 14 is a living principle that not only ensures formal equality, but also substantive fairness in law and administration. Through judicial interpretation, its scope has been greatly expanded to challenge arbitrariness, discrimination, and inequality in public decision-making.

It is no longer just about equal laws but about just, fair, and non-discriminatory governance, thereby making Article 14 the soul of Indian constitutionalism.

🏛️ Special Provisions for Weaker Sections under Articles 15 and 16

🔷 I. Introduction

Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution form the core of the Right to Equality under Part III – Fundamental Rights. While these articles prohibit discrimination and ensure equal opportunities, they also empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), women, and other weaker sections.

🔷 II. Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination

📜 Text of Article 15(1) and 15(2):

Article 15(1) and 15(2) prohibit the State and individuals from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

✅ Permissive Provisions (Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6):

🔹 Article 15(3):

“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.”

🔸 Purpose: To eliminate historical and structural disadvantages faced by women and children.
🔸 Examples: Reservation of seats in educational institutions, schemes for girl child education, etc.

🔹 Article 15(4):

Introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment (1951), it allows special provisions for:

🔸 Example: Reservation of seats in colleges, scholarships, hostels, etc.

🔹 Case Law: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

  • The Supreme Court struck down caste-based reservations in medical colleges.
  • This led to the First Constitutional Amendment, inserting Article 15(4).

🔹 Article 15(5):

Inserted by the 93rd Constitutional Amendment (2005)

  • Enables reservation in educational institutions (including private, unaided), excluding minority-run institutions.

🔹 Case Law: Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

  • Upheld 27% OBC reservation in educational institutions under Article 15(5), with exclusion of creamy layer.

🔹 Article 15(6):

Inserted by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019)

  • Allows 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education, including private unaided institutions.

🔹 Case Law: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

  • Constitution Bench upheld EWS reservations as constitutional, even if SCs/STs/OBCs are excluded from its purview.

🔷 III. Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

📜 Text of Article 16(1) and (2):

Provides equal opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.

✅ Permissive Provisions (Clauses 3, 4, 4A, 4B, and 6):

🔹 Article 16(3):

Parliament may make laws prescribing residence-based qualifications for public employment in a state/UT.

🔸 Example: Domicile requirements in J\&K, Himachal Pradesh, etc.

🔹 Article 16(4):

Enables the State to make reservations in public employment for any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in government services.

🔹 Case Law: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

  • Upheld 27% OBC reservation under Article 16(4).
  • Introduced the concept of creamy layer to exclude the affluent among OBCs.
  • Capped total reservations at 50%, except in extraordinary cases.

🔹 Article 16(4A):

Inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995)

  • Allows reservation in promotions for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented.

🔹 Case Law: Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

  • Upheld Article 16(4A) but added conditions:
  • Prove backwardness
  • Prove inadequate representation
  • Prove efficiency is not affected

🔹 Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):

  • Modified Nagaraj judgment.
  • Backwardness need not be proven for SCs/STs in promotions.

🔹 Article 16(4B):

Inserted by the 81st Amendment (2000)

  • Allowed carry forward of unfilled reserved vacancies to subsequent years.

🔹 Article 16(6):

Inserted by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019)

  • Provides 10% reservation for EWS in initial appointments in public employment.

🔹 Case Law: Janhit Abhiyan (2022):

  • Upheld EWS reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6).

🔷 IV. Balancing Equality and Positive Discrimination

Articles 15 and 16 strike a balance between:

  • Formal equality (same treatment for all)
  • Substantive equality (special treatment for the disadvantaged)

This reflects the constitutional commitment to social justice, a core objective in the Preamble.

🔷 V. Important Doctrines Developed

✅ 1. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification:

Permits classification if it:

  • Has an intelligible differentia
  • Has a rational nexus with the objective

✅ 2. Doctrine of Creamy Layer:

Ensures that only the truly backward benefit from reservations.

✅ 3. 50% Ceiling Rule:

Reservations should not exceed 50%, as established in Indra Sawhney, unless in exceptional circumstances.

🔷 VI. Conclusion

Articles 15 and 16 have transformed Indian democracy by allowing the State to level the playing field for socially, economically, and educationally disadvantaged groups. These provisions enable affirmative action, which is not a privilege but a constitutional tool for achieving equality.

While the judiciary has cautiously upheld these provisions, it has also introduced checks like the creamy layer and tests of adequacy and backwardness to ensure that the purpose of equality is not defeated by excessive or arbitrary reservation.

Q What is the reservation policy under the Indian Constitution? Discuss with reference to Indira Sawhney v. Union of India.

🏛️ Reservation Policy under the Indian Constitution

With Reference to Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

🔷 I. Introduction

The reservation policy in India is a form of affirmative action aimed at ensuring social justice and equal opportunity for historically disadvantaged communities. It provides a system of quotas in education, public employment, and political representation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and more recently, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

It draws authority from the Constitution, especially Articles 15 and 16, and has evolved through judicial interpretations, notably in the landmark judgment Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

✅ Article 15(4):

Inserted by the 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951), it empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of SCs, STs, and socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs).

✅ Article 15(5):

Added by the 93rd Amendment (2005) – permits reservation for backward classes in private educational institutions, excluding minority-run ones.

✅ Article 15(6):

Introduced by the 103rd Amendment (2019) – provides 10% reservation for EWS in educational institutions.

✅ Article 16(4):

Allows reservation in public employment for backward classes that are not adequately represented in state services.

✅ Article 16(4A) and 16(4B):

Allow reservation in promotions for SCs/STs and carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.

🔷 III. Background to the Indira Sawhney Case

In 1979, the Mandal Commission (Second Backward Classes Commission), headed by B.P. Mandal, was constituted to identify socially and educationally backward classes.

📌 Mandal Commission Recommendations:

  • 27% reservation for OBCs in Central Government services and public undertakings.
  • Total reservation (SCs + STs + OBCs) should not exceed 50%.

In 1990, the V.P. Singh government implemented the recommendations, leading to widespread protests and legal challenges.

🔷 IV. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Overview

📌 Citation: AIR 1993 SC 477

Popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case, it was heard by a 9-judge Constitutional Bench.

🔶 Key Issues:

  1. Is reservation based on caste valid under Article 16(4)?
  2. Can the 27% OBC reservation be upheld?
  3. Can reservation exceed 50%?
  4. Should economic criteria be a basis for reservation?
  5. Is reservation in promotion permissible?

🔶 Major Findings and Rulings:

✅ 1. Caste as a Criterion for Backwardness

The Court held that caste can be a relevant indicator of backwardness in Indian society, but not the sole criterion. It upheld caste-based reservations for OBCs under Article 16(4).

✅ 2. Reservation Limit – 50% Ceiling

The Supreme Court ruled that total reservation should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances. This limit was later relaxed in some cases like Maratha Reservation (2021).

✅ 3. Exclusion of Creamy Layer

The Court introduced the “creamy layer” doctrine, stating that advanced sections within OBCs must be excluded from the benefits of reservation to ensure that only the truly backward benefit.

✅ 4. No Reservation in Promotions (Initially)

The Court ruled that Article 16(4) does not allow reservation in promotions, overturning earlier decisions.
This was reversed later through the 77th Amendment (1995) adding Article 16(4A).

✅ 5. Economic Criteria Alone Not Valid

The Court rejected reservation solely on economic grounds, asserting that economic backwardness alone is not a sufficient basis for affirmative action under the Constitution.
(This view was reconsidered with the 103rd Amendment, allowing EWS reservations.)

🔷 V. Impact of the Indira Sawhney Judgment

The ruling legitimized OBC reservations in employment and education.

📌 2. Creamy Layer Doctrine

It institutionalized the exclusion of affluent OBCs from quotas, a principle still in effect today.

📌 3. Promotion Reservations Reconsidered

Though barred initially, later constitutional amendments (Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B)) permitted promotion quotas for SC/STs under certain conditions.

📌 4. Limiting Arbitrary Expansion

By capping reservations at 50%, it curbed the tendency of states to extend quotas excessively for electoral gains.

🔷 VI. Recent Developments Post-Indira Sawhney

  • Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):
    Upheld SC/ST promotion reservations without needing to prove backwardness.
  • Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):
    Upheld the 10% EWS reservation introduced by the 103rd Amendment, marking a shift from the economic criteria ban in Indira Sawhney.
  • Maratha Reservation Case (2021):
    Supreme Court reaffirmed the 50% ceiling unless in extraordinary cases.

🔷 VII. Conclusion

The Indira Sawhney judgment is a milestone in Indian constitutional law. It balanced the principle of equality with affirmative action, and shaped reservation policy for decades to come. By upholding the validity of caste-based reservations, excluding the creamy layer, and setting the 50% limit, the judgment ensured that reservations remain a means of social justice, not political populism.

The case continues to guide courts and lawmakers in determining the scope, limits, and justification of reservations, keeping the spirit of equality alive within a diverse and unequal society.

Q Discuss the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19. What are the reasonable restrictions on these freedoms?

🏛️ Fundamental Freedoms under Article 19 and Reasonable Restrictions

🔷 I. Introduction

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental freedoms to the citizens of India. These freedoms form the cornerstone of individual liberty in a democratic society. However, these rights are not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of national integrity, public order, and other constitutional objectives.

Article 19 is part of the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution, which aims to protect the basic freedoms of citizens from arbitrary state actions.

🔷 II. Fundamental Freedoms Under Article 19(1)

Article 19(1) guarantees the following six fundamental freedoms to all Indian citizens:

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression [Article 19(1)(a)]

  • Allows individuals to express opinions freely through spoken or written words, films, art, or any other medium.
  • Includes freedom of the press, right to silence, and right to information (as recognized in subsequent judgments).

🔹 Landmark Case:
📌 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
The Supreme Court struck down a law that imposed prior restraint on press freedom, holding it violative of Article 19(1)(a).

2. Freedom to Assemble Peacefully and Without Arms [Article 19(1)(b)]

  • Citizens can hold meetings, protests, rallies, and demonstrations.
  • Must be peaceful and unarmed.

🔹 Landmark Case:
📌 Himmat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973)
The Supreme Court held that assembly on public streets cannot be denied arbitrarily, though regulation is permitted.

3. Freedom to Form Associations or Unions [Article 19(1)(c)]

  • Citizens can form political parties, trade unions, NGOs, clubs, etc.

🔹 Landmark Case:
📌 Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971)
Held that the right to form an association includes the right not to be forced to accept members.

4. Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India [Article 19(1)(d)]

  • Includes the right to travel or reside in any part of India.

5. Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India [Article 19(1)(e)]

  • Citizens can settle in any Indian state or union territory.

🔹 Exception:
Can be curtailed for the protection of tribal areas or to prevent environmental degradation.

6. Freedom to Practice Any Profession or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade, or Business [Article 19(1)(g)]

  • Citizens can engage in any lawful trade, profession, or business.

🔹 Landmark Case:
📌 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005)
Ban on cow slaughter was upheld, stating that trade in prohibited items (like beef) is not protected under Article 19(1)(g).

🔷 III. Reasonable Restrictions: Clauses (2) to (6)

Article 19(2) to 19(6) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on these freedoms, provided the restrictions serve legitimate state interests and are not arbitrary or excessive.

🔸 1. Article 19(2): Restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression

Permissible grounds:

  • Security of the State
  • Friendly relations with foreign states
  • Public order
  • Decency or morality
  • Contempt of court
  • Defamation
  • Incitement to an offense
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India

🔹 Landmark Case:
📌 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and violating freedom of speech.

🔸 2. Article 19(3): Restrictions on Right to Assemble

Permissible if:

  • In the interest of public order
  • To maintain sovereignty and integrity of India

🔹 Example:
Prohibiting large gatherings during pandemics or riots.

🔸 3. Article 19(4): Restrictions on Freedom to Form Associations

Can be imposed for:

  • Sovereignty and integrity
  • Public order
  • Morality

🔹 Example:
Banning terrorist organizations or extremist groups.

🔸 4. Article 19(5): Restrictions on Freedom to Move or Settle

Restrictions are valid for:

  • Interest of the general public
  • Protection of Scheduled Tribes

🔹 Example:
Restricting non-tribals from acquiring land in tribal areas (e.g., under the Fifth Schedule or Sixth Schedule of the Constitution).

🔸 5. Article 19(6): Restrictions on Freedom of Profession, Trade, or Business

Permissible grounds:

  • Public interest
  • State monopoly in certain sectors (e.g., liquor)

🔹 Landmark Case:
📌 Narendra Kumar v. Union of India (1960)
Held that even complete prohibition is valid if it is reasonable and in public interest.

🔷 IV. Tests of Reasonableness

The Supreme Court has evolved tests to judge the reasonableness of restrictions:

✅ 1. Proportionality Test:

Restriction must not be excessive and should relate to the object sought.

✅ 2. Nexus Test:

There must be a direct connection between the restriction and the ground cited.

🔷 V. Conclusion

Article 19 represents the heart of democratic freedoms in India. It ensures that individuals enjoy autonomy in thought, expression, movement, and work. However, since no freedom is absolute, the Constitution balances these freedoms with reasonable restrictions to maintain public order, morality, and national interest.

Through judicial interpretation and evolving legal doctrines, courts have continually guarded these freedoms while allowing the State to regulate them in the greater good of society.

Q Explain the concept of freedom of the press under Article 19. How has it been interpreted by courts?

📰 Freedom of the Press under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution

With Judicial Interpretation

🔷 I. Introduction

The freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, it is widely recognized as an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

The press, often called the “Fourth Pillar of Democracy”, plays a crucial role in informing citizens, ensuring transparency, and holding those in power accountable. The judiciary has played a central role in interpreting and expanding this right through landmark judgments.

🔷 II. Constitutional Basis

  • Article 19(1)(a): “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
  • Though “press” is not specifically mentioned, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to include freedom of the press.

🔷 III. Scope of Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the press includes:

  1. Right to publish and disseminate information and opinions.
  2. Right to criticize the government and public officials.
  3. Right to receive information.
  4. Freedom from pre-censorship.
  5. Right to access sources (though with reasonable limitations).
  6. Right to print and circulate newspapers and journals.

🔷 IV. Key Judicial Interpretations

📌 1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

  • The Supreme Court struck down a ban on a journal, holding that freedom of speech includes freedom of propagation and circulation.
  • This case firmly established freedom of the press as a part of Article 19(1)(a).

📌 2. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950)

  • A law requiring pre-censorship of newspapers was declared unconstitutional.
  • Court held that pre-censorship is a restriction on freedom of the press and cannot be justified under Article 19(2).

📌 3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)

  • Concerned with newsprint control by the government.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on the number of pages a newspaper could print were violative of press freedom.
  • Emphasized that economic control can also lead to censorship.

📌 4. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985)

  • The Court reiterated that the freedom of the press is vital for the functioning of democracy.
  • Held that tax or fiscal measures that disproportionately affect the press can be challenged as a violation of Article 19(1)(a).

📌 5. Prabha Dutt v. Union of India (1982)

  • Recognized the right of journalists to interview prisoners, stating that freedom of the press includes the right to information.

📌 6. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India (1962)

  • Law regulating the number of pages in newspapers was struck down.
  • Supreme Court held that freedom of circulation is essential to freedom of expression.

🔷 V. Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2)

While the freedom of the press is vital, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of:

  • Sovereignty and integrity of India
  • Security of the State
  • Friendly relations with foreign States
  • Public order
  • Decency or morality
  • Contempt of court
  • Defamation
  • Incitement to an offence

🔹 Example:
Publication of classified military information can be restricted under the interest of state security.

🔷 VI. Limitations and Contemporary Issues

  1. No specific constitutional status for press like in the US First Amendment.
  2. Censorship during emergencies (e.g., Emergency of 1975–77 witnessed gag orders).
  3. Fake news, paid news, hate speech, and social media challenges are emerging areas where the press freedom is under scrutiny.
  4. Defamation laws, sedition provisions (Section 124A IPC), and Official Secrets Act can be misused to suppress the press.

🔷 VII. Conclusion

The freedom of the press, though not separately mentioned in the Constitution, has been robustly protected by the judiciary through a series of landmark judgments. It remains a critical facet of democratic functioning, allowing the free flow of information and enabling citizens to make informed decisions.

However, this freedom is not unchecked. It is subject to reasonable restrictions to balance individual liberty with public interest. In a digital age, the scope of press freedom must evolve, but its constitutional essence remains rooted in Article 19(1)(a), as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India.

Q What is the doctrine of equality under Article 14? Discuss its application in judicial decisions.

⚖️ Doctrine of Equality under Article 14

– Judicial Interpretation and Application

🔷 I. Introduction

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution lays the foundation of the rule of law and guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India.

🔹 Text of Article 14:

“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 provision establishes a positive obligation on the State to ensure fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in legal application. It is both a fundamental right and a guiding principle in governance.

🔷 II. Components of Article 14

Article 14 incorporates two key expressions:

1. Equality before the law

  • A British concept, derived from Dicey’s Rule of Law, meaning no person is above the law, and all are equally subject to ordinary laws of the land.

2. Equal protection of the laws

  • A US-inspired concept, meaning equal treatment in equal circumstances.
  • Allows for reasonable classification but prohibits arbitrary discrimination.

🔷 III. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification

Article 14 does not prohibit classification, but the classification must pass the following two tests:

✅ 1. Intelligible Differentia

The classification must be based on distinctive, rational characteristics that separate those included in the class from those excluded.

✅ 2. Rational Nexus

There must be a reasonable connection between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved.

📌 Case: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
The Supreme Court held that arbitrary classification under a special court act was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational nexus.

🔷 IV. Landmark Judicial Decisions on Article 14

📌 1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

Breakthrough in Article 14 interpretation.

  • The Court introduced a new dimension: arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.
  • Held that any arbitrary action of the State violates Article 14, even if there is no unequal classification.

💬 Justice Bhagwati stated:

“Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies…”

📌 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  • Extended Article 14 to include due process and procedural fairness.
  • Connected Article 14 with Articles 19 and 21, forming the Golden Triangle.
  • Arbitrary denial of the passport was held unconstitutional.

📌 3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979)

  • Public employment and government contracts must comply with non-arbitrariness and fair procedure.
  • Awarding contracts arbitrarily was held violative of Article 14.

📌 4. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)

  • Clarified that “State” under Article 12 includes government-controlled institutions.
  • Held that even private institutions receiving substantial state aid are bound by Article 14.

📌 5. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)

  • Law banning horse racing in public interest was struck down as discriminatory and arbitrary.
  • Article 14 prohibits legislation based on “hostile discrimination”.

📌 6. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

  • Struck down Section 377 IPC (to the extent it criminalized consensual homosexual acts).
  • The Court applied Article 14 to emphasize dignity, liberty, and equality for the LGBTQ+ community.

📌 7. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

  • Declared Section 497 IPC (Adultery law) unconstitutional.
  • Held that treating a woman as property of her husband and denying her agency violated Article 14.

📌 8. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

  • Instant triple talaq declared unconstitutional.
  • Violated women’s right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 14.

🔷 V. Negative and Positive Equality

✅ Negative Equality:

The State cannot defend illegal acts or extend a benefit to one simply because it was wrongly granted to another.

📌 Case: Union of India v. M. Krishnamurthy (2020)
The Court held that equality cannot be claimed in illegality.

✅ Positive Equality:

The State must actively ensure affirmative measures to provide equal opportunities.

📌 Example: Reservation policies, affirmative action, etc.

🔷 VI. Article 14 and Affirmative Action

The judiciary has upheld positive discrimination for weaker sections provided it meets the test of reasonable classification.

📌 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

  • 27% reservation for OBCs upheld.
  • However, the Court imposed a 50% cap on total reservations.

🔷 VII. Criticism and Challenges

  • Misuse of classification has led to vote-bank politics.
  • Courts must constantly balance equity and fairness with legitimate policy goals.
  • Application to private entities remains limited unless backed by state control.

🔷 VIII. Conclusion

The Doctrine of Equality under Article 14 has evolved significantly over the decades—from a strict interpretation of non-discrimination to a broader guarantee against arbitrariness in any form of state action. Through transformative judgments, the Supreme Court has broadened its scope, making it a powerful tool for social justice, good governance, and constitutional morality.

Article 14 ensures not merely formal equality, but substantive equality, essential for a just, fair, and inclusive society.

Q Discuss the interplay between Articles 14, 15, and 16 in ensuring equality.

⚖️ Interplay Between Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution

Ensuring Equality: Legal Interpretation & Judicial Precedents

🔷 I. Introduction

The Indian Constitution enshrines the principle of equality as a fundamental right under Part III. While Article 14 lays the broad foundation of equality, Articles 15 and 16 provide specific applications of this principle in social and employment contexts.

These three articles work in harmony to prohibit discrimination and ensure both formal and substantive equality.

🔷 II. Article 14 – Equality Before Law & Equal Protection

📌 Text:

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

✅ Key Features:

  • Available to all persons (not just citizens).
  • Guarantees:
  • Equality before the law (British concept).
  • Equal protection of the laws (American concept).
  • Allows reasonable classification but prohibits arbitrariness.

📚 Landmark Case: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality, introducing a broader interpretation of Article 14.

🔷 III. Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination on Certain Grounds

📌 Text (Article 15(1) and 15(2)):

Prohibits the State from discriminating on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

📌 Clauses (3) to (6):

  • Permit special provisions for:
  • Women and children [15(3)]
  • Socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs [15(4), 15(5), and 15(6)]

✅ Key Feature:

  • Substantive equality – permits affirmative action to ensure actual equality.

📚 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
The first major case to test Article 15. Supreme Court struck down caste-based reservations in educational institutions before the First Amendment introduced Article 15(4).

📚 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
Upheld 27% OBC reservation in central educational institutions under Article 15(5).

🔷 IV. Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

📌 Text:

Provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

✅ Key Provisions:

  • Article 16(1): Equality of opportunity for all citizens.
  • Article 16(2): Prohibits discrimination on similar grounds as Article 15.
  • Article 16(4): Permits reservation for backward classes not adequately represented in services.
  • Article 16(4A): Reservation in promotions for SCs/STs.
  • Article 16(6): Enables 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS).

📚 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

  • Upheld OBC reservation under Article 16(4).
  • Ruled that reservation in promotions is not allowed (later modified by 77th Amendment).
  • Introduced 50% ceiling limit on reservations.

📚 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
Upheld constitutional validity of 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments related to reservation in promotions.

📚 Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
Reiterated that no quantifiable data needed for backwardness of SCs/STs to grant reservation in promotions.

🔷 V. Interplay and Comparative Roles

FeatureArticle 14Article 15Article 16
ScopeGeneral – all personsSocial – in public spaces, educationEmployment – public jobs
Grounds of ProhibitionNo specific grounds – covers allReligion, race, caste, sex, birthplaceSame as Article 15
Positive DiscriminationIndirectly allows reasonable classificationExplicitly allows special provisions for weaker sectionsAllows reservations and promotions
Applicable toAll personsCitizens onlyCitizens only

🔷 VI. How the Articles Work Together

  1. Article 14 as the Foundation
  • It ensures a broad framework prohibiting arbitrariness in State action.
  • Acts as a guiding principle for Articles 15 and 16.
  1. Article 15 focuses on social justice
  • Prevents exclusionary practices in public spaces and education.
  • Allows compensatory discrimination to correct historic inequalities.
  1. Article 16 applies equality to public employment
  • Ensures fair opportunity and representation in government jobs.
  • Enables policies like EWS reservation and SC/ST promotion quotas.

🔷 VII. Judicial Harmonization

The Supreme Court has harmonized these provisions to:

  • Uphold formal equality (treating everyone the same).
  • Promote substantive equality (ensuring actual fairness through affirmative action).

📚 Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)

  • Rule requiring air hostesses to retire upon pregnancy was struck down.
  • Held to be gender discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 15.

📚 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

  • Decriminalized consensual homosexuality.
  • Court interpreted Articles 14, 15, and 21 together to protect dignity, equality, and privacy.

🔷 VIII. Conclusion

The interplay of Articles 14, 15, and 16 reflects the Indian Constitution’s deep commitment to equality. While Article 14 lays the groundwork for equal treatment, Articles 15 and 16 operationalize this equality in specific domains, especially social inclusion and employment.

Together, they form a cohesive legal and moral framework to bridge historic and structural inequalities, enabling inclusive growth, social justice, and constitutional morality.

Q Critically analyze the reservation policy in light of constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations.

🧾 Critical Analysis of Reservation Policy in India

In Light of Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Interpretations

🔷 I. Introduction

Reservation in India refers to a system of affirmative action that provides representation in education, employment, and legislatures to historically disadvantaged groups — primarily Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and now Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

While the Indian Constitution envisions equality (Article 14), it also permits positive discrimination to achieve substantive equality through Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4). Over the decades, this policy has evolved through a complex judicial journey.

🔷 II. Constitutional Provisions Enabling Reservation

📌 Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination

  • Article 15(4): Allows special provisions for advancement of SCs, STs, and socially and educationally backward classes.
  • Article 15(5): Enables reservation in educational institutions, including private unaided ones (except minority institutions).
  • Article 15(6): Introduced via the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, allowing up to 10% reservation for EWS among unreserved categories.

📌 Article 16 – Equality in Public Employment

  • Article 16(4): Allows reservation in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented.
  • Article 16(4A): Reservation in promotions for SCs/STs.
  • Article 16(6): Enables EWS reservation in employment.

These provisions show a constitutional commitment to social justice, but also raise questions about merit, efficiency, and economic criteria.

🔷 III. Judicial Interpretation of Reservation Policy

🧑‍⚖️ 1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

  • Caste-based educational quotas were struck down.
  • Led to the First Constitutional Amendment, adding Article 15(4).

🧑‍⚖️ 2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Mandal Case

  • Upheld 27% OBC reservation under Article 16(4).
  • Struck down reservations in promotions (later reversed by constitutional amendments).
  • Introduced important guidelines:
  • 50% ceiling limit on reservations.
  • No reservation in the creamy layer among OBCs.
  • Backwardness must be social and educational, not just economic.

🔍 Critical Insight:
This judgment balanced affirmative action with meritocracy, but created long-lasting debates on the creamy layer exclusion and cap limit.

🧑‍⚖️ 3. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

  • Upheld the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments regarding promotion quotas.
  • Required states to provide quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation.

🧑‍⚖️ 4. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

  • Removed the requirement for quantifiable data to prove backwardness of SCs/STs.
  • Upheld creamy layer exclusion for SCs/STs in promotions.

🔍 Critical Insight:
The judgment triggered debates on whether economic upliftment should disqualify SCs/STs from affirmative action, challenging the idea of perpetual backwardness.

🧑‍⚖️ 5. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) – EWS Case

  • Upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.
  • Validated 10% reservation for EWS in education and jobs, excluding SCs/STs/OBCs.
  • Argued that economic disadvantage can be a legitimate basis for affirmative action.

🔍 Critical Insight:
This marked a paradigm shift — from caste-based to class-based reservation — triggering concerns about exclusion of existing backward classes from EWS quotas.

🔷 IV. Key Issues and Criticisms of Reservation Policy

✅ 1. Merit vs. Social Justice

  • Critics argue that reservations compromise merit and efficiency.
  • Proponents argue that social disadvantage suppresses merit, and reservations level the playing field.

✅ 2. Perpetuity of Reservation

  • Originally intended as a temporary measure, reservation has continued indefinitely.
  • Raises questions about policy dependency and lack of exit mechanisms.

✅ 3. Creamy Layer Issue

  • OBC creamy layer is excluded, but SC/ST creamy layer is still debated.
  • Leads to intra-group inequalities, where benefits are cornered by the elite among backward classes.

✅ 4. Overlapping Reservations and Efficiency

  • With SC, ST, OBC, and EWS categories, many government institutions now have over 60% seats reserved, often exceeding the 50% ceiling set in Indra Sawhney.

✅ 5. Economic Criteria for EWS

  • Critics argue that EWS reservation violates the basic structure doctrine of equality, as it excludes SCs/STs/OBCs from claiming EWS benefits.

🔷 V. Benefits of Reservation Policy

Despite criticisms, reservation has:

  • Increased representation of marginalized communities in education, jobs, and politics.
  • Enabled social mobility and reduced caste-based exclusion.
  • Acted as a corrective measure for centuries of historical oppression.

🔷 VI. The Way Forward

To ensure the relevance and effectiveness of reservation:

  1. Periodic Review:
    Regular socio-economic surveys to reassess backwardness.
  2. Rationalisation:
    Avoid overlapping quotas; limit to genuinely disadvantaged.
  3. Creamy Layer Application:
    Uniformly apply creamy layer norms, even for SC/ST, to avoid elite capture.
  4. Focus on Quality Education and Skill Building:
    Reservation must be accompanied by capacity building for long-term empowerment.
  5. Sunset Clause:
    Introduce time-bound reassessment of reservation policies to avoid stagnation.

🔷 VII. Conclusion

India’s reservation policy, anchored in Articles 15 and 16, is a progressive tool of social justice. However, over-reliance, political misuse, and outdated criteria risk undermining both efficiency and inclusiveness.

The Supreme Court has played a critical role in balancing equality with affirmative action, but greater reforms, periodic review, and inclusive development policies are required to actualize true equality envisioned by the Constitution.

Exit mobile version