Right to Equality-Article 14-18

Introduction

“All men are created equal” — this powerful phrase, popularized by the U.S. Declaration of Independence,

The Right to Equality forms the bedrock of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Part III – Fundamental Rights. It’s a legal formality and a moral commitment to uphold human dignity, ensure social justice, and build a democratic society. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, emphasized equality as the soul of Indian democracy. Without it, liberty and fraternity become meaningless.

The objective of Articles 14 to 18 is to promote substantive equality, not just formal equality. While formal equality offers identical treatment to everyone, substantive equality looks deeper—it acknowledges historical injustices and systemic disadvantages and makes room for positive discrimination like reservations and special provisions.

Equality Before the Law and Equal Protection of Laws

Equality Before Law

This principle is borrowed from the British legal system and implies “the absence of any special privilege in favor of any individual.” It ensures that every individual, regardless of status, wealth, or power, is subject to the same law in the same way. Simply put, the same criminal or civil laws apply to you whether you’re a billionaire or a beggar.

However, equality before the law does not imply uniformity in treatment. It’s not about treating unequals equally. For instance, a juvenile offender may be treated differently from an adult under the law. That’s not a violation; that’s a nuanced approach to justice.

Real-Life Example: In the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court emphasized that the “Rule of Law” is a basic feature of the Constitution, and equality before law is a part of it. This means no one is above the law, not even the government.

Example: If a high-ranking official commits a crime, they are to be tried under the same laws as any common citizen.

Equal Protection of the Laws

This is borrowed from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which means that the state should treat people in similar circumstances equally. It allows for reasonable classification to address social and economic disparities. This is how the government can justify reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs, as long as the classification is not arbitrary.

Key Takeaway: While “equality before law” is a negative concept (no special privileges), “equal protection of laws” is a positive concept (requires affirmative action).

Example: Providing reservations in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to bring them on par with the general population.

Case Law: In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Court held that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification but strikes down arbitrary classifications that lack rational justification.

 Article 14 Permits Classification but Prohibits Class Legislation

The most misunderstood part of Article 14 is the idea that equality means treating everyone the same. That’s not true. Article 14 permits the State to make classifications, provided they are reasonable and not arbitrary. This is essential to ensure justice for disadvantaged groups.

Class Legislation vs. Reasonable Classification

• Class Legislation: Makes arbitrary distinctions between people or groups. It is prohibited under Article 14.
• Reasonable Classification: Permissible if it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the objective of the law.

Mnemonic: Remember “I.R.” for the two-part test:

• I – Intelligible Differentia
• R – Rational Nexus

Example: Giving free education to SC/ST students but not to the general category is not discrimination; it is a reasonable classification to bridge the education gap.

Case Reference: In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Court moved from a traditional to a dynamic understanding of equality—stating that “equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.”

 Test of Reasonable Classification

For any classification to pass the Article 14 test, it must satisfy two conditions:

1. Intelligible Differentia – There must be a clear distinction between the groups.
2. Rational Nexus – This distinction must be logically related to the objective of the law.

Real-Life Analogy:

Think of a bus giving free rides only to senior citizens. That’s a reasonable classification:

• Intelligible Differentia: Senior citizens are a distinct group.
• Rational Nexus: The objective is to support financially dependent older adults.

Case Study: In Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (1955), the Court upheld a law that allowed certain cases to be tried in special courts, stating that it fulfilled both parts of the test.

Warning: If a law creates hostile discrimination without justification, it will be struck down under Article 14.

 Basis of Classification

Geographical Basis

Laws can differ from State to State or region to region if local conditions justify such distinction. For instance, tribal areas in Northeast India have special protections under the Constitution.

Example: The Sixth Schedule provides autonomy to tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

Discrimination by the State in Its Favour

Sometimes, the State may create laws or policies that appear to favor itself or its entities. However, these must still meet the test of reasonable classification and cannot be arbitrary.

Judgment: In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979), the Court stated that state instrumentalities are also bound by Article 14, and favoritism by state authorities violates the Right to Equality.

Article 14 and Taxation Laws

Tax laws often classify people based on income, location, or activity. This is valid as long as it follows the reasonable classification principle.

Example: Progressive tax slabs that impose higher taxes on higher income groups are not discrimination but a redistributive measure to ensure social justice.

Special Courts and Special Procedure

Under Article 14, creating special courts (like anti-terror courts or family courts) is permissible if justified by purpose and necessity.

Mnemonic: Think “Purpose-based Procedure is Permissible.”

Administrative Discretion

While Article 14 allows some administrative discretion, it must not result in arbitrariness.

Case Law: In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary allocation of contracts, calling it a violation of equality.

A Single Individual May Constitute a Class

If a person or entity is uniquely positioned, it can be considered a class under Article 14.

Example: A scheme made only for the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy was upheld, as they were a unique class of victims.

No Discrimination on the grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, etc. (Article 15)

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone for ensuring social equality. It prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen solely based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This article forms the moral compass for India’s secular and inclusive governance model.

Key Features of Article 15:

• Clause (1): “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
• Clause (2): Prohibits discrimination on the same grounds regarding access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment, and the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

Real-Life Example:

• Imagine if a restaurant refuses service to someone because of their caste. That’s a blatant violation of Article 15(2). Legal actions can be taken, and in many cases, people have been penalized for such behavior under both civil and criminal provisions.

Case Study:

• In the State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), a government order reserving seats in educational institutions based on religion and caste was struck down. The judgment emphasized merit over religion unless protected under Article 15(4).

Current Relevance:

• Despite legal protections, Discrimination still exists in various forms. Whether it’s caste-based violence, gender inequality, or religious intolerance, Article 15 acts as a constitutional safeguard to challenge and eliminate such biases.
• Important Note for Students: Remember the grounds—RRCSP (Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, Place of Birth). Use this mnemonic for quick recall during exams.

Special Provision for Women and Children – Clause (3)

This clause is an exception to the general prohibition against discrimination. It states: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.” This allows the State to enact affirmative measures to address the unique vulnerabilities and historical disadvantages faced by women and children.

Why Special Treatment?

• Historical Disadvantage: Women and children have faced systemic oppression.
• Biological and Social Realities: Issues like maternity, child welfare, and domestic violence necessitate special laws.
• Empowerment: Provisions aim to create a level playing field rather than perpetuate inequality.

Examples of Special Provisions:

• Maternity Benefit Act: Offers paid maternity leave to working women.
• Free Education for Children: Right to Education under Article 21A.
• Reservation for Women: In Panchayati Raj (Article 243D), and proposed in Parliament (Women’s Reservation Bill).

Landmark Judgment:

In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981), a rule that forced air hostesses to retire upon marriage or first pregnancy was held to be violative of Article 15(3). The court emphasized that special provisions should empower, not limit.

Tip for Students: Remember “W & C” – Women and Children – are always protected under special clauses, and this is not a contradiction to the equality principle.

Special Provision for Advancement of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) – Clauses (4) and (5)

These clauses are critical for the State’s efforts to achieve substantive equality.

• Clause (4): Added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951, it states: “Nothing in this article or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”
• This clause enables reservations and other affirmative actions in educational institutions and public employment for these historically marginalized groups.
• Statistical Context: According to the 2011 Census, Scheduled Castes constitute about 16.6% of India’s population, and Scheduled Tribes constitute about 8.6%. These groups have historically faced severe social and economic disadvantages. Government reports, like the Sachar Committee Report (2006) for Muslims and various National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) reports, consistently highlight disparities in education, employment, and income for these groups, underscoring the need for such special provisions.

Why Are These Provisions Necessary?

• Centuries of Oppression: SEBCs were denied access to education and economic opportunities.
• Social Inclusion: These provisions help integrate disadvantaged communities into the mainstream.
• Level Playing Field: Equality does not mean everyone starts at the same line, but that everyone reaches the finish line together.

Major Policies:

• OBC Reservations: Introduced based on the Mandal Commission report.
• EWS Reservation: A new category introduced for economically weaker sections under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.
• SC/ST scholarships, hostel facilities, and fee waivers in educational institutions.

Case Law:

• In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the reservation for OBCs but capped total reservations at 50%, to ensure balance between merit and social justice.
• Examination Tip: Use the acronym “SER” – Socially and Educationally Reserved – to remember the groups covered under Article 15(4) and 15(5).

• Clause (5): Added by the 93rd Amendment Act, 2005, it allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in matters relating to their admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than minority educational institutions.

Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment (Article 16)

Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. This aims to prevent discrimination in public sector jobs.

Key Provisions:

• Clause (1): “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
• Clause (2): Prohibits discrimination based only on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them regarding any employment or office under the State.
• Clause (3): Allows Parliament to make laws prescribing residence as a qualification for certain employments or appointments.
• Clause (4): This is the famous “reservation clause.” It states: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
• This clause is the constitutional basis for affirmative action policies like reservations for OBCs, SCs, and STs in government jobs. The aim is to ensure adequate representation of these groups in public services.
• Example: The Mandal Commission Report (1980) recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government services, which was implemented in 1990. Combined with reservations for SCs (15%) and STs (7.5%), the total reservation in central government jobs stands at 49.5%. While there has been ongoing debate and judicial review, these reservations aim to correct historical underrepresentation. For instance, data from the Department of Personnel and Training often shows that despite reservations, the representation of certain reserved categories in higher echelons of government services still lags behind their population share.

• Clause (4A): Provides for reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority for SCs and STs.
• Clause (4B): Allows the State to carry forward unfilled reserved vacancies of a year to the subsequent year without them being counted against the 50% reservation limit for that year.
• Clause (5): Allows a law to provide that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a specific denomination.
• Clause (6): Added by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, it allows for up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in civil posts and services under the State. This provision extends the concept of affirmative action beyond social and educational backwardness to economic backwardness.

Why Does This Matter?

The public sector is a major source of stable employment in India. Ensuring access to these jobs based on merit AND social equity is crucial for national development.

Case Reference:

In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that reservations in promotions are constitutional if the State proves backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and administrative efficiency.

Real-World Example:

Reservations in UPSC, SSC, banking jobs, and other public sector recruitments help ensure representation of marginalized communities

Abolition of Untouchability – Article 17

Article 17 is one of the most revolutionary provisions in the Constitution. It declares that “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. This is not just a constitutional right—it’s a civilizational shift.

What is Untouchability?

Untouchability is a social evil rooted in the caste system, where people from lower castes were treated as impure and excluded from public life, temples, and even basic human interaction.

Enforcement Mechanism:

• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Enacted to penalize anyone who practices untouchability.
• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Offers stringent punishment for caste-based atrocities.

Impact: While legal abolition is a significant step, the social practice of untouchability, though diminished, still persists in some forms, particularly in rural areas. Reports from organizations like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and various NGOs continue to document cases of discrimination and violence against Dalits (formerly untouchables), indicating that the fight for complete eradication is ongoing.

Case Law:

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court declared that any form of exclusion based on caste is unconstitutional and violative of Article 17.

Ground Realities:

Even today, incidents of caste-based violence and discrimination make headlines. Article 17 stands as a weapon of dignity for Dalits and other oppressed communities.

Abolition of Titles – Article 18

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution mandates the abolition of titles, aiming to uphold equality and eliminate artificial distinctions among citizens. In a democratic society, titles conferred on individuals by the State can promote hierarchy and privilege, which Article 18 strictly prohibits.

What Does Article 18 Prohibit?

1. Abolition of all titles (except military or academic distinctions).
2. No citizen shall accept titles from any foreign State.
3. Foreigners holding office under the Indian State cannot accept foreign titles without the President’s consent.

Why Was This Necessary?

During colonial times, the British awarded titles like “Rai Bahadur,” “Khan Bahadur,” and “Sir,” which became symbols of loyalty and privilege. These undermined the spirit of egalitarianism that the Constitution strives to promote.

Exceptions to the Rule

• Academic titles like “Doctor” or “Professor” are not abolished.
• Military titles such as “Captain” or “Colonel” are allowed.

Controversy Around Civilian Awards

India confers honors like Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, and Bharat Ratna, which sparked debates on whether they violate Article 18.

Judicial Interpretation

In the Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) case, the Supreme Court held that civilian awards do not violate Article 18 as long as they are not used as titles and do not confer hereditary or honorific privileges.

Practical Implications

• Awards must not be permanently attached to a person’s name.
• Titles should not translate into entitlements or preferential treatment in public affairs.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

India’s judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and expanding the scope of the Right to Equality. The Supreme Court has ensured that Articles 14 to 18 remain alive and dynamic through various landmark rulings.

Major Judgments to Remember:

1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
   1. Recognized the Basic Structure Doctrine.
   1. Equality is part of the basic structure and cannot be amended.
2. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974):
   1. Redefined equality as the antithesis of arbitrariness.
   1. Introduced the concept of substantive equality.
3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
   1. Upheld OBC reservations.
   1. Placed a 50% cap on reservations.
4. N.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala (1976):
   1. Recognized promotions with reservations for SC/ST employees.
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):
   1. Decriminalized homosexuality.
   1. Held that differential treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals violates Article 14.

Judicial Evolution of Equality:

• From formal equality (treating all the same) to substantive equality (considering individual circumstances).
• Emphasis on non-arbitrariness, reasonableness, and social justice.

Quote to Remember:

“Equality is the soul of the Constitution, and if the soul is to be saved, equality must be preserved.” – Justice Bhagwati.

For Students: Remember key case names with “K.E.I.N.N.” – Keshavananda, E.P. Royappa, Indra Sawhney, N.M. Thomas, Navtej Singh Johar.

Right to Equality and Affirmative Action

Affirmative action—often called “positive discrimination”—is how the State ensures substantive equality. Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) are not exceptions to the right to equality, but instruments to achieve it.

Forms of Affirmative Action in India:

1. Reservations in Education and Employment
   1. SC, ST, OBC, EWS
2. Special Scholarships and Hostels
3. Concessions in Fees and Age Limits

Why It Matters

• Bridge Social Gaps: Formal equality alone can’t undo generational oppression.
• Equal Outcomes, Not Just Opportunities: The focus is shifting towards enabling all to reach the same platform.

Challenges and Criticism

• Reverse Discrimination: Some argue it marginalizes deserving candidates from non-reserved categories.
• Caste-Based Identity Politics: It may reinforce caste consciousness.
• Creamy Layer: Benefits may not reach the most needy among backward classes.

Judicial Insights

• In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the Court upheld OBC reservations in educational institutions but emphasized excluding the creamy layer.

Student Tip: Remember the acronym “RACE” for Reservation, Access, Concession, and Empowerment.

14. Comparative Constitutional Perspectiv

How does India’s Right to Equality stack up against other democracies? Let’s compare:

Country	Equivalent Provision	Nature of Equality
USA	14th Amendment – Equal Protection Clause	Substantive and legal equality
UK	Equality Act 2010	Anti-discrimination framework
South Africa	Section 9 – Bill of Rights	Includes affirmative action
Canada	Section 15 – Charter of Rights & Freedoms	Allows positive discrimination

What India Can Learn

• Implementation is Key: South Africa’s legal aid model is very robust.
• Transparency in Affirmative Action: Canada emphasizes clarity in policies.
• Broadening the Scope: The USA uses equality in more diverse healthcare and civil rights sectors.

Conclusion from Global Insights

India’s constitutional framework on equality is one of the most inclusive in the world. Still, effective enforcement and periodic review of affirmative policies is essential.

Conclusion

The Right to Equality (Articles 14 to 18) is not merely a legal entitlement—it’s a social revolution enshrined in the Constitution. From equality before the law to the abolition of untouchability and titles, these provisions aim to heal the wounds of historical discrimination and uplift the marginalized.

Key Takeaways:

• Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection.
• Article 15: No discrimination; affirmative action permitted.
• Article 16: Equality in public employment with reservation scope.
• Article 17: Ends untouchability.
• Article 18: Abolishes titular hierarchies.