ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Submitted

To

Prof. Nageshwar Rao

By

Abhilash G

(Reg no: BA0130001)

Page | 1

Declaration

I do hereby declare that the project entitled “ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” submitted to Tamil Nadu National law school in partial fulfilment of requirement of award of degree in undergraduate in law is a record of original work done by me under the supervision and guidance of Prof. Nageshwar Rao department of constitutional law, Tamil Nadu National law school and has not formed basis for award of any degree or diploma or fellowship or any other title to any candidate of any university.

Place: Trichy

Date: 14.11.14

Page | 2

Certificate

This is to certify that the project entitled “ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” submitted to Tamil Nadu National law school in partial fulfilment of requirement of award of degree of under graduate in Law done by Abhilash G under the supervision and guidance of Prof. Nageshwar Rao department of constitutional law, Tamil Nadu National Law School.

Place: Trichy

Date: 5.5.14

Page | 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project

with sheer hard work and honesty. This research venture has been made

possible due to the generous co-operation of various persons. To list them all is

not practicable, even to repay them in words is beyond the domain of my

lexicon.

May I observe the protocol to show my deep gratitude to the venerated

Faculty-in-charge Prof. Nageshwar Rao, for his kind gesture in allotting me such

a wonderful and elucidating research topic. Apart from that I would like to

thank my friends for their support and suggestions during the process of

making this project

CONTENTS

Page | 4

Preface ------ 6

Research methodology ------ 7

Sources of data ------ 7

Introduction ------ 8

Equal protection ------- 9

Limitations of the Doctrine of Equal Protection-10

Rule of law -------11

Equality before law -------12

Natural justice --------16

Legitimate Expectation in article 14 --------19

Conclusion -------22

Page | 5

PREFACE

The main object of this project work is to get knowledge about the Article 14 of

the Indian Constitution, this project also discusses about all the important

ingredients of Article 14 of Indian Constitution how these ingredients have

been interpreted in the recent landmark judgements, wherein it threw focus

on how the Indian Supreme Court, have by taking the resort of Article 14 of the

Indian Constitution to give equality and natural justice without any bias.

Page | 6

Research Methodology

The research methodology used in this project is analytical and descriptive.

Data has been collected from various books, articles, papers and web sources.

This project is based upon non-doctrinal method of research. This project has

been done after a thorough research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspects

of the project.

Sources of Data

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Articles.

2. Books

3. Journals

4. Websites

Article 14 of the Indian constitutionPage | 7

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the

law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of

India “

INTRODUCTION

Article 14 declares that ‘the State shall not deny to any person

equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of

India.’. thus article 14 uses the two expressions “equality before law” and

“equal protection of law”. The phrase “equality before law” find a place in

almost in written constitution that guarantees fundamental right both these

expression .both this expression aim at establishing what is called

“equality of status” While both the expression are kind of identical but they

don’t give similar meaning.

The underlying principle of equality is not the uniformity to all

in all respects ,but rather to give them the same treatment in those respects

in which they are similar and different treatment in those respects in which

they are different .Equals must be treated equal while unequals must be

treated differently.1

EQUAL PRTECTION

1 V.N. Shuklas ;Constitution of India , pg49,Twelfth edition,2013

Page | 8

The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed

by Art 14 in its proper spectrum encompasses social and economic justice

in a political democracy.2

In interpreting this clause reference to American courts upon the

Equal protection clause of the American constitution 3

Equal protection men’s the right to equal treatment in similar

circumstances4,in fact equally circumstanced cannot be treated on a

par5,and equals cannot be treated as unequal’s.6

Equal treatment of equals is not liable to be struck down as

discriminatory unless absence of a rational relation to the object

intended to be achieved

Equality is the basic structure of the constitution .The content of

article 14 was originally interpreted by the Supreme Court confined

to the aspects of discrimination and classification but later got

expanded as to comprehend the doctrine of promissory estoppel ,

non-arbitrainess,compliance with the rules of natural justice

eschewing irationality7

Limitations of the Doctrine of Equal Protection

2 Dalmia Cement Ltd. V.Union of India ,(1996) 10 SCC 1043 State of U.P v.Deoman Upadhaya,AIR 1960 SC 1125 (1131)4 Shrikrishna Singh v. State of Rajastan,1955 (2) SCR 5315 T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka ,2002 (8) SCC 4816 State of Punjab V. Balkaran Singh ,2006 (12) SCC 7097 M. Nagaraj V.Union of India , 2006 (8) SCC 212

Page | 9

The principle of equality does not take away from the state the power

of classifying persons for legitimate purposes. The legislature is

competent to exercise its discretion and make classification

Every classification is in some degree likely to produce some

inequality , and mere production of inequality is not enough ,

Differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Art 14. It

denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for the

differentiation

If law deals with members of a well defined class , it is not obnoxious

and it is not open to the charge denial of equal protection on the

ground that it has no application to the other persons . the pensioners

form a class distinct to those in service , and so are the prisoners and

non- prisoners .Legislation enacted for the achievement of a

particular object or purpose need not be all embracing .No service

rule can satisfy each employee , its reasonableness should be

considered from the standpoint of justice to the majority of the

employees

Art 14 does not prevent the legislature from introducing a legislature

gradually , that is to say , at firts applying the legislation to some of

the institutions or objects having common features or particular areas

only according to the exigencies of the situation

No economic measure has yet been devised which is fre from

discriminatory impact and that in such a complex arena in which no

perfect alternative exist , the court does well not impose too rigorous

a standard of criticism ,under the equal protection clause ,reviewing

fiscal service

Rule of Law

Page | 10

“Rule of Law” is the basic rule of governance of any civilised policy.

The scheme of the constitution of India is based upon the concept of rule of

law .Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under

the supremacy of law. Whoever the person maybe ,however high he or she

is ,no one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he

or she maybe .

The constitutional principle of equality is inherent in the rule of

law .However ,its reach is limited because of its primary concern is not with

the content of the law but with its enforcement and application . The rule

law is satisfied when laws are applied or enforced equally, that is , even-

handedly free of bias and without irrational distinction . 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 .

One of the most important elements of the “rule of Law” is legal

certainty . When tenders are invited the terms and conditions must indicate

with legal certainty, norms and bench marks .If there is vagueness or

subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal and discriminatory

treatment. It may violate the doctrine of “level playing field”.

Equality before The Law

Page | 11

Equality before law is well defined under the Article 14 of the

Constitution which ensures that every citizen shall be likewise protected by the

laws of the country. It means that the State will not distinguish any of the Indian

citizens on the basis of their gender, caste, creed, religion or even the place of

birth. The state cannot refuse equality before the law and equal defense of the

law to any person within the territory of India. In other words, this means that

no person or groups of people can demand for any special privileges. This right

not only applies to the citizens of India but also to all the people within the

territory of India.

Both the phrases aim to establish what is called the "equality to status

and of opportunity" as embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. While

equality before the law is a somewhat negative concept implying the absence

of any special privilege in favor of any individual and the equal subjection of all

classes to the ordinary law, equal protection of laws is a more positive concept

employing equality of treatment under equal circumstances.

Thus, Article 14 stands for the establishment of a situation under which

there is complete absence of any arbitrary discrimination by the laws

themselves or in their administration.

Interpreting the scope of the Article, the Supreme Court of India held in

Charanjit Lai Choudhury vs. The Union of India8 that: (a) Equal protection

means equal protection under equal circumstances; (b) The state can make

reasonable classification for purposes of legislation; (c) Presumption of

reasonableness is in favour of legislation; (d) The burden of proof is on those

who challenge the legislation.

Explaining the scope of reasonable classification, the Court held that "even

one corporation or a group of persons can be taken to be a class by itself for the

8 AIR 1951 SC 41

Page | 12

purpose of legislation provided there is sufficient basis or reason for it. The

onus of proving that there were also other companies similarly situated and this

company alone has been discriminated against, was on the petitioner".

In its struggle for social and political freedom mankind has always tried to

move towards the ideal of equality for all. The urge for equality and liberty has

been the motive force of many revolutions. The charter of the United Nations

records the determination of the member nations to reaffirm their faith in the

equal rights of men and women.

Indeed, real and effective democracy cannot be achieved unless equality in

all spheres is realized in a full measure. However, complete equality among

men and women in all spheres of life is a distant ideal to be realised only by the

march of humanity along the long and difficult path of economic, social and

political progress.

The Constitution and laws of a country can at best assure to its citizens

only a limited measure of equality. The framers of the Indian Constitution were

fully conscious of this. This is why while they gave political and legal equality

the status of a fundamental right, economic and social equality was largely left

within the scope of Directive Principles of State Policy.

The Right to Equality affords protection not only against discriminatory

laws passed by legislatures but also prevents arbitrary discretion being vested in

the executive. In the modern State, the executive is armed with vast powers, in

the matter of enforcing by-laws, rules and regulations as well as in the

performance of a number of other functions.

The equality clause prevents such power being exercised in a

discriminatory manner. For example, the issue of licenses regulating various

trades and business activities cannot be left to the unqualified discretion of the

licensing authority. The law regulating such activities should lay down the

Page | 13

principles under which the licensing authority has to act in the grant of these

licenses.

Article 14 prevents discriminatory practices only by the State and not by

individuals. For instance, if a private employer like the owner of a private

business concern discriminates in choosing his employees or treats his

employees unequally, the person discriminated against will have no judicial

remedy.

One might ask here, why the Constitution should not extend the scope of

these right to private individuals also. There is good reason for not doing so.

For, such extension to individual action may result in serious interference with

the liberty of the individual and, in the process; fundamental rights themselves

may become meaningless.

After all, real democracy can be achieved only by a proper balance

between the freedom of the individual and the restrictions imposed on him in

the interests of the community. Yet, even individual action in certain spheres

has been restricted by the Constitution, as for example, the abolition of

untouchability, and its practice in any form by any one being made an offence.

Altogether, Article 14 lays down an important fundamental right which has to

be closely and vigilantly guarded.

There is a related matter that deserves consideration here. The right to

equality and equal protection of laws loses its reality if all the citizens do not

have equal facilities of access to the courts for the protection of their

fundamental rights.

The fact that these rights are guaranteed in the Constitution does not make

them real unless legal assistance is available for all on reasonable terms. There

cannot be any real equality in the right "to sue and be sued" unless the poorer

sections of the community have equal access to courts as the richer sections.

Page | 14

There is evidence that this point is widely appreciated in the country as a

whole and the Government of India in particular and that is why steps are now

being taken to establish a system of legal aid to those who cannot afford the

prohibitive legal cost that prevails in all parts of the country.

Natural Justice

In The Constitution of India, nowhere the expression Natural Justice is

used. However, golden thread of natural justice sagaciously passed through the

body of Indian constitution. Preamble of the constitution includes the words,

Page | 15

‘Justice Social, Economic and political’ liberty of thought, belief, worship...

And equality of status and of opportunity, which not only ensures fairness in

social and economical activities of the people but also acts as shield to

individuals liberty against the arbitrary action which is the base for principles of

Natural Justice.

As discussed earlier in the above points Art 14. guarantees equality

before law and equal protection of law. It bars discrimination and prohibits both

discriminatory laws and administrative action. Art 14 is now proving to be

bulwark against any arbitrary or discriminatory state action. The horizons of

equality as embodied in Art 14 have been expanding as a result of the judicial

pronouncements and Art 14 has now come to have a highly activist magnitude.

It laid down general preposition that all persons in similar circumstance shall be

treated alike both in privileges and liabilities imposed.

Art 14 manifests in the form of following propositions:

(i) A law conferring unguided and unrestricted power on an authority is bad for

being arbitrary and discriminatory.

(ii) Art. 14 illegalize discrimination in the actual exercise of any discretionary

power.

(iii) Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in administrative action and ensures fairness

and equality of treatment.

In some cases, the Courts insisted, with a view to control arbitrary action on

the part of the administration, that the person adversely affected by

administrative action be given the right of being heard before the administrative

body passes an order against him. It is believed that such a procedural safeguard

may minimize the chance of the Administrative authority passing an arbitrary

Page | 16

order. Thus, the Supreme Court has extracted from Art. 14 the principle that

natural justice is an integral part of administrative process.

Art. 14 guarantee a right of hearing to the person adversely affected by an

administrative order. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union9,

SC held that “the audi alteram partem rule, in essence, enforce the equality

clause in Art 14 and it is applicable not only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to

administrative order adversely affecting the party in question unless the rule has

been excluded by the Act in question.” Similarly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

India10 SC opined that Art 14 is an authority for the proposition that the

principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality

assured by Art. 14 an order depriving a person of his civil right passed without

affording him an opportunity of being heard suffers from the vice of violation of

natural justice.

There are several instances where Art 14 of the Constitution is invoked to

protect individual from the violation of natural justice principles, in Central

Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v. Briojo Nath11 in this case a

government company made a service rule authorizing it to terminate the service

of permanent employee by merely giving him a three months’ notice or salary

in lieu of notice. The rule was declared to be invalid as being violative of Art.

14 on the ground that it was unconstitutional. The rule in question constituted a

part of the employment contract between the corporation and its employees. The

Court ruled that it would not enforce, and would strike down, an unfair and

unreasonable clause in a contract entered into between parties who were not

equal in bargaining power. This was in conformity with the mandate of the

“great equality clause in Art. 14.”9 (1998) 9 SCC 25010 (1978) 1 SCC 24811AIR 1986 SC 1571

Page | 17

The Court emphasized that the judicial concept of Art. 14 have progressed

“from a prohibition against discriminatory class legislation to an invalidating

actor for any discriminatory or arbitrary state action.” The Court also

emphasized that the rule was “both arbitrary and unreasonable” and “as it also

wholly ignored and set aside the Audi alterum partum rule” violated Art. 14.

This is of the view that “the principle of natural justice has now come to be

recognized as being a part of the constitutional guarantee contained in Art. 14.”

The rule in question was “both arbitrary and unreasonable,” and it also wholly

ignored and set aside the Audi alterm partum rule and, thus, it violated Art 14.

In Cantonment Board, Dinapore v. Taramani12 in this case the

Commanding-in-chief of the cantonment board cancelled the board’s resolution

after giving it a hearing but not to the respondent to whom the permission had

been given. The Supreme Court ruled that Commanding-in-chief ought to have

given a hearing to the respondent as well before cancelling the permission given

by the board. The Court observed: audi alteram partum is a part of Art. 14 of the

Constitution”. The real affected party in fact was the party being ultimately

affected by cancellation of the Board’s resolution. Because of Art.14 “no order

shall be passed at the back of a person, prejudicial in nature to him, when it

entails civil consequences.” This is how Art 14 of the Constitution holds

element of Natural justice into it.

Legitimate Expectation in article 14

The principle of legitimate expectation is at the root of the rule of law

and requires regularity, predictability and certainty in government’s dealings

with the public. For a legitimate expectation to arise, the decisions of the

administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some

benefit or advantage which either:

12 AIR 1966 SC 108(110)

Page | 18

(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and

which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do

until there has been communicated to him some rationale grounds for

withdrawing it or where he has been given an opportunity to

comment; or

(ii) (ii) he has received assurance from the decision maker that they will

not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing

reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn. The

procedural part of it relates to a representation that a hearing or other

appropriate procedure will be afforded before the decision is made.

The substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is made

than a benefit of substantive nature will be granted or if the person is

already in receipt of the benefit than it will be continued and not be

substantially varied, then the same could be enforced. An exception

could be based on an express promise or representation or by

established past action or settled conduct. The representation must be

clear and unambiguous. It could be a representation to an individual

or to a class of persons.

Case laws:

In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries Ltd13

the Supreme Court has observed that the doctrine of legitimate

expectation falls within the purview of the principle of non-arbitrariness

as incorporated under Article 14 of the Constitution. It becomes an

13 AIR 1993 SC 1601

Page | 19

enforceable right when the Government instrumentality fails to give due

weight to it.

In Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu14

the doctrine of legitimate expectation was held to become inoperative

when there was a change in public policy or in public interest as has been

reaffirmed in some of the afore mentioned decisions

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation15 the Supreme

Court has elaborately considered the reverence of this theory. In the

estimation of the Apex Court, the doctrine does not contain any

crystallized right. It gives to the applicant a sufficient ground to seek

judicial review and the principle is mostly confined to the right to a fair

hearing before any decision is given.

In Navjyoti Co-op Group Housing Society v. Union of India16 that the

doctrine of legitimate expectation imposes in essence a duty on the

public authorities to act fairly by taking into consideration all the

relevant factors bearing a nexus to such legitimate expectation. The

concerned authority cannot act arbitrarily so as to defeat the expectation,

unless demanded by over-riding reasons of public policy.

Lastly, in  National Building Constructions Corporation v. S

Raghunathan17

it was held that legitimate expectation is a source of both, procedural

and substantive rights. The person seeking to invoke the doctrine must

be aggrieved and must have altered his position. The doctrine of

legitimate expectation assures fair play in administrative action and can

always be enforced as a substantive right. Whether or not an expectation

is legitimate is a question of fact

14 AIR 1994 SC 98815 AIR 1994 SC 98816 AIR 1993 SC 15517 AIR 1998 SC 2776

Page | 20

The development of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in India has been in line with the principles evolved in common law English courts. In fact, it was from these English cases itself that the doctrine first came to be recognized by the courts in India. It therefore creates anew category of remedy against an administrative action and furthers the rule of law in India.18

Conclusion What article 14 forbids is discrimination by law that is treating persons similarly circumstanced differently and treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same way or as has been pithily put treating equals as unequal and unequal as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law and is directed against discriminatory class legislation.

A legislature for the purpose of dealing with the complex problem that arise out of an infinite variety of human relations cannot but proceed on some sort of selection or classification of persons upon whom the legislation is to operate.

18 DD Basu,shorter constitution of India

Page | 21

Its is well settled that Article 14 forbid classification for the purpose of legislation. Its is equally well settled that in order to meet the test of Article 14 (i) classification must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of group and (ii) the differentia must have a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the executive or legislative action under challenge.

Article 14 contains a guarantee of equality before law to all persons and protection to them against discrimination by law. It forbids class legislation.

Page | 22