Article 14 - Constitution of India - Notes

Article 14

·         There are two types of equality:-

o   Formal/Negative/Numerical/Legal Equality – Treat everybody equally

o   Substantive/Equality of Result/Equality in Pact/Actual Equality/Positive Equality – Only equals could be treated equally and if unequal are treated equally then that amounts to an inequality in itself.

·         Substantive Equality is achieved by enabling state to remove discrimination.

·         Substantive Equality  allows for Compensatory Discrimination /Positive Discrimination/Reverse Discrimination/Protective Discrimination

·         Equality Before Law- Nobody is above law

·         Discrimination without reason violates equality

·         Discrimination with reasonable reason does not violates equality

·         Law presumes constitutionality of every action – Person must show inequality

·          Formal equality simply requires the absence of any discrimination in the words of law and requires that similar cases must be treated similarly according to one and the same rule.

·         Identical treatment in unequal circumstances would lead to inequality – Jagjit Singh v. State (AIR 1954 Hyd. 28)

·         Exceptions – Military Office, Governor/President Office, Diplomat

·         Equality Before Law – Taken from English Common Law is a declaration of equality of all persons within the territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. 

·         Equal Protection of the Laws – Taken from the 14^th amendment of the American Constitution directing to protect all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union in the enjoyment of their rights and privileges without favouritism or discrimination.

Nexus Test -  State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)

·         Act was passed to provide for speedier trial of certain offences. Case of Anwar Ali was picked up from Thana and was directed to be tried by Special Criminal courts. They argued that they were subjected to discriminatory treatment as the procedure laid down under the Act was more cumbersome and harsh that the procedure of trial under CrPC.

·         . The Act did not lay down any policy or guidelines for exercise of executive discretion Speedier trial was too vague uncertain and illusive to afford a basis for rational classification.

o   Classification should be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group.

o   The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in question.

Kathi Ranning Rawat v State of Saurashtra (1952)

·         Section 11 of Saurashtara Public Safety Measure, 1949 was upheld as constitutional. The court held that the act’s preamble afforded sufficient guidance for making classification and exercising discretion. The government had filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the impugned order was passed.

·         The Court held that vice of discrimination consists in unguided and unrestricted power of singling out for different treatment one among a class of persons who are similarly situated.

·         Rani was charged for murder and government justified the need for immediate action on basis of maintenance to preserve public safety and order.

·         Anwar Ali was distinguished in this case as there was also a need to need to provide for public safety and order.

Reasonableness Test - Magan Lal Chhagan Lal v Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay (1974)

·         Act conferred power on authorities to initiate speedy eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants of government and corporation premises. The preamble stated “Speedy eviction of unauthorized occupation of government and corporation premises”.

·         These laws were challenged on the ground of availability of two procedures for eviction of unauthorized premises one under ordinary civil procedure and another under the special procedure under the above Acts. The law was upheld as making valid classification and providing sufficient guidelines to the executive for exercising discretion

·         Reasonableness And Non Arbitrariness Test

o   If legislation itself makes the classification, it will be invalid if the reasonable classification test is not satisfied.

o   If legislation confers discretion to administrative authorities the legislation will be valid if it provides sufficient guidelines for the exercise of discretion by the executive. In such a situation the policy or guidelines can be gathered from the Preamble or surrounding circumstances.

o   If the executive abuses its discretion, the executive action will be struck down as the Supreme Court had struck down the allotment of government accommodation or petrol pumps by Ministers from their discretionary quota as the Minister’s action suffered from arbitrariness

Khyerbari Tea co. Ltd. v. State of Assam

·         The validity of taxation was challenged on the ground that it singled out tea and jute as objects of taxation.

·         The court held that legislature is free to decide to determine that what articles are to be taxed and what are to be not

·         In matter of taxation, State is allowed to choose districts, objects, persons, methods, and rates of taxation as long as it does so reasonably

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

·         Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within traditional and doctrinaire limits.

·         From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14

Chiranjit Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India        

·                Right is not limited only to citizens.

·                Right covers both juristic and non-juristic persons.

·                This case held that even a company has the right to equality against the State.

Air India v Nargesh Meerza (1981)

·         termination of services of airhostesses on first pregnancy was held to be arbitrary and infringement of Article 14 and 15. The court however did not find any fault of termination of service was on third pregnancy

Ajai Hasia v Khalid Mujeeb (1981)

·         a system of selection by oral interview was held to be valid but the allocation of more than 15% for interview was arbitrary and unreasonable.

·         It must now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting the denial of equality.

Mithu v State of Punjab (1983)

·         The Court asked: whether there is any intelligible basis for giving differential treatment to an accused who commits the offence murder whilst under a sentence of life imprisonment and if so is such a law is fair? Section 303 of IPC was held to be unreasonable and unfair and hence unconstitutional.

Common Cause v Union of India (1996)

·         Allotment of petrol pump by petroleum minister from his discretionary quota was held to be unfair and arbitrary for not following the guidelines for allotment of petrol pumps.

Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation v STAT (1986)

·         the Regional transport authority was required to give preference to those applicants who were approved by Central Ministry of Tourism in granting permit for motor vehicles. The Court invalidated this requirement as arbitrary and unreasonable.

Naz Foundation v Govt NCT of Delhi (2009)

·         Delhi High Court struck down Section 377 criminalizing gay sex of IPC as arbitrary and unreasonable and thus unconstitutional.

Centre For Public Interest Litigation v Union of India (2012)

·         the court invalidated allocation of 2G spectrum on first-come-first basis on the ground that the allocation or disposal of natural resources must be done by auction so as achieve procedural fairness.