case study on article 14 of indian constitution

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

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

Theft vs. extortion: a detailed analysis & comparative study.

Case Summary: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952

Case summary: joseph shine 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

• भाषा : हिंदी
• Classroom Courses
• Our Selections
• Student Login
• About NEXT IAS
• Director’s Desk
• Advisory Panel
• Faculty Panel
• General Studies Courses
• Optional Courses
• Interview Guidance Program
• Postal Courses
• Test Series
• Current Affairs
• Student Portal

• Pre Cum Mains Foundation Courses
• GS Pre cum Main Foundation Course
• FAIM: 2-Year GS Foundation with Advanced Integrated Mentorship
• Elevate: 2-Year Comprehensive GS Pre Cum Main Course
• Trinity: 3-Year Integrated GS Pre cum Main Course
• Prelims Courses
• Current Affairs Course
• CSAT Course
• Current Affairs for Prelims (CAP)-2024
• Mains Courses
• Mains Advance Course (MAC)
• Essay Course Cum Test Series
• First Step — NCERT Based Course
• Optional Foundation Courses
• Mathematics
• Anthropology
• Political Science and International Relations (PSIR)
• Optional Advance Courses
• Political Science & International Relations (PSIR)
• Civil Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Interview Guidance Programme / Personality Test Training Program
• GS + CSAT Postal Courses
• Current Affairs Magazine – Annual Subscription
• GS+CSAT Postal Study Course
• First Step Postal Course
• Postal Study Course for Optional Subjects
• Prelims Test Series for CSE 2024 (Offline/Online)
• General Studies
• GS Mains Test Series for CSE 2024
• Mains Test Series (Optional)
• PSIR (Political Science & International Relations)
• Paarth PSIR
• PSIR Answer Writing Program
• PSIR PRO Plus Test Series
• Mathematics Year Long Test Series (MYTS) 2024
• Indian Economic Services
• Anubhav (All India Open Mock Test)
• Prelims (GS + CSAT)
• Headlines of the Day
• Daily Current Affairs
• Editorial Analysis
• Monthly MCQ Compilation
• Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
• Previous Year Papers
• Down to Earth
• Kurukshetra
• Union Budget
• Economic Survey
• NIOS Study Material
• Beyond Classroom

Right to Equality (Article 14 to 18): Meaning, Provisions & Significance

The Right to Equality , enshrined as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, plays a crucial role in building a just and equitable society. The provisions under this right collectively form the bedrock upon which the edifice of Indian democracy is built. This article of NEXT IAS delves into the nuances of provisions related to the Right to Equality, their meaning, significance, exceptions, and more.

Meaning of Right to Equality

The Right to Equality in the Indian Constitution is a fundamental human right that signifies that all people should be treated equally and without discrimination. This principle is foundational to human rights law and is enshrined in various international treaties and national constitutions around the world. The essence of this right is to ensure that no individual or group is denied societal opportunities or privileges that are available to others based on arbitrary criteria such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or any other status.

Right to Equality in India

The Right to Equality is a Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution of India. The detailed provisions related to the Right to Equality contained in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution form the cornerstone of justice and fairness in society. Together they ensure that everyone is treated equally before the law, given equal opportunities in certain matters, and is not discriminated against on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, etc.

Right to Equality: Provisions Under the Indian Constitution

Equality before law and equal protection of laws (article 14).

• This provision mandates 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.
• This right is extended to citizens, foreigners as well as legal persons such as companies.

Equality before Law

• the absence of any special privileges in favor of any person,
• the equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land,
• no person is above the law.

Equal Protection of Laws

• equality of treatment under equal circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws,
• the similar application of the same laws to all persons who are similarly situated,
• the like should be treated alike without any discrimination.
• A simple comparison of the concepts of ‘Equality before Law’ and ‘Equal Protection of Laws’ tells that the former is a negative concept , while the latter is a positive concept. However, they both align in their common aim to establish equality of legal status, opportunity, and justice.

Rule of Law

• Absence of arbitrary power i.e. no man can be punished except for a breach of law.
• Equality before law i.e. equal subjection of all citizens to the laws of the land.
• The primacy of the rights of the individual i.e. constitution is the result of the rights of the individual as defined and enforced by the courts of law, rather than the constitution being the source of the individual rights.
• The concept of ‘ Equality before Law ’ is an element of the concept of ‘Rule of Law’.
• In the case of the Indian system, only the 1st and 2nd elements of the ‘Rule of Law’ are applicable, and not the 3rd one. This is because, in India, the constitution is the source of the individual rights.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the ‘Rule of Law’ as embodied in Article 14 is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution , and hence cannot be destroyed by a constitutional amendment.

Exceptions to Equality

The rule of equality before the law has certain exceptions. These exceptions are mentioned below:

• As ruled by the Supreme Court, while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits the reasonable classification of persons, objects, and transactions by law. However, the classification should not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive.
• As per Article 361 , the President of India and the Governor of States enjoy certain immunities.
• As per Article 361-A , no person shall be liable for any proceedings in any court for publication of a true report of any proceedings of Parliament or State Legislature.
• Article 105 provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or any committee thereof. Article 194 makes a similar provision for members of the State Legislature.
• Article 31-C provides that laws made by the state for implementing DPSPs contained in Article 39 (b) and (c) cannot be challenged on the grounds of being violative of Article 14.
• Immunity to foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, and diplomats from criminal and civil proceedings.
• UNO and its agencies also enjoy diplomatic immunity from certain proceedings.

Prohibition of Discrimination on Certain Grounds (Article 15)

• The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• No citizen shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition on grounds only of religion, race, case, sex, or place of birth w.r.t. access to public places.
• The first provision prohibits discrimination only by the state , while the second provision prohibits discrimination both by the state and private individuals.
• The crucial term here is ‘only’, which connotes that discrimination on grounds other than those mentioned in the provisions is not prohibited.
• The state is authorized to enact special provisions for the benefit of women and children, such as reserving seats in local bodies or providing free education for children.
• The state is empowered to enact special measures for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, as well as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes such as seat reservations or fee concessions in public educational institutions.
• The state has the authority to enact special measures for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, scheduled castes, or scheduled tribes in matters of admission to educational institutions, including private ones, whether aided or unaided by the state, excluding minority educational institutions.
• The state is empowered to enact special measures for the advancement of economically weaker sections of society. Additionally, the state may reserve up to 10% of seats for such sections in educational institutions, excluding minority educational institutions. A. This reservation is in addition to existing reservations and is determined based on family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage, as notified by the state.

Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment (Article 16)

• This provision provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State.
• The citizens cannot be discriminated against or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
• Parliament may prescribe residence as a condition for certain employment positions under the State, Union Territory, Local Authority, or other authority.
• The State can provide for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of the backward classes that are inadequately represented in the state services.
• A law can provide that certain religious institutions or denominations may require officeholders to belong to a particular religion or denomination.
• The state can reserve up to 10% of appointments for economically weaker sections, in addition to existing reservations, based on criteria such as family income or other indicators of economic disadvantage. A. This reservation has been added by the 103rd Amendment Act of 2019.

Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)

• This provision has abolished ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form.
• Any act enforcing disability based on untouchability shall be deemed as an offense punishable by law.
• Untouchability refers to social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons because of their birth in certain castes. Hence, it does not cover the social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusions from religious services, etc.
• However, the term ‘untouchability’ has not been defined in the Constitution or the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955 (the act enacted to enforce this provision).

Abolition of Titles ( Article 18)

• It prohibits the state from granting any title, except for military or academic distinctions, to any individual, whether a citizen or a foreigner.
• It prohibits Indian citizens from accepting titles from any foreign state.
• A foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the state cannot accept titles from any foreign state without the President’s consent.
• Neither citizens nor foreigners holding any office of profit or trust under the State are allowed to accept any gift, salary, or position from or under any foreign state without the President’s consent.
• Hereditary titles of nobility e.g. Maharaja, Deewan, etc which were conferred by colonial states are banned by this Article.
• National Awards e.g. Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Sri are not banned by this Article. However, they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes to the names of awardees. Otherwise, they should forfeit the awards.

Significance of Right to Equality

The right to equality holds immense significance as it serves as the foundation for a just and inclusive society. Its importance lies in several key aspects:

• Fairness and Justice – It ensures that all individuals are treated equally under the law, irrespective of their background, race, religion, caste, gender, or economic status. This fosters a sense of fairness and justice in society.
• Non-Discrimination – This right prohibits discrimination in all spheres of life, including employment, education, housing, and public services. It creates a level playing field for everyone, regardless of their differences.
• Inclusivity – This right promotes inclusivity by recognizing the dignity and worth of every individual. It encourages respect for diversity and the participation of all members of society in civic and political life.
• Social Cohesion – This right helps in building social cohesion by reducing social tensions and disparities. When individuals feel that they are treated fairly and have equal opportunities, it fosters a sense of belonging and unity within society.
• Human Rights – This is a fundamental human right enshrined in various international and national legal instruments. Protecting this right is essential for upholding the broader framework of human rights and dignity.

In conclusion, equality lies at the heart of the Indian Constitution, serving as the cornerstone of justice, fairness, and social cohesion. This principle of equality ensures that all individuals are treated fairly before the law, without any unreasonable discrimination. By upholding this fundamental right, India strives to build a society where every citizen has equal opportunities and rights, fostering inclusivity and empowering each individual to contribute to the nation’s progress and prosperity.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Pardoning power of president & governor, anti-defection law (adl), legislative procedure in parliament, types of bills in parliament, financial emergency (article 360), president’s rule (article 356), leave a reply cancel reply.

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

Featured Post

NEXT IAS (Delhi)

Old rajinder nagar.

• 27-B, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar no.118, Near Karol Bagh Metro, New Delhi-110060

Mukherjee Nagar

• 1422, Main Mukherjee Nagar Road. Near Batra Cinema New Delhi-110009

NEXT IAS (Bhopal)

• Plot No. 46 Zone - 2 M.P Nagar Bhopal - 462011
• 8827664612 ,

NEXT IAS (Jaipur)

• NEXT IAS - Plot No - 6 & 7, 3rd Floor, Sree Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Above Zudio Showroom Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015

NEXT IAS (Prayagraj)

• 31/31, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001

Right to Freedom (Article 19 to 22): Meaning, Provisions & Significance

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.

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

28316 Views

Category Others , Other Articles by - Ishaan  

Recent Articles

• Creepy Crawling Pieces Of Evidence: The Contributions Of Forensic Entomology On A Crime Scene.
• Presumption Of Innocence In Indian Law
• Definition Of Standard Of Proof In Indian Law
• Medical Malpractice And Forensic Medicine: Examining The Role Of Forensic Medicine In Medical Malpractice
• Frequently Asked Questions On Sale Deed And Inheritance
• Delhi HC Issues Directions For Sale Of Used Hard Disk Drives
• 5 Tips for Boosting Law Firm Productivity
• Frequently Asked Questions On Sale Deed
• Right To Health Includes Right To Be Made Aware Of Products Quality: SC
• Delhi HC Issues Directions To Maintain Hygiene In Dairies And Ensure Medical Care Of Cattle

More »

Popular Articles

• Forensic Evidence And Wrongful Convictions
• Breaking Down The Law: Exploring House Trespass Vs House Breaking
• Dna Profiling: Confirming Convictions With Forensic Applicability
• All About Avyavaharika Debt
• The Impact Of Artificial Intelligence On Forensic Science

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 9,54,037 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:

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.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Important Case Laws

• Constitutional Law Subject-wise Law Notes
• May 24, 2021

Article 14 of Constitution of India

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”

Article 14 of Constitution of India states that every citizen of India is equal in the eyes of law, it should not afford unequal treatment the discrimination on post, casts, religion, place of birth, sex is strictly prohibited. It is also a first fundamental right, which talks about equality which prohibit unequal treatment and demand for those laws which afford equal treatment.

Concept of Rule of law

Rule of law basically means if anyone in the country, either normal citizen of India or any government official, president, prime minister, everyone is treated equally, if any person in the whole country does any act which is legally not justified, he/she may be treated similarly in the eyes of law, according to rule of law no one is supreme from anyone, the concept of rule of law is develop by the “A V Dicey” in their book ‘The constitution of England’.

Article 14 (1) Equality Before Law

Equality before law is an English law concept, it is a negative approach and in equality before law, it should not afford unequal treatment, it is used in very generic form in equality before law.

Equality before law states the important principle that all the independent beings must be treated equally by the law. It also states that all are subject to the same laws of justice. The law ensures that no person or group of individuals is privileged or discriminated in front of the law. [1]

 Exceptions to Equality Before Law

The president, governor of state enjoys following things

• The president is not answerable for the activities and duties done in his office.
• No criminal proceedings instituted in court during his office term.
• No person is entitled to arrest or imprisonment of president or governor during his office term.
• An act done by his personal capacity, no civil proceeding shall be initiated during the office term of the president and governor.
• If any person publishes any true report of parliament proceeding in newspaper or article, he/she may not liable for any criminal or civil proceeding.
• If any member of parliament said anything which dislike by other person in the parliament or vote which is dislike other person in this type of case no one can initiate civil or criminal proceeding against the member of parliament.
• If any member of legislature of state said anything which dislike by other person in the legislature of any committee or vote which is dislike other person in this type of case no one can initiate civil or criminal proceeding against the member of legislature of state

Article 14 (2) Equal Protection of Laws

It is an American concept and a positive approach, it says it is not compulsory that laws have universal application, basically it says all laws to every person cannot apply in a same proportion, it also says that we have to make and demand these types of laws which helps in affording of equal treatment in the country, it says for better public welfare classification is must, for classification reorganisation of different factor existing in our country is must.

Equal protection of law states that law have to provide equal opportunities to those who are in similar situations. Every person who loves in the territory of India has the right before law. 

This concept is taken from the American Constitution. It could be said to be a positive concept because it depicts equality in equal circumstances.

Suppose in a house there are two children’s, first one is of 5 years old and second one is 10 years old and we think to treat both the children equally like their proper education, proper health facility etc. It does not mean the expenses of both the children are same because of their age group, the older children tuition fees and other expenses are lack somewhere from other. So, for better treatment it is essential to differentiate and classify both the children’s need, this is basically a equal protection of law which says two persons which are not equal, who are in unequal situation, the laws which are applicable of unequal people laws also may differ for both the people on the basic unequal situation.

For preventing this classification from undue influence we have formulated a test in State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara [2]

For this we have two conditions first is “ Intelligible Differentia ” and second one is “ Rational Nexus ”

• Intelligible differentia- if you are creating two groups, it is essential to assign reason why you are differentiating two different groups, means there has been an intelligent reason that why you are differentiating those two groups in different group.
• Rational nexus- it says whatever your purpose is for differentiating two groups from each other and whatever result you want to achieve from differentiating those two groups, there will be a nexus between them in other words there is a rational relationship between classification and desired end.

All that we are discussing above are before 1970, in 1970 supreme court will found that old doctrine very negative and restrictive approach. Then in the case E.P.  Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [3] in this case supreme court will formulate a new doctrine with a reason that “Quality is a dynamic concept, it cannot be cribbed, cabined or confined with traditional limits” this new doctrine is a very dynamic and activist in nature, they say in this case equality before law does not mean only rule of law, new doctrine expended the old doctrine and says equality before law will include the principle of natural justice and rule of law both.

This view will be adopted in Menka Gandhi v. Union of India [4] in this case held that the main motive of Article 14 will bw fairness and equality state action arbitrariness will be strike out, from doing that Article 14 will ensures ‘fairness and equality’ i.e. reasonableness is an essential element of equality on non-arbitrariness. [5]

So basically, new doctrine is reasonableness + 2 tests from old doctrine.

There will be clear approach from the new to the old, Article 14 demand is reasonableness in state action the classification are most important methods meeting that demand, the new approach to Article 14 was propounded state action was found reasonableness therefore invalid under Article 14.

Article 14 guarantee every person including non-citizen and transgender equal protection of   the law to every person of the India, Article 14 strikes at arbitrates in the state action ensure equality and fairness of treatment, the principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, Article 14 like brooding omnipresence

Part –III of the Indian Constitution which contains the information about fundamental rights From Article 12 to 32 along with Directive Principle of State Policy of Part-IV are also termed as the Cornerstone or one can say the foundation of the Constitution of India.

No one can use the fundamental rights illegally nor they can destroy the fundamental right of the citizens of India. As we all are very much familiar with the fact that India is a democratic country, the rights which are given to each and every citizen are the most basic requirement in these days and are known as fundamental rights.

No one in India can touch a very fabric of the Constitution of India means no one can change or claim the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Nobody can pass such a law which may hit or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution of India.  we all know about the absolute power or you can say it cannot be taken away [6] .

Neither anyone (in India) can touch a very Fabric of the Constitution of India means the basic structure of the Constitution of India nor can pass such a law which may hit or violate the basic structure of the Constitution of India.[1] So Article 14 has absolute power or you can say it cannot be taken away because it has been described as a part of basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Article 32 is a Heart and Soul of the Constitution of India’’ because this Article provides guarantee against the fundamental right that no one can violate, destroy the fundamental right of the citizen of India, No one can suspend this Article except by the president during the time of national emergency and this exception is provided in the Constitution of India under Article 32 clause (4).

Case Laws dealing with Article 14 of Constitution of India                                         

• For instance when we look at the case of Air India vs Nargesh Meerza , the rule for termination of the Indian Airlines mentioned that an Air Hostess had to retire from their services in following cases:
• When she turns 35
• When she get married within 4 years of her service
• When she gets pregnant

The court went against this rule. The court stated that terminating the services of an air hostess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to discrimination as it was an unreasonable ground for termination. As mentioned in the regulation of Air India, the air hostess could marry therefore the grounds of pregnancy was not reasonable. Therefore, it was said that this particular rule violated Article 14. Thus such termination wouldn’t be considered valid.

• If we look at the case of Harsh Mander v UOI [7] , we can see that the judgement brought a change in matter of begging. Earlier due to Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 different form of begging were criminalized. But on the ground on right to equality under Article 14, the judgement removed around 25 sections of the same Act. 

In this case, the court stated that begging is not any form of a disease rather it is the mindset of people which has stigmatized and ultimately led to criminalization in the society. It also mentioned that criminalizing thing like begging will only be proven as a attack on fundamental rights of the poor people. Somehow, this thing might also have negative impact on the basic necessities like food and shelter.

• We can also look at the case of National Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI [8] This case law would give us a different perspective. 

The case was filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) with the aim of providing identity to persons who ‘fall out’ the category of male/female or we can say to the third sex. 

People were discriminating the transgender person, But the court stated that Article 14 of the Constitution that is the Right to Equality, was made to provide equal rights to all the citizens in gender neutral terms.

Article 14 of the constitution is one of the vital Fundamental Rights under Part 3 of the Indian Constitution. It is one of the most important article because it provides equality to all the people irrespective of their caste, gender, religion etc.

The Article has 2 important aspects namely equality before the law and the equal protection of the law and both of them play a vital role.

According to this law, no person shall be said to be above the law. All of them has to abide to the provisions of law. But keep in mind that equality as provided under Article 14 is not universal rather the principle of equality shall be followed among equals. 

The only reason to make such laws is that people must get maximum benefits from these laws. Classification on any basis is not okay. 

There are a few developments made under Article 14. The main purpose is to remove arbitrates which exists in the mindset of people. This article could be said to have a wider scope.

[1] CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P.No.48 (Eastern Book Company, 2017 Thirteenth Edition)

[2] AIR 1951 SC 318

[3] AIR 1974 SC 555

[4] AIR 1978 SC 597

[5] Judicial Review Laxmikanth Summary https://youtu.be/gtc-iBmjkU0

[6] Judicial Review Laxmikanth Summary Available at https://youtu.be/gtc-iBmjkU0

[7] 2018 Del HC

[8] AIR 2014 SC 1863.

Author: Sparsh Bagga (Amity Law School, Noida)

You might like

Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare

Understanding Ancillarisation

Beneficial Construction in Interpretation of Statutes

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

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.

Table of Contents

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.

How Small Businesses Increase Sales Volume – Step-by-Step Guide

Types of Worker Compensation Benefits

Doctrine of Frustration of Contract

Significance of sexual harassment and protection of women in modern 21st century

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.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Don't have an account?

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 411 of the Indian Penal Code : Dishonestly receiving stolen property – All You Need to Know | IPC
• Section 86 Indian Penal Code (IPC) – All you need to know

Related Posts

Habeas Corpus – Legal Maxim of the Day

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

An Overview of Article 14 of the Constitution's Right to Equality

Equal justice under the law, absolute equality and equality before the law, as a result, the premises set out in dalmia's case remain legitimate for controlling a valid classification, and they are as follows[20]:.

• A legislation may be constitutional even though it applies to a single individual if that single individual is considered as a class by itself due to particular circumstances or reasons that apply to him but not to others.
• There is always a presumption in favour of a statute's legality, and the burden of proof is on the person who challenges it to establish that it violates constitutional principles.
• In certain situations, the assumption can be rebutted by demonstrating that, notwithstanding the fact that the statute contains no classification or distinction unique to any individual or class and not applicable to any other individual or class, the legislation solely affects that individual or class.
• It must be presumed that the legislature recognises and understands the need of its own people for its laws to address problems that have been identified through experience, and that discrimination is founded on appropriate reasons.
• To uphold the presumption of legality, the court may examine issues of common knowledge, matters of report, historical context, and any condition of facts that may be imagined existing at the time.

Laws that provide equal protection

Obtaining justice, protection against arbitrary decisions, the legal notion of reasonable expectation, validity of special courts under the constitution, discretion in administration, landmark judgment (article 14) a.k. gopalan v. state of madras, landmark judgment (article 14) chiranjit lal chowdhuri vs union of india, landmark judgment (article 14) state of bombay v. fn balsara, law article in india, please drop your comments, you may like.

Arbitration Law: A Detailed...

Spear Phishing: A Comprehen...

The Nexus between Section 1...

Anticipatory Bail: A Crucia...

Exceptions To The Rule Of N...

Fraudulent Transfer

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

Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

• Experts Corner

25 Landmark Judgments on Constitutional Law by the Supreme Court in 2022 [Part II]

by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Sangam Ghorpade†† Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 7

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)

Part I 1 of this article which is a roundup of all the 25-landmark constitutional law judgments delivered from January to June 2022. This part as a sequel takes forward and covers judgments from July to December 2022 inclusive of all the judgments that showcased consideration, interpretation, and evolution of important constitutional law principles.

The remaining judgments are as follows:

(1) Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2

(Delivered on July 20, 2022)

Coram: 3-Judge Bench of HM Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna

Authored by: HD Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

The writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenged the series of FIRs registered against him for allegedly inciting communal hatred and disrupting harmony allegedly through his tweets, registered by the Delhi Police as well as the U.P. Police. A relief of grant of bail in multiple FIR’s registered in multiple districts and multiple States was sought for in the petition. The Supreme Court, whilst referring to all the tweets held that the investigating authorities viz. police had violated the provisions of Section 41( b )( ii ) CrPC, by not recording the reasons for the necessity of arrest of the petitioner. The Supreme Court came down heavily on police authorities for not following the law of the land especially the amended provisions of Chapter V, wherein it has been laid down that police cannot arrest any accused person, till and until necessary grounds subjecting him to custodial interrogation are made out. The court correlated the provisions of Sections 40 and 41 CrPC with Articles 19(1)( a ) and 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of the petitioner, who is a journalist and relying upon the judgment of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India , 3 held that artistic and journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)( g ) can only be exercised when there is freedom from arrest or interference of liberty is not there by the petitioner. It was further held that courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum — the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment and the need to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law on one hand and ensuring the liberty, dignity and freedom of all its citizens on the other. It was further held that successive repetitive FIRs filed on the same subject cannot be lodged in the manner as has been done in the case. The Court further held that a prospective condition like a blanket ban on tweeting by the accused person cannot be made as a precondition for grant of bail, as it is not only disproportionate but also contravenes the fundamental tenets of fair trial, especially under Section 437 CrPC. In this regard, the Court relied on the judgment of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra . 4 The court also passed a blanket order protecting the petitioner from arrest in relation to the FIR of a similar nature involving similar subject-matter likely to be registered anytime in future. Writ petitions were allowed.

(2) X v. Health & Family Welfare Department 5

(Delivered on July 21, 2022)

Authored by: HM Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

The issue before the Court arose in the context of inclusion of an unmarried women within the ambit of Rule 3( b ) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (“MTP Rules”) for the termination of pregnancy in terms of Section 3(2)( b ) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”). The petitioner was denied the opportunity of abortion of the fetus in her womb on the ground that she was an unmarried lady, and not covered by the provisions of Rule 3( b ). The Court held that the High Court took an extremely restrictive and narrow pedantic view of Rule 3( b ), excluding unmarried women from its ken. Referring to Explanation 1 and the phrase employed therein “women or her partner” , the Court held that the section intends to cover all categories of women within its purview, whosoever wants to get their fetus aborted for an unwanted pregnancy. The court compared the provisions of the pre-amendment and the post-amendment modifications to Section 3 of the MTP Act, wherein prior to the amendment the word “women or her partner” was not existing but was substituted through the amendment of 2021. Holding women’s rights to her reproductive choice as an insegregable and inseparable part of her personal liberty as under Article 21, it was held that women have a sacrosanct right to her bodily integrity. Referring to the longline of judgments of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., 6 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 7 and High Court on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra , 8 the Court held that if the woman does not want to continue her pregnancy, then forcing her to do so violates her bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health. Engagement in premarital sex cannot be labelled as vicious or criminal in nature only because notions of social morality are totally subjective. The plea of the women accordingly was entertained, judgment of the High Court was set aside, holding that the rules read with Section 3(2)( b ) of the MTP Act clearly envisages and encompasses unmarried women within their scope and purview. She was allowed to abort subject to the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS Delhi as an interim arrangement.

(3) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 9

(Delivered on July 27, 2022)

Coram: 3-Judge Bench of HM Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar

Authored by: HM Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Challenge was laid to various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA Act”) and the various Rules framed thereunder, specifically the provisions relating to the following three heads:

( a ) The registration of ECIR and procedures relating to disclosure of the same to the accused person.

( b ) Powers of arrest and grant of bail in relation thereto.

( c ) Attachment of property as proceeds arising out of crime/offence committed under the scheduled offences.

PMLA Act and objectives

The Court whilst referring to the parliamentary intent of PMLA Act observed that money laundering has become a means of livelihood for drug dealers, peddlers, terrorists, human traffickers, and host of white-collar criminals. Circulation of tainted money breeds discontent in the society and the country both, leading to more crime and civil unrest, consequentially obliging the Central Government to protect the people from such offences. The proactive steps taken towards checking such serious and deleterious offences for the society must always be facilitated and the interpretation of various provisions must also be in accord thereof.

The Court while adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the PMLA Act extensively referred to the international background, conferences and resolutions that compelled the enactment of such a strongly worded enactment viz. UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Basel Statement of Principles enunciated in 1989; the financial action task force (“FATF” ) established therein in July 1989, later adopted by the UN General Assembly in February 1990, urging the State parties and signatories to enact comprehensive legislation for dealing with the serious threat of money laundering. The Court also examined and scanned the Preamble, legislative intent, parliamentary objective, and other provisions behind enactment of the PMLA Act, to arrive at a finding that the purpose of PMLA Act was as serious as the major design to remedy it viz. putting a lid on activities emanating, relating, perpetuating, or leading to money laundering.

Section 5: Attachment, adjudication and confiscation of property involved in money laundering

Whilst repelling the challenge to Section 5 the Court held as follows:

( a ) The powers are vested in a senior responsible officer of the rank of Director (not below the rank of Deputy Director in any eventuality). Such authorised senior officer is expected to act only when there are reasons to believe “on the basis of material in his possession, recorded in writing” that when proceeds of crime (money laundering) are likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with in any manner resulting in frustrating, wiping out of the proceedings concerning confiscation, then he may order for immediate attachment of the property involved.

( b ) The order of attachment is preceded by order of provisional attachment, only after approval by the Magistrate or Court competent to take cognizance of the scheduled offence (under the Schedule II, PMLA Act). This acts as another check on arbitrary attachment or confiscation of the subject property.

( c ) The efficacy and urgency of prevention of money laundering demands an urgent, timely intervention by the authorised investigating agency, for which reason therefore, without registering FIR the power has rightly been conferred for provisionally attaching the apprehended proceeds of crime without formal registration of FIR.

( d ) The provisional attachment is operative for a time-bound period of 180 days, within which it has to be approved by 3-member adjudicating authority of senior responsible judicial officers, failing which it ceases to exist . The orders of adjudicating authorities are subject to appeal before Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 25 of the 2002 Act, thus not making the adjudicating authority the final arbiter on the said issue. The Appellate Tribunal can always decide on the validity of the same, which is further appealable before the High Court under Section 42 of the 2002 Act on both questions of fact and law.

Thus, Section 5 was held to be not arbitrary, unguided, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India .

Validity of Sections 17 and 18 — Search and Seizure

The Court then examined the validity of Sections 17 and 18, whereupon it was argued that without registration of any FIR by the authorised officer, the powers of search and seizure could be resorted to. Holding the 2002 Act as a self-contained code and not influenced or affected by any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , especially relating to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, investigation, prosecution, etc., the Court held that CrPC cannot be made the basis for adjudicating upon the constitutionality of Section 17 of the PMLA Act. Even otherwise the pari materia provisions relating to such potent powers of search and seizure in other enactments viz. Income Tax Act, 1961 , Customs Act, 1962 (Sections 105 and 136), Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Section 37), Court held that such powers and provisions are not new to PMLA Act but have been existing for many decades in other enactments, affirmed and upheld by the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court.

Validity of Section 19 — Power to arrest

Considering challenge to Section 19, the Court declined to hold the same to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that powers of arrest are invested with high-ranking officials with strong inbuilt safeguards (reasons to be recorded in writing and grounds of arrest to be informed to the affected person at the earliest). Referring to other statutory safeguards guarding against arbitrary, immediate, or impulsive arrest, Court held that justifiably arrest can be effected under Section 19 without any formal FIR; such a practice and power has been provided in multiple other enactments, which have been governing the field for long and even held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in the past.

Reference in this regard was made to the pari materia provisions under the other economic legislations affirming and upholding the wide powers of arrest viz. FERA Act (Section 35), Customs Act (Section 104). Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B. 10 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal 11 , on the powers of arrest, since the arrest could not be effected without “reasons to believe”, with immediate production before the Magistrate within 24 hours, it was stated that both measures ensure as a check over possibility of any arbitrary mechanical arrest. Referring to the judgments of Premium Granites v. State of T.N. 12 , Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab 13 and Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v. State of Gujarat 14 , it was held that the requirement 0f giving specific reasons for exercise of powers vested with higher and senior officers leads to presumption that the discretion will not be ordinarily abused. Section 19 cannot be held unreasonable or arbitrary merely because the authority in power may abuse its authority.

Validity of Section 45 — Provisions relating to bail

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment of M.P.V. Sundararamier and Co. v. State of A.P. 15 , the Court drew a fine distinction between the effects of unconstitutionality of the statute, arising firstly, because of incompetency of the legislature and secondly, because of some of its provisions infringing constitutional guarantees (fundamental rights). In the latter case, the law becomes effective without re-enactment, if the constitutionally offensive provisions are zipped, tailored, and deleted, but not in the former. Thus, holding that Amendment of 2018 as the validating Act, removed the defect retrospectively, the basis of Section 45 being declared unconstitutional in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India 16 . The defect which had led to Section 45 being declared unconstitutional viz. the existence of the phrase “punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years” under Part A of the Schedule, stood substituted by words under this Act “through the 2018 Amendment” , and thus the effect of Nikesh Tarachand Shah 17 judgment was undone. The twin conditions now stand associated with all the offences under the 2002 Act, and Section 45 becomes operative, constitutional, and enforceable. The Court also referred to reasoning in the Constitution Bench judgment of Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality 18 , wherein “the doctrine of taking away” for validating Acts was elaborated and discussed for reviving the validity of unconstitutionally declared provisions under a re-enacted law. For the same proposition, reference was also made to the judgments of Comorin Match Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N. 19 , Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala 20 , State of H.P. v. Narain Singh 21 , to reiterate and emphasise upon the said proposition. Accordingly, the challenge to Section 45 was repelled, in view of the 2018 Amendment and the defect being rectified by the Parliament.

On the aspect of the twin conditions being reasonable conditions per se, the Court referring to Constitution Bench judgments in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 22 , and Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat 23 , held that twin conditions as imposed by Section 45 have been held to be justifiable in the cases of heinous and serious offences in case of other enactments. On this aspect, the reasoning, and observations of the previous judgment of Nikesh Tarachand Shah 24 were distinguished and held to be inconsonant with the judgments of the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh 25 and Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon 26 . Holding that economic offences have a serious impact on the community, society, and the nation at large; they should not be viewed with any permissive eye, especially when the international community and State have felt the necessity of treating the offence of money laundering as a graver one, the twin conditions for grant of bail for under Section 45 can very well be held to be justifiable. The twin conditions do not impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail, but just restrict the discretion, vested in courts with judicial powers and judicial officers. On this aspect, the Court referred to the judgments of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra 27 , in case of pari materia provisions in other enactments like Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) [Section 21(4)]; Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari 28 , in the context of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act.

Referring to the mandate of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India, Court held that economic offences stand on far graver footing as they harm the society as a whole and lead to illicit accumulation of wealth. Being a serious offence affecting the society and country at large, therefore, the twin conditions for grant of bail introduce an effective proportionate mechanism for checking the commission of such serious economic offences. The court accordingly upheld and affirmed the twin conditions for grant of bail.

Validity of Section 50 — Powers to summon, seizure, eliciting evidence and prosecution for any false disclosure

On the aspect of validity of Section 50, the said provision was challenged as being violative of Article 20(3), the fundamental right against self-incrimination. The Court explaining the scope of applicability, relied on the judgments of Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry 29 , State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad 30 , Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B. 31 and other host of judgments holding that Article 20(3) shall be attracted only if there is a formal accusation against any person in the capacity of an accused during an investigation. The proceeding contemplated under Section 50 is more in the nature of an inquiry and not investigation treating the person summoned as an accused in the proceedings, as the PMLA Act is also about prevention of the very activity and action of money laundering, which is a civil action per se. Thus, the constitutional bar under Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act cannot be resorted to as a sword for challenging Section 50, unless and until the person is arrested and such information contemplated under Section 50 is sought to be extracted after his arrest. The investigation under Section 50, even though titled as investigation, is more in the nature of inquiry which is not being undertaken “by a police officer” but by the authorities designated under the PMLA Act. Referring to the judgments of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram 32 wherein Customs Officer under Land Customs Act, 1924 that not every officer authorised with the power to issue summons, or inquiry can be treated as a police officer. Multiple other judgments on the same proposition as to when an officer in such circumstances be treated as “a police officer” to attract Constitution protection under Article 20(3) viz. Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore 33 and Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B. 34 were quoted to highlight the difference between police officers exercising powers of ensuring law and order for controlling crime vis-à-vis the officers conducting inquiry under specialised legislations like PMLA Act.

Validity of the Schedule Part A to the PMLA, Act (Providing for various offences under which the PMLA offences are said to have been commissioned)

On the validity of Schedule to the PMLA Act, especially Part A, (providing for various offences under which the PMLA offences are said to have been commissioned), the Court held that it is a matter of pure legislative policy, which the courts are not supposed to be interfering into. It is the Parliament’s prerogative to decipher which offences to be covered under the fold of PMLA Act, which prerogative cannot be declared to be unconstitutional till and until the legislative competence to do so exists under Schedule VII to the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the challenge to various provisions and rules made under the PMLA Act was repelled by the Supreme Court.

(4) State of M.P. v. R.D. Sharma 35

(Delivered on January 27, 2022)

Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi

Authored by: HM Justice Bela M. Trivedi

The judgments of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 28-4-2017 and 17-9-2019 passed in the original writ petition and the review petition respectively were assailed before the Supreme Court. The High Court had set aside the view taken by Central Administrative Tribunal and held that the respondent, when he retired from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (“PCCF”) in 2001 was on the principles of “equal pay for equal work” (“EPEW”) entitled for the same pay scale as was fixed and was payable for Head of Forest Force in the State of M.P. whilst directing so, the High Court took into consideration and applied impliedly the provisions of amended Rules of 2008 for amending the Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 1968. Two issues arose before the Supreme Court:

( a ) Maintainability of special leave petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court against the order passed in the review petition, once the previous SLP against the main judgment in the original writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court, without any specific liberty for filing a fresh SLP against the judgment in review petition.

( b ) The applicability of principle of “EPEW” under Article 14, when the person though retired before the introduction of amendment to the service pay rules, but was officiating on the same post, to which the upgraded pay scale was effected, and applicability of Article 14 in such circumstances.

On the first issue, the Court referring to the recent judgment of Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure v. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende 36 held that where SLP against the judgment of writ petition is withdrawn with the liberty to approach the High Court and the Supreme Court observes or refrains from expressing any opinion on merits, then SLP against order/judgment passed in the review petition is also maintainable, without any specific mention of liberty being granted to approach the Supreme Court again challenging the judgment passed in the review petition. The Court thus, held that it would lead to an egregious failure of justice if the SLP is withdrawn without the court expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter against the judgment in the original writ petition and review is made non-maintainable against the judgment in the review petition. The SLP against the review petition was thus, held to be maintainable.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Rules could not have been applied automatically and retrospectively in case of the respondent by the High Court who had retired in the year 2001, much prior to introduction of amended Rules in 2008. The upgraded posts, subsequently through the amended Rules, even if it was equivalent to the posts existing in 2001, for 2 fundamental reasons, firstly, of a different nomenclature and secondly, the post under amended Rules to be filled up through “ selection” and not as a “matter of course”. Thus, the benefit of the pay scale of the upgraded post would have accrued only if the petitioner retired from the said post, not otherwise, even if he was serving and discharging the same duties of the Head of State of Forest Force. Explaining the concept of “selection post”, Court held that it involves the process of screening followed by shortlisting and eventual selection amongst many equally placed officers and therefore, the benefit of the upgraded “selection posts” cannot be granted automatically to the respondent writ petitioner.

Court distinguished the judgments of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh 37 , holding that equation of posts and determination of pay scale is the primary function of the executive, not of the judiciary, an evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions to undertake. Referring beneficially on the said proposition to the judgments of Secy., Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. 38 and State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. 39 , it was held that EPEW is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, albeit a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government.

Accordingly, reversing the judgment of the High Court setting aside the view taken by CAT, the Court held that the High Court had wrongly exercised the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(5) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India 40

(Delivered on May 6, 2022)

Coram: 3-Judge Bench of HM Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Hima Kohli

Per Curiam (Full Court’s) Order of Reference

The batch of civil appeals and writ petitions was the third round of litigation between the parties viz. the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Central Government (UOI). The question related to the interpretation of Article 239-AA of the Constitution relatable to demarcation of exercise of legislative powers of the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Delhi vis-à-vis the Parliament in respect of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; also, the power of the Parliament to annul the laws made by the Union Territory through the “doctrine of repugnancy”, in respect of which interpretation essentially turned upon Article 239-AA(3)( a ). In the reference made to the Constitution Bench, there were thus three set of opinions, whilst answering references made to it. The matter was then sent back to the 2-Judge Bench, which on singular issue again tossed the matter back to larger Bench, insofar as the legislative competence of the Government of Delhi considering Entry 41, List 2 of VIIth Schedule was concerned. The matter was thus placed before the 3-Judge Bench, which was considering the application under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. The Union of India contended that the previously constituted Constitution Bench has not interpreted certain phrases occurring under Article 239-AA, owing to which pronouncement cannot be treated as conclusive on the aforesaid two phrases, which were as follows:

“( a ) Insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territory.

( b ) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution.”

However, the Court declined the reference again to the larger Bench as prayed for by the Union of India under Article 143(3), but agreed to examine the limited issue of interpretation of word/term “services “ occurring under Article 239-AA (3)( a ), read with Entry 41 List 2, VIIth Schedule. In terms of the same, the matter was referred to Constitution Bench for answer to such limited issue and query.

(6) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand 41

(Delivered on August 2, 2022)

Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna

Authored by: HM Justice M.R. Shah

The appeals were filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dated 21-9-2020, through which notifications issued by the Governor, State of Jharkhand and the consequential advertisements notifying the vacancies and letter of appointment issued qua posts of trained graduate teachers ( “TGT”) in government schools of 13 Scheduled areas as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Division Bench had quashed the notification and all the appointments consequently made, whilst accepting a challenge to the 100% reservation made for the posts of those 13 districts. The 13 districts in the scheduled areas are these areas notified through Presidential Notification dated 11-4-2007, in which whilst issuing the posts, 100% reservation was made for local residents of these local districts, which fell for challenge on various grounds of being violative of Article 13, 14, 16(2), 19 of the Constitution of India. The Court formulated the following three issues for resolution and consideration:

Whether in exercise of powers conferred under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor can provide for 100% reservation contrary to Part III of the Constitution of India, more particularly, guaranteed under Articles 16(1) and (2)?

Whether in exercise of powers under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor has the power to modify the relevant recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the appointments that were already made against the notified vacancies and posts ought to be disturbed or left undisturbed?

The Court then examined Para 5 of the Vth Schedule of the Constitution titled as “law applicable to scheduled areas” and the previously passed Constitution Bench judgment of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of A.P. 42 in the context of Andhra Pradesh. Relying on the judgment of Chebrolu Leela Prasad 43 , the Court held that the Governor under Schedule V of Constitution of India does not have any inherent power to introduce any new law, but has a limited power, of urgent nature of exempting the application of any law enacted by the Parliament of the State over any scheduled area for any particular time. The Vth Schedule does not recognise or confer such positive power to enact, but such power is only for applying any “existing law” with exception of modifications. Further, the Court held that the rules framed under Article 309 cannot be amended in exercise of powers under Para 5(1) of Schedule V, as such rules cannot be treated as a parliamentary or the State enactment.

On the aspect of applicability to Part III of the Constitution to powers of the Governor available under Para 5 of Schedule V, Court held that Part III applies with full rigour and restricts the power of Governor from impinging upon or interfering with the fundamental rights available under Part III of the Constitution of India. It was further held that 100% reservation is impermissible under the Constitution and is inherently violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 as opportunity of public employment against public posts cannot be denied unjustly to the incumbents and made a prerogative of a few. The total exclusion of citizens by creating an opportunity for one class or few selected people without any proper classification with objective and justification cannot be treated as constitutionally justifiable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, holding the notifications and the appointments carried out to be unconstitutional and illegal. However, on the question of balancing of equities and protecting those already appointed against the posts, Court held that since the process right from its inception and beginning had been under challenge before the High Court which made its subject to final outcome of the same, therefore it could not be said that equities were created and third parties right were created prior to passing of the judgment. However, on the plea of not disturbing hundreds of appointment of local residents made on the post of TGTs that had already taken place, as a one-time arrangement, the Court modified the judgment of the High Court directing that instead of a fresh/de novo recruitment process being undertaken by quashing the appointment already made in scheduled/district areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on already published cut-off obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT’s subject again the respective categories with respect to entire State and candidates from non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas/districts. The aforesaid directions were issued holding limited to the peculiar facts of the case under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in the larger public interest of smooth running of schools and educational set-ups in the scheduled areas/districts.

(7) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal 44

(Delivered on August 16, 2022)

Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna

The matter travelled to Supreme Court from CAT Chandigarh, Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had both denied the advantage of the maternity leave to the appellant, who gave birth to a child whilst working on the post of Nursing Officer in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. The appellant was married to a person, who had 2 children from his prior marriage and was married to the appellant on the death of his previous wife. The first biological child of the appellant was born on 4-6-2019, when she in terms of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (“Leave Rules”) applied for the grant of leave. The application for grant of maternity leave of 180 days and resultant allowances were denied to her on the ground that she already had two children from her marriage (which were, otherwise from the previous marriage of the person whom the appellant was married), owing to which maternity leave for the third child cannot be granted for the sanctioned period i.e. 2 yrs (730 days) during the entire service. The CAT Chandigarh and High Court both held the denial of leave in terms of Rule 43(1) to be just and fair, against both of which the matter travelled to the Supreme Court. Scanning the anatomy of Rule 43, specifically referable to “maternity leave”, the Court held that the wording of the rules in question requires beneficial and liberal construction having nexus with a purpose-oriented approach. If the little construction of the provision of such beneficial legislation leads to difficulties and absurdities, then the legislation should not be put in “procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions”. The principle of beneficial interpretation was aptly applied by referring to judgments of US Courts, as also the precedents of the Supreme Court. Referring to the longline of judgments of K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob 45 and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse 46 , it was held that it is the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of “social justice” and it is the bounding duty of the court to bridge the gap between law and security. The Court underscored the necessity of “social context judging” by a fruitful application of equality jurisprudence evolved by the Parliament and Supreme Court over the passage of time, which is also known as social justice adjudication. The role of the court was stated to be primarily helping the law achieve its purpose. Thereafter, interpreting Section 3( c ) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and correlating the definition of “delivery” with the same, the Court held that the Act of 1961 is aimed at securing women’s right to pregnancy, maternity leave and to afford reasonable flexibility to live both as a mother and as a worker. Referring further to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Court advised interpretation of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 from the perspective of Article 15 and other relevant constitutional rights and provisions. Referring extensively to the international documents, treaties, and the declarations to which India has been a signatory to, the Court held that it is necessary to align ourselves by interpreting our local and domestic laws in tune with the international conventions and documents. Since in the present case, the appellant never had any biological children, except the two which were born from the previous marriage of the husband, the appropriate interpretation shall be applicability of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 to those contingencies when there is a biological childbirth. Thus, the appellant was entitled to the grant of maternity leave provided for any other category of employees (i.e. for a period of 2 years).

(8) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 47

(Delivered on August 26, 2022)

Coram : 3-Judge Bench of HM Justices N.V. Ramana, Hima Kohli and C.T. Ravikumar

The questions arose in the batch of writ petitions relating to promises made by the political parties for the distribution of free goods (freebies) as part of their election manifesto or during election speeches. Such “freebies” were challenged as having a large-scale impact on the economy of the State, which are made invariably without any assessment of the financial implications on the State but simply for attracting the vote bank. A request was made for reconsideration of the judgment of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of T.N. 48 wherein the Supreme Court held whilst interpreting Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 that such pre-poll promises for “freebies” do not fall within the ambit of corrupt practices. The Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji 49 had issued directions to the ECI for framing of certain guidelines in the absence of any legislative enactment covering the field. The aforementioned reasoning of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment was challenged as having serious ramifications over the State policies and that directive principles of State policy override fundamental rights is a proposition erroneously stated in the aforementioned judgment.

Accordingly, the issue and the batch of writ petitions were referred to 3-Judge Bench for consideration.

(9) Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Kamgar Union 50

(Delivered on September 5, 2022)

The issue that arose before the Supreme Court was about the validity of the scheme of erstwhile Ahmednagar Municipal Council (later converted to Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation in 2003), through which the legal heirs/successors of all the retiring/superannuating employees were automatically considered for the appointment on the on the retirement. The question that arose was the validity and legality of implementation of such a scheme on the superannuation of the outgoing retiring employee, vis-à-vis Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Erstwhile Ahmednagar Municipal Council had a scheme in place approved by its apex body, through which the legal heirs of retiring/outgoing employees were given compassionate appointments on their retirement, for ensuring the economic dependence and balance of the family. However, the question arose about implementation of the said scheme and the rights of the legal heirs of employees who continued after the upgradation of the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar to Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar.

The Court examined the said aspect, especially the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the employees and held that the scheme of the erstwhile Municipal Council, Ahmednagar shall not be binding on the newly transformed Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar, which shall be governed by the arrangement, scheme, and provision fixed by the State Government. Referring to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy. to Deptt. of Education v. Bheemesh 51 , the Court opined that the employees of newly constituted Municipal Corporation shall be governed by the scheme of State Government at par with the government employees, which does not provide for appointment on compassionate grounds to the legal heirs of employees on their retirement/superannuation.

Further, appointment on compassionate grounds, in view of the equality doctrine provided under Articles 14 and 16 is an exception and should not be incorporated or followed by way of a rule, since it leads to crusading and sacrifice of merit, which cannot be accepted. If such a scheme is allowed to continue, then it leads to denial of equality of opportunity of appointment to more meritorious, well-educated and qualified aspirants to the post. Therefore, the interpretation must be in accord with the constitutional spirit of Articles 14, 15, and 16 and eventually, the Court held the scheme of automatic compassionate appointment to be not applicable to the legal heirs of the outgoing/retiring employees.

(10) Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy 52

(Delivered on September 15, 2022)

Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha

Authored by: HM Justice B.R. Gavai

The petitioners laid a challenge to the validity of executive departmental resolutions passed by the Pharmacy Council of India “PCI”), through which a five-year moratorium (ban) was imposed on opening of new colleges in the country. The special leave petitions were preferred by the PCI before the Supreme Court against the judgments passed by various High Courts such as Delhi, Chhattisgarh, and Karnataka High Court, which had all quashed PCI Regulations, holding the same to be beyond jurisdiction and ultra vires the PCI Act. The broad issues and arguments before the Court revolved around the following contentions:

( a ) Right to open, operate and run educational institutions being a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)( g ) of the Constitution of India, the same could have never been taken away through executive instructions passed by way of resolution/departmental orders by the PCI.

( b ) The PCI could have introduced any such moratorium or ban only by way of a regulation notified in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. For want of proper notification, therefore the government resolutions (GRs) imposing ban by the PCI were unconstitutional.

( c ) The GRs imposing ban were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 on the ground that they exempted identically situated colleges/societies running existing colleges from opening a new institution, when societies who were opening maiden institutions were debarred from doing so.

( d ) The PCI could not have abdicated its statutory powers and duties of examining and scrutinising each and every application vested in it by virtue of Sections 12, 13 and 15 of the PCI Act, 1948.

( e ) The ban imposed by the PCI were creating a monopoly and anti-competitive environment, favouring the existing colleges and players in the field of pharmacy education, whilst restraining the new players from entering the field and proving their competence and capabilities.

The Supreme Court examined the essential contentions of the petitioner about infringement and impairment of fundamental rights through executive instructions. Relying on the longline of judgments from TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka 53 , and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka 54 , and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 55 (all Constitution Bench judgments) Court held that running, setting up and operation of educational institutions can safely be inferred and labelled as fundamental rights under Article 19(1)( g ) of the Constitution of India and a citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. Referring to the judgment of State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya Sikshak Sangh, 56 the Court further held that the requirement of law for putting restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution otherwise, but such law must be duly enacted by the legislation. Accordingly, on the second issue of authorisation and delegation by the PCI Act to impose a moratorium-cum-ban on opening of new institutions, the Court referred to a host of judgments viz. Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur 57 , V.T. Khanzode v. RBI 58 , to hold that statutory corporations can do only such acts and take decisions as authorised by the statute creating it and the powers of such corporations cannot extend beyond what statutes provide expressly or by necessary implications. If an act is neither expressly or impliedly authorised by the statute which creates the corporation, it must be taken and presumed to be prohibited. Accordingly, referring to the Halsbury Law of England , 4th Edn., the Court held that such a power of imposing a ban cannot be read into PCI Act, more so being issued through an office memorandum in the form of executive instructions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the views taken by the Karnataka, Delhi, and Chhattisgarh High Courts as a correct position of law setting aside the ban.

(11) Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka 59

(Delivered on October 13, 2022)

Coram: 2-Judge Bench of HM Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Authored by: HM Justice Hemant Gupta

The Government of Karnataka had issued a Circular dated 5-2-2022 mandating all government schools in the State to abide by official uniform. Vide the said order, restricted the wearing of hijab, which was challenged to be violating liberty, equality, and fraternity as well as the primary idea of secularism as is enshrined in Preamble to the Indian Constitution. The Karnataka High Court upheld the said government order and the same was under challenge and decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was confronted with the following issues in the present case:

( i ) Whether the case should be referred to a Constitution Bench and if present case should be heard along with the Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) (2) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn . 60

( ii ) Whether prohibition or restriction or otherwise by the College Development Committee (“CDC”) on headscarves is violative of Section 143 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (“Education Act” ) and whether State Government can delegate its decision to implement its decision of wearing uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management?

( iii ) What is the scope of freedom of “conscience” and “religion”, and its ambit under Article 25?

( iv ) What is essential religious practice and its scope and ambit under Article 25 of the Constitution?

( v ) Whether fundamental rights to privacy under Article 21 and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)( a ) are mutually exclusive or complementary to each other; whether the government order for the purposes of Articles 21 and 14 fulfills the mandate of reasonableness?

( vi ) Whether wearing hijab can be considered to be an essential religious practice and if so, does a student have the right to wear a headscarf in a secular school?

( vii ) Whether the students are expected to give up their fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25 to access education in a State institution?

( viii ) Whether the State is obligated to provide “reasonable accommodation” to its citizens?

( ix ) Whether the government order goes against the legitimate State interest of promoting literacy and education as outlined in Articles 21, 21-A, 39( f ), 41, 46 and 51-A of the Constitution?

( x ) Whether the government order achieves equitable access to education, promotes secularism, and aligns with the objectives of the Karnataka Education Act?

The Court whilst delving into the various issues, delivered a split verdict, wherein the 2-Judge Bench of HMJ Hemant Gupta and HMJ Sudhanshu Dhulia gave opposing opinions on the matter. While deciding the appeal, Justice Hemant Gupta held as follows:

Deciding on whether the present case to be referred to a larger Bench for joint hearing with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabrimala Temple Review-5J) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. 61 , to determine what is to be considered “essentially religious” in terms of practice and being an innate and indispensable part of the religion. Justice Hemant Gupta noted that the questions in Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) (2) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn 62 deal with questions that are much wider in their scope. Thus, the issue at hand was not referred to a larger Bench (Constitutional Bench) since the issue being dealt by the Court was not one where the power of judicial review is examined rather, the Court was presented with the issue of deciding whether a secular institution in a State can regulate religious practices which are essential to the said religion. Justice Gupta relied on the 9-Judge Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 63 in which it has been held that only the Supreme Court has the power to decide whether a substantial issue of interpretation of the Constitution be referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) or not.

Deciding on the second issue, Justice Gupta held that the scope and ambit of the powers exercised by CDC are well within their own Constitution (CDC Constitution) and that it is a body that serves to raise and maintain the academic standards. The CDC thus, was not acting against any of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder or that prescribing the uniform was beyond their scope. Justice Hemant Gupta further held that the government order establishes a link with the powers delegated to the executive and the States rule-making power under Section 133 of the Education Act and Article 162 of the Constitution of India respectively. Reliance was place on the judgment of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 64 wherein the Supreme Court held that while the Government cannot supersede statutory rules vide administrative instructions, it can however supplement the statutory rules to fill in the gaps where the rules are silent. Further reliance was placed on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal 65 in which the Supreme Court held that instructions cannot be issued to supplant the statutory rules but can be issued to supplement it.

Deciding on the third issue, Justice Gupta examined the freedom of religion and conscience with special reference to Article 25(1) of the Constitution. Reference was made to the judgment of TMA Pai Foundation 66 in which the Supreme Court held that Article 25(1) of the Constitution is not only concerned with public order, morality, and health, rather the Article 25(1) is also subject to “other provisions of Part III of the Constitution” . Thus, the right provided under Article 25(1) is not an absolute right, it is liable to be curtailed in view of violations occurring in “other provisions of Part III” . Justice Gupta further clarified that the object of the government order issued, mandating the government schools to follow the prescribed uniform was to encourage a secular environment and uniformity, and could not be said to be in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution. The right to religion is not absolute but should be read in conformity and with reasonable restrictions along with other rights given in Part III of the Constitution. Also, the rights provided are not to be compartmentalised into one but to read all in conformity and aid with each other, as a whole. It was held that Articles 19(1)( a ) and 21, are complementary to each other and not mutually exclusive.

Deciding on the fourth issue, Justice Gupta examined Muslim law and its sources. The reference was made to the Constitutional Bench judgment in M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India 67 wherein the Supreme Court held that offering of prayer could be a religious practice however doing the same at any and every possible place will not be considered as an essential religious practice or an integral part of religion. This Court in Commr. of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta 68 opined that the core beliefs on which the religion is founded and without which the religion will not be religion, are the essential religious practices. Justice Gupta while deciding this issue held that the appellants were not claiming to perform their practices at religious places, but to wear hijab in educational institutions. It was also held that wearing of headscarf is not allowed only in the school or during school hours and the students can wear it outside schools. Beliefs or marks such as tilak which demonstrate a person’s religious identity should not be allowed in educational institutions funded by the Government. Hence, directing the schools which are run and funded by the Government to prescribe uniforms is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Government. A host of other judgments such as Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore 69 , Durgah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali 70 , Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay 71 , Shayara Bano v. Union of India 72 were also referred in this context for concluding that Article 25(2) is a negatively worded enabling provision allowing/providing the State to act in the matters mentioned therein. The case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 73 was referred however was not of much importance since the circular in question was applicable to all schools and not just secular schools.

Deciding on the fifth issue, Justice Gupta referred to the landmark judgment of this Court, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 74 and observed that the object of the impugned government order and the State Act and Rules under which it was issued, was to encourage and provide for the better and holistic environment and discipline the student. Mandating the uniform is one of the facets to fulfil the object of the said Act and Rules thereunder. Justice Gupta held that since, the right to religion is not an absolute, while there is reasonable restriction the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)( a ) and keeping Bachan Singh 75 in view, the incidental effect on freedom of speech and expression, and right to privacy cannot be said to be unreasonable restriction.

Deciding on the sixth issue, Justice Gupta examined the values enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and referred to Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India 76 wherein 3-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that the values such as liberty, equality, dignity, and fraternity are assured by the Preamble. The State must treat everyone alike and it is also expected that the citizens treat each other alike. Arguments of the plaintiff that the said government order was in antithesis to the constitutional values of unity in diversity. Justice Gupta while disregarding this argument observed that the aim of our Constitution is to assimilate unity in diversity 77 and the said government order does not harm the aim of the Constitution, “unity and diversity”. 78 Fraternity, as it is understood, should not be seen through the prisms of community but should be for all irrespective of caste, creed, religion, and sex. Justice Gupta found the argument stating that wearing of headscarf gives dignity to the girl students as not tenable. It was observed that at the pre-university level, all students should feel, look, and think alike and cultivate their minds in a cohesive and cordial environment. The constitutional aim for fraternity would be harmed if the students of a particular community were allowed to use their religious marks in schools. Hence, with this reasoning, Justice Gupta held that the said government order promotes a healthy environment to encourage fraternity in the true sense and does not infringe constitutional values. Landmark judgments of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 79 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 80 were also referred to by the Court in deciding this issue.

Deciding on the seventh issue, Justice Gupta held that as a matter of secular schools, the students are required to oblige the discipline mandated by such schools run and funded by the Government. The reference was made to M. Ajmal Khan v. Election Commission of India 81 wherein the Madras High Court disregarded the argument that wearing of purdah by Muslim women is mandated by the holy Quran and interference with this practice by direction of the Election Commission is in violation of their fundamental rights. It was held that to curb the bogus voting and improve transparency in the process, the directions to put photographs in the electoral roll is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. Justice Gupta held that, though the said judgment relates to the elections, however, the ratio can be used in the present case as the State-run schools should provide education without discrimination. Hence, the students are not allowed to wear hijab in schools as a matter of right.

Deciding the eighth issue, Justice Gupta examined and referred to Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India 82 observed that the fundamental rights provided in Part III of the Constitution are not to be bartered. The reliance was also placed on Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat 83 in that effect. The Court also referred to HMJ D.Y. Chandrachud’s discussion on “decisional autonomy” in K.S. Puttaswamy 84 Justice Gupta held that the students of a particular community should not put conditions that unless and until they are permitted to wear hijab, they will not attend the classes. The right to education is available to all irrespective of their castes and religions, but in the end, it is the choice of the students whether to avail the right or not. The decision to attend the classes or not is of the students and not of the school while the right to education under Article 21 continues to be available.

Dealing with the ninth issue, where the appellant argued that they should be allowed to attend school wearing headscarves matching the school uniform. Even the Kendriya Vidyalaya across the country allows the wearing of hijab to Muslim girls so the State-run schools should also allow the same. Tackling this argument, Justice Gupta held that, in the case of Kendriya Vidyalayas falls under the Ministry of Education under the Government of India, and an autonomous body, and the purpose behind the same is that the Central Government employees are transferred regularly to meet the educational needs of their children by providing the same kind of education. The concept of reasonable accommodation is a special treatment meant for a special child or person. Justice Gupta while taking the argued foreign judgments in view held that, if a reasonable accommodation is allowed in the present case, it would be in contrast to equality provided in Article 14 as it would be a different or special treatment to the students belonging to a particular community. Constitutional values such as liberty, equality, dignity, and fraternity are for all, and no one should get preference in that.

While dealing with the tenth issue, Justice Gupta referred to the Commission of Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, international treaties, and the Convention on Child Rights to which India is a signatory. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India. 85 was referred to and observed that the right to education falls under Article 21, right to life. It is widely acknowledged that those who are deprived of education are deprived of the dignity and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. Also, only the students at the pre-university colleges are mandated to follow the prescribed uniform so that the values of equality and fraternity be imbibed in them. The students at university/college are not mandated and are open to carry on their religious faiths and practices. For the reasons mentioned above, HMJ Gupta held that the government order is not against the legitimate State interest of promoting literacy and education as outlined in Articles 21, 21-A, 39( f ), 41, 46, and 51-A of the Constitution. There is also a question about the applicability of Article 21-A as all the students concerned are over the age of 14 years of age. Thus, it was held that while there is a right to education, there is no such right to wear additional clothes (under the garb of essential religious practice) to the uniform in a secular school.

Deciding the eleventh issue, Justice Gupta observed that creating a friendly and healthy environment of education for students is the duty of the State. Having a uniform promotes oneness, and equality fades the differences in terms of social and economic status, and the values of fraternity among the young minds of the nation. It also helps to improve discipline and spirit among the students. Constitutional values are provided and available for all irrespective of any grounds, therefore allowing a particular community to wear hijab, a religious symbol, would be against equality and secularism. Therefore, the impugned government order is in accordance with the ethic of secularism and the objectives of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Court referred to Indibly Creative (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B. 86 holding that every citizen being entitled to wear their religious symbols would be antithesis to the doctrine of secularism, the government order cannot be stated to be going against the doctrine of secularism.

HMJ Sudhanshu Dhulia dismissed all appeals and writ petitions on the grounds mentioned above. He, while disagreeing with Justice Gupta held as follows:

Dealing with the essential religious practice issue, Justice Dhulia referred to the famous case of Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 87 and Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay 88 and observed that the essential religious practice is to be left to the specific religion to which it belongs. However, the issue of determining the essential religious practice is not involved in this dispute. Meaning that the case concerns Article 25(1) and not Article 25(2) or Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

It was observed that discipline is required in schools, but it cannot be equated with jail or military camp. Also, it should not be seen at the cost of freedom and dignity provided by the Constitution. To ask a school girl to take off her hijab at the gate of the school is, certainly, an invasion of her privacy and dignity, and a clear violation of her fundamental rights. She carries her right to dignity and privacy in her person whether it be at the school gate or the classrooms. The Puttaswamy 89 judgment and some foreign judgments were referred to by HMJ Dhulia. Then, HMJ Dhulia referred to the case of Bijoe Emmanuel 90 stating it to be one which is the closest in facts to the present case.

Justice Dhulia observed that the school administration and the State should prioritise what they want, the education of girl child or mandating school dress code. Specifically, it is for girl children, for whom it was difficult from the start. The Karnataka High Court failed to answer some important questions such as how the wearing of hijab is against public morality, order, or health. The decision of the High Court saying that the rights become derivatives inside the classroom is not correct.

Justice Dhulia while dealing with the values of religious tolerance, equality, reasonable accommodation, and “unity in diversity” of culture has referred to Aruna Roy v. Union of India 91 and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 92 .

It was observed that the impugned government order dated 5-2-2022, putting restrictions on the wearing of headscarves in the schools violates the basic and fundamental tenets of the Constitution. The Preamble provides for the liberty of thoughts, beliefs, expression, and worship. Also, the trinity, liberty, equality, and fraternity is to go hand in hand. One cannot survive without the others. The wearing of hijab is purely a matter of choice. It is secondary whether it forms an essential religious practice or not, but it is a matter of conscience, beliefs, and expression, provided by Part III of the Constitution. If a girl wants to wear a headscarf inside the classroom by her own choice, she should not be stopped. Wearing a hijab should according to Justice Dhulia is simply a matter of choice.

The impugned government order issued, unfortunately, restricting girls of a particular community from entering the schools, hence, depriving them from education, and consequently, from the right to dignity. The question that needs to ponder over is whether the Government is making the life of a girl child better by depriving her from education because of hijab or headscarves.

Justice Dhulia while allowing the appeal held that the impugned government order issued by the Government is an invasion on the privacy, attack on the dignity, and denying the secular education to the girls of a particular community.

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has delivered the split judgment. Justice Hemant Gupta while dismissing all appeals and writ petitions on the abovementioned grounds held that the government order cannot be said to be against the idea of secularism or the objective of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

On the other hand, Justice Dhulia while allowing the appeal held that there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in schools and colleges in Karnataka. Justice Dhulia extensively relied on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Karnataka 93 .

Since the views taken by the Bench were different, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of 3 Judges.

(12) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 94

(Delivered on November 7, 2022)

Coram: 5-Judge Bench of HM Justices Uday U. Lalit, Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala

Authored by: HM Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

The subject of reservation has always been a hotly contested one in the constitutional canvas of the country. It was found with the intention of giving the backward members of society opportunities they were unable to get because of their social standing or institutionalised oppression. For the ST, SC, and OBC, the First Amendment created a constitutional clause that gave the Government the authority to implement reservation laws. People have embraced and rejected the ideas of reservation over time, with there being sharp divisions in public opinion. Then the 103rd Constitutional Amendment was passed, adding 10% reservation to the already existing layer of reservations for the economically weaker sections (“EWS”). The validity of this reservation was questioned since it exceeded the 50% threshold established previously in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 95 . There were multiple other grounds of challenge to the same.

The three main issues before the Supreme Court essential to the discussion surrounding this case were as follows:

Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions including reservation, based on economic criteria?

Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions?

Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?

While the main points for a determination as noted by the Supreme Court were:

( a ) As to whether the reservation is an instrument for the inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of society and, therefore, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India?

( b ) As to whether the exclusion of classes covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections violate the equality code and thereby, the basic structure doctrine?

( c ) As to whether reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent in addition to the existing reservations results in violation of basic structure on account of breaching the ceiling limit of fifty percent?

Broad points of the judgment of the majority and the minority are as follows:

HMJ Dinesh Maheswari discussed the impact of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 96 on Article 368, which now starts with a non obstante clause further stating that any amendment that is made under Article 368 would not come under the purview of Article 13 of the Constitution. In this case, sub-clause (4) ensures that any amendments made to the Constitution of India under Article 368 would not be subject to Article 13. Furthermore, it was decided that the challenge to the constitutional amendment pertains only to the notion that the amendment in question is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, and thereby constitutional amendment to Articles 15 and 16 needs to be examined through the doctrine of basic structure. Vide the judgment of 13-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati, 97 it was held that the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament however, the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be damaged. A longline of judgments such as the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 98 , Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 99 , Waman Rao v. Union of India 100 , P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. 101 , Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 102 , Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India 103 , L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 104 , Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India 105 and many other such judgments were discussed to infer that there is no fixed formula for determining whether a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure or not. Further, discussing the topic of economic disabilities and affirmative action, the Court observed that economic and social inequalities form part of a real and substantive problem, that a mere formal action for equality cannot deal with. The Court further observed that the US Supreme Court has also made some strides to ensure that economic considerations are considered, due to which economic backwardness becomes a ground for providing reservation. The Court observed that Article 14 and the concept of equality in India follow a similar principle as well.

Addressing the concerns surrounding the sole criterion of economic backwardness being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, HMJ Maheswari observed while relying on judgments of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 106 , R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore 107 , Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of J&K 108 , State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas 109 and other such judgments, stated that the argument, while the State is free to adopt any measure to alleviate the economic backwardness, at the same time, State cannot make provisions for affirmative action on the reservation as it can only do so for SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs is invalid and suffers from grave incompatibility with our constitutional scheme. Thus, it was observed that there is a reasonable classification between the “other weaker sections” and “economically weaker sections” thereby holding that the constitutional amendment under challenge is not violative of the basic structure and that classes already receiving the benefit under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) would not be entitled to this reservation as it would open the floodgates to whole other issues of unconstitutional and invalid situations.

Discussing the impact of the constitutional amendment on the 50% ceiling of reservations and the basic structure, the Court referred to the following judgments in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 110 , T. Devadasan v. Union of India 111 , Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, 112 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 113 and many others, observing that while 50% is the desirable ceiling limit in matters of education and public employment, it is not inflexible and inviolable at all times, in light of the affirmative action taken against harm done due to preferential treatment qua other innocent class of competitors.

Justice Maheshwari speaking for the majority concluded by observing:

“Reservations for EWS of citizens up to 10% in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of 50% because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case applies only to the reservations envisioned by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.”(Para 233) .

HMJ Bela M. Trivedi (concurring opinion) observed that differential treatment is not violative of the concept of equality, however, unjustified distinction/classification is violative of the concept of equality. Referring to the judgments of Ashoka Kumar Thakur 114 , State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas 115 , it was held that reasonable classification is vital to the concept of equality and that such a classification permeates the distinction between vertical and horizontal classification. The EWS reservation is its own vertical classification, while the other reservations as provided under Articles 15 and 16 are vertical as well, though this would mean that a particular class of people belonging to a vertical reservation classification cannot take benefit of the other vertical classification. Thus, agreeing with the majority reasoning of Justice Maheswari, Justice Trivedi stated that the exclusion of other classes from the 103rd Constitutional Amendment is not violative of the basic structure since it creates a separate class with a reasonable nexus to the object sought i.e. “economically weaker sections” seeking EWS reservation which does not impede or overlap the other reservations provided for other classes under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Justice Bela M. Trivedi referred to K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka 116 in this regard and observed that reservation must have a time span; however, after 75 years of independence, it is imperative that we revisit the whole system of reservation in the larger interests of the society.

Justice Bela M. Trivedi thus concluded by observing:

“The SC, ST, and the backward class for whom the special provisions have already been provided in Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category. They cannot be treated at par with the citizens belonging to the general or unreserved category. The 103rd amendment creates a separate class of ‘economically weaker sections of the citizens’ from the general/unreserved class, without affecting the special rights of reservations provided to the SC, ST, and backward class of citizens covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Therefore, their exclusion from the newly created class for the benefit of the ‘economically weaker sections of the citizens’ in the impugned amendment cannot be said to be discriminatory or violative of the equality code. Such amendment could certainly be not termed as shocking, unconscionable, or unscrupulous travesty of the quintessence of equal justice as sought to be submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners.” (Para 257)

HMJ J.B. Pardiwala concurring with the judgment of Justice Maheswari stated that while classification under Constitution is permissible, it has to be based on certain factors as envisaged under Articles 15 and 16. Referring to the judgments of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 117 and Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra 118 , it was held that if State wanted to take affirmative action with respect to classes mentioned in Article 15(4), such an action cannot always be challenged under Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

Further referring to Constitution Bench judgment of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, 119 wherein the Court held that the 93rd Constitutional Amendment inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution is not violative of the basic structure of the Constitution Justice Pardiwala held that Article 15(6) cannot be held as unconstitutional since it also does not alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Pardiwala further expounded on the aspects of constitutional interpretation; referred to the American Supreme Court judgment of United States v. Classic 120 and stated that while interpreting the Constitution, it is imperative that certain other social considerations are to be taken into account when interpreting the Constitution.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala in his concurring opinion with Justice Maheshwari opined that:

“103rd Amendment signifies the Parliament’s intention to expand affirmative action to hitherto untouched groups — who suffer from similar disadvantages as the OBCs competing for opportunities. If economic advance can be accepted to negate certain social disadvantages for the OBCs (creamy layer concept) the converse would be equally relevant. At least for considering the competing disadvantages of EWS.” (Para 336).

He also believed that reservation for certain weaker sections other than SCs/STs and socially and educationally backward classes. He was of the view that the amendment in question was meant for economically weaker sections who are unable to afford basic education for their children or unable to secure employment in the services of the State. (Para 348)

HMJ S. Ravindra Bhat dissenting from the majority opinion held against the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. According to Justice Bhat, while the addition or insertion of an “economic criterion” furthering the objective of Article 46 is not per se unconstitutional or invalid, it is the manner of its implementation that has proved to be questionable. Exclusive exclusion of classes covered under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) from EWS reservation violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and the fundamental rights of the classes so concerned. Referring to judgments such as the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India 121 , Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala 122 , and Charu Khurana v. Union of India 123 , it was held that none of the materials that were placed on record showed any reasonable explanation as to why SCs/STs/OBCs are being excluded from the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. According to Justice Bhat, it is unreasonable to exclude 82% of the country’s population from the scope of the amendment to further advance the object of economically weaker sections of the society. Thus, the poorest of people (tribals) would also be exempted from an amendment meant for the economically weaker sections. Justice Bhat however agreed that classification based on “economic criteria” is permissible under Article 15, however the same is not true for Article 16. It was held that economic emancipation is an objective and purpose that is enshrined in our Constitution in Articles 38, 46, and even the Preamble. Ensuring economic well-being and economic justice to everyone through amendments shines a new light on the concept of upliftment of economically backward/weaker sections of society.

Justice Bhat further held that Article 16(4) is there to ensure that there is equality in opportunities in public employment however, there is no way of knowing if the “economically weaker sections” of the society belong to a “forward” class or caste which already enjoys the benefit of not being classified as “socially backward”. Thus, the constitutional amendment violates the basic principle of equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 161(1).

Justice Bhat penned the dissenting opinion operatively as follows:

“‘Economic factors’ are appropriate for the purposes of Article 16 (reservation in public employment). He stressed that it was specifically stated in Indra Sawhney 124 that reservations cannot be issued merely on the basis of economic concerns.”

According to Justice Bhat, the basis for the reservation imposed in accordance with Article 16(4) is “adequate representation”. The economically disadvantaged sections are not qualified for the reservation sought under Article 16, since they do not lack representation. Granting reservations to a section that is not socially backward and whose community is represented in public employment would be in violation of the Preamble and Article 16(1). Justice Bhat further referred to o the National Crime Records Bureau Report titled “Crime in India 2021” and the Sinho Commission Report to back up the claim that the poorest of the poor are being denied the benefits of reservation under the said amendment. Further, on the issue of 50% cap for reservation, it was observed that the decision of this Court in this particular judgment might have a bearing on the pending litigation in the matter of the 76th Constitutional Amendment 1994. There might be a negative effect on the said pending litigation viz. the parties might not be heard accordingly. It is also observed that such compartmentalisation of the percentage cap on the reservation might create issues in the future, which stem from providing 10% reservation over and above the 50% cap. However, Justice Bhat left this question open for answering.

The verdict was rendered with a majority of 3:2. This ruling has removed all restrictions and increased the scope for constitutional interpretation, sustaining the 10% EWS quota reservation. As society develops, social and economic norms also change over time. Flexibility is essential to fostering adaptation to changing circumstances and providing various opportunities to all social strata. With this decision, the Supreme Court has gone beyond its original guidelines, overturning the ceiling limit, and allowing for a more liberal interpretation, stating that adding 10% to the existing reservations of a different nature does not violate any fundamental feature of the Constitution or harm its basic structure.

Brief points of majority opinion

1. On the point of basic structure, the Court highlighted that the provisions for providing reservation to the weaker section by way of affirmative action do not form a part of the basic feature of the Constitution, as it is merely enabling in nature.

2. On the point of exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs, Court opined that the exclusion of other classes in the EWS reservation is not an abrogation of the basic structure and the fundamental rights of the weaker section of society. Since SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs are already getting the benefit of affirmative action under the Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4).

3. EWS reservation does not impact the benefit already accorded to the socially and educationally backward classes, as it does not encroach upon their ambit of quota provided to them.

4. On the point of economic criteria as the sole criterion of deciding for reservation, State is empowered to make provisions for the economically disadvantaged section of the society under Articles 38 and 46 of Part IV of the Constitution. Restricting affirmative action to SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs would defeat the purpose of the concept of substantive justice as espoused in the Constitution.

5. On the point of the 50% ceiling limit on reservations, the Court took the stance that the 50% reservation is not inviolable. The limit could be breached in extraordinary situations. The basis of this 50% ceiling limit is that reservation should not be such that it adversely affects another section of society.

Brief points of minority opinion

HMJ Ravindra Bhat collectively held that the 103rd amendment is violative of the basic structure of the constitution on the following grounds:

1. The exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs is against the equality code which is essential to the nature of the Constitution. Such an exclusion is furtherance of discrimination against historically disadvantaged and deprived communities.

2. Economic factors cannot be the sole criteria for giving reservations therefore, it is not appropriate for the purposes of Article 16(1) which deals with reservation in public employment.

3. There is a considerable body of past judgments enunciating the principle that any exclusionary basis should be rational, and non-discriminatory.

4. The basis of classification in the impugned amendment, enacted in furtherance of Article 46 is economic deprivation. Applying that criterion, it is either income, or landholding, or value of assets or the extent of resources controlled, which are classifiers thus, social origins or identities of the target group are irrelevant.

5. The question pertaining to the 50% cap/limit on the reservation is left open since there can be negative repercussions of this judgment on the pending litigation in the matter of the 76th Amendment 1994.

† Partner, SVS Attorneys. Expert in constitutional, civil and securitisation laws and practising advocate at the Supreme Court of India.

†† Fourth Year Student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.

1. 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 91.

2. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 897 .

3. (2020) 14 SCC 12 .

4. (2020) 10 SCC 77 .

5. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 905 .

6. (2009) 9 SCC 1 .

7. (2017) 10 SCC 1 .

8. 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8426 .

9. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 .

10. AIR 1970 SC 940 .

11. (2008) 13 SCC 305 .

12. (1994) 2 SCC 691 .

13. (1982) 1 SCC 31 .

14. (2005) 3 SCC 647 .

15. AIR 1958 SC 468 .

16. (2018) 11 SCC 1 .

17. (2018) 11 SCC 1 .

18. (1969) 2 SCC 283 .

19. (1996) 4 SCC 281 .

20. (1996) 7 SCC 637 .

21. (2009) 13 SCC 165 .

22. (1994) 3 SCC 569 .

23. (1988) 2 SCC 271 .

24. (2018) 11 SCC 1 .

25. (1994) 3 SCC 569 .

26. (1988) 2 SCC 271 .

27. (2005) 5 SCC 294 .

28. (2019) 9 SCC 165 .

29. AIR 1961 SC 29 .

30. AIR 1961 SC 1808 .

31. AIR 1970 SC 940 .

32. AIR 1962 SC 276 .

33. AIR 1966 SC 1746 .

34. AIR 1970 SC 940 .

35. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 94 .

36. (2020) 11 SCC 399 .

37. (2017) 1 SCC 148 .

38. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153 .

39. (2002) 6 SCC 72 .

40. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 569 .

41. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 954 .

42. (2021) 11 SCC 401 .

43. (2021) 11 SCC 401 .

44. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088 .

45. (2020) 14 SCC 126 .

46. (2014) 1 SCC 188 .

47. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1098 .

48. (2013) 9 SCC 659 .

49. (2013) 9 SCC 659 .

50. (2022) 10 SCC 172 .

51. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264 .

52. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1224 .

53. (2002) 8 SCC 481 .

54. (2003) 6 SCC 697 .

55. (2005) 6 SCC 537 .

56. (2006) 2 SCC 545 .

57. (1952) 2 SCC 154 .

58. (1982) 2 SCC 7 .

59. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394 .

60. . (2020) 9 SCC 121 .

61. (2020) 2 SCC 1 .

62. (2020) 9 SCC 121 .

63. (2017) 10 SCC 1 .

64. AIR 1967 SC 1910 .

65. (2013) 16 SCC 147 .

66. (2002) 8 SCC 481 .

67. (1994) 6 SCC 360 .

68. (2004) 12 SCC 770 .

69. AIR 1958 SC 255 .

70. AIR 1961 SC 1402 .

71. AIR 1954 SC 388 .

72. (2017) 9 SCC 1 .

73. (1986) 3 SCC 615 .

74. (1980) 2 SCC 684 .

75. (1980) 2 SCC 684 .

76. (2020) 4 SCC 727 .

77. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India , (2018) 9 SCC 501 .

78. State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia , (2004) 4 SCC 684 .

79. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 .

80. (2017) 10 SCC 1 .

81. 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 794 .

82. (2000) 3 SCC 588 .

83. (1974) 1 SCC 717 .

84. (2017)10 SCC 1 .

85. (2012) 6 SCC 1 .

86. (2020) 12 SCC 436 .

87. AIR 1954 SC 282 .

88. AIR 1954 SC 388 .

89. (2017) 10 SCC 1 .

90. (1986) 3 SCC 615 .

91. (2002) 7 SCC 368 .

92. (2018) 10 SCC 1 .

93. (1986) 3 SCC 615 .

94. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540 .

95. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 .

96. (1973) 4 SCC 225 .

97. (1973) 4 SCC 225 .

98. 1975 Supp SCC 1 .

99. (1980) 3 SCC 625 .

100. (1981) 2 SCC 362 .

101. (1987) 1 SCC 362 .

102. 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 .

103. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 191 .

104. (1997) 3 SCC 261 .

105. (2016) 5 SCC 1 .

106. AIR 1963 SC 649 .

107. AIR 1964 SC 1823 .

108. (1973) 1 SCC 420 .

109. (1976) 2 SCC 310 .

110. AIR 1963 SC 649 .

111. AIR 1964 SC 179 .

112. (1981) 1 SCC 246 .

113. (2006) 8 SCC 212 .

114. (2008) 6 SCC 1 .

115. (1976) 2 SCC 310 .

116. 1985 Supp SCC 714 .

117. 1951 SCC 351 .

118. (1952) 1 SCC 215 .

119. (2014) 8 SCC 1 .

120. 1941 SCC OnLine US SC 112.

121. (2014) 5 SCC 438 .

122. (2019) 11 SCC 1 .

123. (2015) 1 SCC 192 .

124. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 .

Section 125 CrPC: Can the second wife be entitled to maintenance from her husband?

Delhi HC granted bail to a man accused of raping woman he met on dating app on pretext of marriage

Do convicts have a fundamental right to procreate? Watch to know what Delhi High Court recently held

Book release of 8th edition of “Criminology, Penology and Victimology” revised by Sanjay Vashishtha

Join the discussion, 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.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Article 14 of Indian Constitution, Equality Before Law, Explanation

Every person should be treated equally & Article 14 guarantees that every citizen will be given this protection. Know more about Article 14 of Indian Constitution provisions & exceptions for UPSC.

Table of Contents

Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Our nation is still unable to achieve true freedom even after 73 years of independence. Discrimination and other evils still exist in our land. This taboo even affected the intention of the constitution makers or authors of our Constitution of India . Even today, there are still some places where discrimination against people is practised on the basis of factors such as religion, race, sex, caste, and country of origin.

According to liberals, every person should be treated equally, and Article 14 of Indian Constitution guarantees that every citizen will be given this protection. The amount of equality a person experiences in society is inversely connected to the amount of freedom they have. Positive and negative equality are both included in the Right to Equality .

Read More: Articles 12 and 13

Article 14 in the Constitution Of India

Equality Before Law: Within the territory of India, the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.

Click here to Know about 6 Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution

Equality Before Law & Equal Protection of Laws

Read about:  Important Articles of Indian Constitution

Article 14 of Indian Constitution: Rule of Law

The notion of equality before the law is a part of the “Rule of Law” concept. The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “rule of Law” in Article 14 is a “basic component of the constitution.”

The principle of ‘Rule of Law’ was propounded by the British jurist A.V. Dicey. His concept has the following three elements or aspects:

• No Arbitrary Power: There should be an absence of arbitrary power, that is, no man can be punished except for a breach of law. An offence should be proved before the ordinary courts to punish a person according to legal procedure. This is applicable in the Indian system.
• Equality Before Law: Equality before the law is the subjection of all citizens, regardless of class (i.e., rich or poor, high or low, official or not), to the common law of the state as applied by ordinary law courts. This is true for the Indian system.
• Source of Individual Rights: Dicey believed that there should be an enforcing authority to effectively enforce the above two principles. According to Dicey, courts should be the enforcing authority. The constitution was created as a result of how the courts of law established and upheld individual rights, not the other way around. It held that the court of law is the source of individual rights. This provision is not applicable in the Indian system as India has a written constitution, which is the source of individual rights.

Read More:   Salient Features of Constitution of India

Article 14 of Indian Constitution Exceptions

There are constitutional and other exceptions to the general concept of equality before the law and it is not an absolute right. These are mentioned below:

Constitutional Heads

Under Article 361 the President of India and the Governor of States enjoy the following immunities:

Reporting Proceedings of the Parliament

Regarding the publication in a newspaper (or by radio or television) of a basically true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or either House of the Legislature of a State, no individual shall be subject to any civil or criminal proceedings in any court.

Parliamentary Proceeding

No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.

State Legislature Proceeding

No member of the Legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof.

Provisions under Article 31C

It provides that the laws made by the state for implementing the Directive Principles contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the ground that they violate Article 14. “Where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out,” the Supreme Court ruled.

Diplomatic Immunity

Foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambassadors, and diplomats are exempt from prosecution in both civil and criminal courts.

United Nations

The member of the United Nations Organisation and its agencies are protected under diplomatic immunity.

Sharing is caring!

Is Article 14 fundamental rights?

Yes, its covered under the Fundamental Rights

Under which Article the President and the Governor enjoys immunity from legal proceedings?

Under Article 361 the President of India and the Governor of States enjoy immunities from legal proceedings

The concept of Equality before law has its origin from?

The concept of equality before law is of British origin.

The concept of Equality protection law has its origin from?

The concept of equality before law is originated from US constitution

Is the notion of equality before is the part of Rule of law?

The notion of equality before the law is a part of the "Rule of Law" concept. The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "rule of Law" in Article 14 is a "basic component of the constitution."

• indian polity

Leave a comment

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.

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Exam 2024
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form

Recent Posts

• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

• IB ACIO Salary
• IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

• CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
• CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
• CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

Study Material Categories

• Daily The Hindu Analysis
• Daily Practice Quiz for Prelims
• Daily Answer Writing
• Daily Current Affairs
• Indian Polity
• Environment and Ecology
• Art and Culture
• General Knowledge
• Biographies

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Article 19 Of The Indian Constitution: A Comprehensive Analysis

Contributor.

Introduction:

The Indian Constitution , the world's lengthiest written constitution , is a testament to the country's diverse culture and rich heritage. Among its many provisions, Article 19 stands out as a beacon of freedom, embodying the democratic ethos of the nation. This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Article 19, its legal provisions, landmark cases, and more.

Legal Provisions under the Indian Constitution

Article 19 guarantees six fundamental freedoms to all Indian citizens. These include:

• Freedom of Speech and Expression: This allows citizens to express their views, opinions, and beliefs freely. However, it is subject to reasonable restrictions for the sake of public order, decency, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms: This provision allows citizens to gather peacefully without weapons . This right, too, is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Freedom to Form Associations or Unions: This right enables citizens to form associations or unions. It includes the right to form political parties, companies, partnerships, societies, clubs, etc.
• Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India: This ensures the right of a citizen to move freely anywhere within the Indian territory.
• Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India: This right allows a citizen to reside and settle in any part of the country.
• Freedom to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business: This right enables citizens to engage in any profession or occupation, trade, or business.

Understanding Article 19(1)(a): The Freedom of Speech and Expression in India

Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): This freedom allows every citizen to express their thoughts and ideas through any communicable medium. It includes the right to voice one's opinion, to publish their ideas in print or online, and to broadcast them on radio, television, or any digital platform. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation , or incitement to an offence.

Article 19(1)(b): The Right to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms

Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms (Article 19(1)(b)): This right allows citizens to gather peacefully without weapons . It is the foundation of any democratic society, allowing for public meetings, processions, and demonstrations. However, this right does not protect violent gatherings or those that carry weapons. The state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Article 19(1)(c): The Freedom to Form Associations or Unions in India

Freedom to Form Associations or Unions (Article 19(1)(c)): This provision gives citizens the right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies. It includes the right to form political parties, companies, partnerships, societies, clubs, etc. However, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Exploring Article 19(1)(d): The Freedom to Move Freely Throughout India

Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India (Article 19(1)(d)): This right ensures that every citizen of India can move freely throughout the country. It means that there can be no restrictions on a person moving from one state to another or within any part of India. However, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement to protect the interests of the general public or any Scheduled Tribe.

Article 19(1)(e): The Right to Reside and Settle in Any Part of India

Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India (Article 19(1)(e)): This right allows a citizen to reside, settle, or rent property in any part of the country. However, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

Article 19(1)(g): The Freedom to Practice Any Profession in India

Freedom to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business (Article 19(1)(g)): This right enables citizens to engage in any profession or occupation, trade, or business. However, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public. For instance, the state can prescribe professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or occupation.

Each of these freedoms is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality. These restrictions are meant to ensure that individual freedom does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

Landmark Cases of Article 19 of the Constitution of India:

• Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras (1950): This case was a landmark judgment in the interpretation of the freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court held that a law which authorizes an executive authority to impose restrictions on the freedom of speech goes against the constitutional right.
• Kameshwar Prasad vs State of Bihar (1962): This case challenged the constitutionality of a rule prohibiting government employees from participating in political activities. The Supreme Court held that such a rule was unconstitutional, thereby upholding the freedom to form associations.
• Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): This case expanded the scope of the right to live with human dignity, included within the ambit of the right to life under Article 21 , and held it to be within the right to privacy.

Right to Property: A Historical Perspective

Originally, the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property was one of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. However, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed this right from the list of fundamental rights and placed it under Article 300A as a constitutional right.

The shift from a fundamental right to a constitutional right means that the right to property is no longer enforceable through the Supreme Court under Article 32. It can only be enforced through a High Court under Article 226. This change was made to balance the individual's right to property with the state's need to acquire property for social welfare.

Article 19: As Amended

Here's the entire Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, as amended:

Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

(1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) omitted

(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Impact and Interpretation

The interpretation of Article 19 has evolved through various landmark judgments. The courts have played a crucial role in defining the scope and limitations of these rights. The removal of the right to property from Article 19 reflects the dynamic nature of the Constitution and the need to adapt to changing social and economic realities.

The Future of Article 19

As we move forward, the interpretation and application of Article 19 will continue to evolve. The Indian judiciary, through its progressive judgments, has shown a commitment to expanding the scope of these fundamental freedoms while ensuring they are not misused. The future of Article 19 lies in this delicate balance between individual freedoms and societal interests.

Article 19: A Pillar of Democracy

In conclusion, Article 19 is a pillar of Indian democracy. It guarantees citizens the freedom to express their thoughts, assemble peacefully, form associations, move freely, and choose their profession. While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains protected as a constitutional right.

The essence of Article 19 lies in its ability to adapt to changing societal needs. From its inception to the various amendments and landmark judgments, Article 19 has shown remarkable resilience and flexibility. It continues to protect the rights of Indian citizens while allowing for reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and the unity and integrity of the nation.

As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, Article 19 will continue to play a crucial role in shaping India's democratic ethos. It stands as a testament to the vision of the framers of the Indian Constitution and their unwavering commitment to securing the rights and freedoms of every Indian citizen.

Breach of Article 19: Rights and Remedies

A breach of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution occurs when there is a violation or denial of these fundamental freedoms by the State or any of its instrumentalities. The remedies available for such a breach are as follows:

• Writ Petition : The Constitution of India provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32 and Article 226. A person whose fundamental rights have been violated can move the Supreme Court or the High Court for the enforcement of these rights. The courts can issue various types of writs – Habeas Corpus , Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto , and Certiorari – depending on the nature of the violation.
• Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ): In case of a violation of the fundamental rights of a person or a group of people, any public-spirited individual or a non-governmental organization can file a Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the aggrieved party.
• Compensation: The Supreme Court of India has held in various judgments that compensation can be awarded to a person if there is a violation of his/her fundamental rights.
• Civil Suit: In addition to the above, a person can also file a civil suit in a competent court seeking damages for the violation of their fundamental rights.
• Human Rights Commissions: The National Human Rights Commission or the State Human Rights Commission can also be approached for redressal of grievances related to the violation of fundamental rights.

It's important to note that the rights under Article 19 are available only against state action and not against private individuals. However, the State is obligated to protect these rights even from private parties. If the State fails to do so, it can be held accountable.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is more than a legal provision; it's a symbol of the democratic values that India cherishes. From guaranteeing freedom of speech to the historical shift of the right to property, Article 19 continues to be a vital part of the Indian legal landscape.

The understanding and appreciation of Article 19 require a nuanced examination of its provisions, amendments, and the landmark judgments that have shaped its interpretation. As India continues to grow and evolve, Article 19 will undoubtedly remain at the forefront of legal and societal discourse, reflecting the nation's commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is a testament to the democratic principles that the country upholds. It is a beacon of freedom and a safeguard against the infringement of fundamental rights. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and the unity and integrity of the nation.

In the ever-evolving socio-political landscape of India, Article 19 continues to be a subject of intense debate and interpretation. It remains a vital part of the Constitution, ensuring that the spirit of democracy continues to thrive in the world's largest democracy.

FAQs on Article 19 of the Indian Constitution: Understanding Your Fundamental Rights and Remedies

• What does the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) entail? The Freedom of Speech and Expression allows every citizen to express their thoughts and ideas through any communicable medium. It includes the right to voice one's opinion, publish ideas in print or online, and broadcast them on radio, television, or any digital platform.
• Are there any restrictions on the Freedom of Speech and Expression? Yes, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
• What is the Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms under Article 19(1)(b)? This right allows citizens to gather peacefully without weapons. It is the foundation of any democratic society, allowing for public meetings, processions, and demonstrations.
• Can the state impose restrictions on the Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms? Yes, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• What does the Freedom to Form Associations or Unions under Article 19(1)(c) mean? This provision gives citizens the right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies. It includes the right to form political parties, companies, partnerships, societies, clubs, etc.
• Are there any restrictions on the Freedom to Form Associations or Unions? Yes, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• What is the Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India under Article 19(1)(d)? This right ensures that every citizen of India can move freely throughout the country. It means that there can be no restrictions on a person moving from one state to another or within any part of India.
• Can the state impose restrictions on the Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India? Yes, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement to protect the interests of the general public or any Scheduled Tribe.
• What does the Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India under Article 19(1)(e) entail? This right allows a citizen to reside, settle, or rent property in any part of the country.
• Are there any restrictions on the Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India? Yes, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
• What is the Freedom to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business under Article 19(1)(g)? This right enables citizens to engage in any profession or occupation, trade, or business.
• Can the state impose restrictions on the Freedom to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business? Yes, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public. For instance, the state can prescribe professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or occupation.
• What is the significance of Article 19 in the Indian Constitution? Article 19 is significant as it guarantees six fundamental freedoms that are essential for the personal liberty of citizens. These freedoms form the foundation of a democratic society where citizens can express their thoughts, assemble peacefully, and engage in any profession or business.
• Are the rights under Article 19 absolute? No, the rights under Article 19 are not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality.
• What is the difference between a fundamental right and a constitutional right? Fundamental rights are the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution, and they are enforceable by the courts. On the other hand, constitutional rights are the rights which are not included under Part III of the Constitution, and they are not enforceable by the courts. The right to property, which was once a fundamental right under Article 19, is now a constitutional right under Article 300A.
• What happens if my rights under Article 19 are violated? If your rights under Article 19 are violated, you can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for the enforcement of these rights. You can also file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or seek redressal from the National Human Rights Commission or the State Human Rights Commission.
• Can the rights under Article 19 be suspended? Yes, the rights under Article 19 can be suspended during a state of emergency as per Article 359 of the Indian Constitution. However, the right to file a writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended even during an emergency .
• What is the role of the judiciary in protecting the rights under Article 19? The judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting the rights under Article 19. It interprets the provisions of Article 19 and ensures that the State does not impose unreasonable restrictions on these rights. The judiciary also provides remedies for the violation of these rights through various types of writs.
• What is the impact of the 44th Amendment on the rights under Article 19? The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property from the list of fundamental rights under Article 19. This right is now a constitutional right under Article 300A.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Government, Public Sector

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.