Right to Equality

The concept of right to equality is given under Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India. Each article deals with equality as follows:

Article 14: Equality before law.
Article 15: No discrimination on grounds of religion, race, sex, etc.
Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment.
Article 17: Abolition of untouchability.
Article 18: Abolition of titles.

Article 14

The state shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

Equality Before Law

The concept of equality before law is borrowed from England.
It is a negative concept.
It deals with the supremacy of the Parliament.
It means the state shall make equal laws for everyone.
This concept was given by Professor Dicey.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration deals with equality before law.

Equal Protection of Laws

The concept of equal protection of laws is borrowed from the Constitution of the USA.
It is a positive concept.
It means the supremacy of judiciary.
It ensures equal protection in similar circumstances.

Case- State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75)- The Supreme Court held that both expressions — equality before law and equal protection of law — are supplementary and complementary. Violation of either violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Rule of Law

The concept of Rule of Law was given by Professor Dicey and borrowed from England. He gave three meanings:

Absence of arbitrary power or supremacy of law- Rule of law states there should be no arbitrary power. A man can be punished for breach of law but not arbitrarily.
Equality before law- It means subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land; no one is above law.
Constitution is the result of ordinary law- This means the source of individual rights is not the written constitution but ordinary laws. (This is not applicable in India.)

In India, only the first two meanings are applicable.

Article 14 Permits Reasonable Classification but Prohibits Class Legislation

Classification under Article 14 must not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive but based on real and substantial grounds and have a just and reasonable relation to the object to be achieved by the law.

Class legislation means improper discrimination by arbitrarily conferring privileges on a particular class without reasonable justification.

Test of Reasonable Classification

Two conditions must be met for reasonable classification:

Intelligible Differentia- A difference that is clear, apparent, and capable of being understood. Classification should be based on an intelligent reason.
Rational Nexus- There must be a rational connection between the classification and the object of the statute.

Exceptions to Article 14

Article 361: The President of India and State Governors enjoy immunity — they cannot be sued or prosecuted during their term of office.
Public officials like the police.
Foreign sovereigns or ambassadors.

Cases on Article 14

E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555)– In this case it was held that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions.

D.S. Nakara vs Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130)-In this case Supreme Court struck down the Rule 34 of the central services( pension) rules, 1972 as unconstitutional on the ground that the classification made between the pensioners retiring before a certain date and retiring after that date was not on any rational ground, hence it the classification is arbitrary and violates article 14 of the constitution of India.

K.A Abbas vs Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 481)
In this case supreme court validated reasonable classification in movie certification under ‘A’ category and ‘U’ category under Cinematograph Act.

Air India vs Nargesh Meerza (AIR 1981 SC 1829)- In this case supreme court held that mandatory retirement of air hostesses on the ground of pregnancy was arbitrary and violated Article 14.

Randhir Singh vs Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 879)- In this case it was hled that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d).

Javed vs State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 3057)- In this case supreme court upheld disqualification of persons with more than two children from contesting Panchayat elections, as rational classification.

Mithu vs State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 473)- In this case struck down Section 303 IPC prescribing mandatory death penalty for life-sentence murderers as violative of Article 14.

Ajay Hasiya vs Khalid Mujib (AIR 1981 SC 487)- In this case supreme court struck down oral interview test with one-third weightage as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Article 15

Article 15(1):

The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

This is a mandatory clause.
It defines the obligation of the State not to discriminate on the mentioned grounds.

Article 15(2):

No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to:
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) 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.

This clause defines the obligation of private individuals.

Article 15(3):

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

Article 15(4):

Nothing in this article or in 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 for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Added by: First Amendment Act, 1951.
This is an enabling clause, not a mandatory clause.
Applies only to the State, not private institutions.
Introduced after the State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan judgment.

Case: State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)- Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin student, was denied admission to a medical college due to reservation policy. Supreme Court held this as unconstitutional under Article 15(1).

Article 15(5):

Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in relation to their admission to educational institutions including private institutions, other than the minority educational institutions under clause (1) of article 30.

Added by: 93rd Amendment Act, 2005.
Applies to both State and private institutions (except minority institutions).
Introduced after PA Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra.

Case: PA Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 2005 SC 3226)- In this case it was held that private institutions are not obliged to provide reservations under Article 15(4). After this, Article 15(5) and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 were enacted and upheld.

Article 15(6):

Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of economically weaker sections (EWS), subject to a maximum of 10% reservation in education (excluding SCs/STs/OBCs), except in minority institutions.

Added by: 103rd Amendment Act, 2019.
Applies to both State and private institutions (except minority institutions).
State shall notify EWS from time to time based on income and other indicators.

Important Case Laws:

Case: Balaji vs State of Mysore (AIR 1963 SC 649)- In this case it was held that caste cannot be the sole criterion for identifying backward classes. Social and economic factors must also be considered.

Case: Indira Sawhney vs Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)- This case was also known as the Mandal Commission Case. In this case it was held that reservation cannot exceed 50%.

Case: TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 SC 555)- In this case it was held that the State cannot impose reservation in privately run unaided institutions.

Case: Islamic Academy vs State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 SC 3724)- In this case it was held that quota could be fixed in private institutions, but fees must be independently determined. This case was later overruled by case of PA Inamdar.

Article 16

Article 16(1):

It states that “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
This clause defines the obligation of State.

Article 16(2):

It states that, “No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.”
This clause defines the obligation of state.

Article 16(3):

It states that, “Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office [under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory] prior to such employment or appointment.”
In simple words it means that state can give reservation on the basis of residence.
It is an exception to 16(1) and 16(2).

Article 16(4):

It states that , “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour 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 talks about provision for reservation in appointments.
It is an exception to 16(1) and 16(2).

Article 16(4A) :

It states that, “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
This clause talks about provision for reservations in the matters of promotion.
This clause is inserted by 77^th amendment act,1995.
It is an exception to 16(1) and 16(2)
This clause deals with the matters of reservation in the cases of promotion but only to ST and SCs.
This clause was added after the judgement of Indira Sawhney vs Union of India.

Article 16(4B) :

It states that, “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.”
This clause was added by the 81^st amendment act,2000.
This clause deals with the carry forward rule and states that in the case of unfilled vacancies of previous year, they are not to be include with the vacancies of current year and they should make a separate class in themselves. For example if there were 4 unfilled vacancies previous year and government introduced new 40 vacancies in the current year. Allocation of which are 20 seats for reserved category and 20 for non reserved. Then, in this case the 4 unfilled vacancies are to be kept separate from the vacancies of the current year.
This clause provide that 50 percent rule is immaterial in the case of carry forwarded seats.
This clause was added after the judgement of Indira Sawhney vs Union of India.

Article 16(5) :

It states that, “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides 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 particular denomination.”
In simple words it means that this article will not apply in the case where any person related only to a particular religion or denomination is appointed in a religious or denominational institution.

Article 16(6) :

“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. Of the posts in each category.”
The reservation can be maximum of 10 percent of total seats for EWS.

CARRY FORWARD RULE:

Carry forward rule is a rule that states that if there is unfilled vacancies in a year then they can be fill by carry forwarding that seats to the next year. For example if there are 5 vacant seats in a year then they are to be carry forward to the next year.

CASES ON ARTICLE 16

Indira Sawhney vs Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)- This is a landmark judgement in the case of reservation in India. Following major decisions were taken by the judges in this case:

The reservation granted in the Article 16(4) of Indian constitution shall not be more than 50 percent even after applying the carry forward rule.
There was division of other backward classes in two types creamy layer and non creamy layer and only the non creamy layer is eligible for reservation.
There shall be no reservation in promotions.
Article 16(4) is exhaustive in nature regarding reservations for backward classes only.

Case- M. Nagraj vs Union of India ( AIR 2007 SC 71)- In this case validity of Article 4A and 4B was challenged and it was held that both the articles are constitutionally valid.

Case- Mukesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand (AIR 2020 SC 992) – In this case it was held that Article 16(4) and 16(4A) are not fundamental rights and there is no obligation of state to provide reservation.

Case- Chebrolu Lellaprasad Rao vs State of Andhra Prasad (AIR 2020 SCC online SC 383)- In this case it was held that the reservation is not anti meritarian and it should be given only on the basis of merits. It is given to the people for the proper administration and to give way for social justice in the country.

ARTICLE 17

“Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”

Untouchability is not defined in the Constitution or the Act, but it refers to discriminatory practices against certain depressed classes solely due to birth.
This article forbids the practice of untouchability in any form.
It declares untouchability a punishable offence under the law.

Landmark Case

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473)

Held that Article 17 is enforceable against private individuals, not just the State.
It is the constitutional duty of the State to ensure that this fundamental right is protected

ARTICLE 18

Article 18(1):

“No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.”

The State cannot confer any title (e.g., Sir, Maharaja).
Military and academic distinctions are exceptions.

Article 18(2):

“No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.”

This c;ause applies to Indian citizens only.

Article 18(3):

“No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.”

This clause Applies to non-citizens holding office under the State.
Requires President’s consent for accepting any foreign title.

Article 18(4):

“No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.”

Prohibits gifts, emoluments, and offices from foreign States.
Applies to both citizens and non-citizens.
Needs President’s approval.

Landmark Case

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India [(1996) 1 SCC 361]

The constitutionality of national awards like Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan was challenged.
The Supreme Court held that these are not “titles” under Article 18.
Such awards do not violate the Constitution when not used as honorifics or prefixes.