Right To Equality

Equality is the essence of a democratic country, including that of India and hence the constitution of India
guarantees the right to equality and protection of the same. The Indian Constitution, via, Article 14 says 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 provision consists of two phrases, 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of laws' which have their
respective implications.

While equality before law implies that everyone will be treated fairly and equally before the judiciary of the
country, equal protection of the laws implies that similar treatment will be given to people in the similar
circumstances. It is highlighted that the inclusion of the phrase equality before law was inspired from the
constitution of United Kingdom, while the phrase equal protection of laws was taken from the American
constitution.

Equality before law is a negative connotation that indicates no special privilege for anyone, while Equal protection
of laws is a positive connotation indicating equal treatment of those in alike situations.

The phrase equality before law is Rule of Law as held by Dicey which means that:
No man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for distinct breach of law and no
man is above the law. [1]

Professor A.V. Dicey had extensively discussed about the paramount importance of Rule of law by giving
three principles of the same:

 Equality before law:

There shouldn't be any discrimination amongst the rich, poor, minority & majority etc and neither can one be
downgraded nor can one be upgraded.

 Predominance of legal spirit:

The courts of the country must protect the laws and the liberty of all residing in the nation.

 Supremacy of law:
Law is supreme and holds the top most position in the legal system, an individual/group of individuals
cannot override the laws of the country.

Exception Under Article 14: Right To Equality

However, with that being said, the constitution does not mention the right to equality as an absolute right, meaning
that this provision cannot be applied in a general perspective. The implication is that the same law cannot be applied
each person similarly and equally, and hence the doctrine of reasonable classification comes into picture.

It is well known that application of a specific rule or law depends on various variables, including but not restricted
to circumstances and variety of the case, place and the attainment as well. Distinct treatments are to be used while
dealing with distinct situations.

For instance, Article 326:

The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of
adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than [eighteen years] of age
on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not
otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-
residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at
any such election talks about the right to vote conferred upon those above 18 years of age.

However, adults above the age of 18 years, who are prisoners cannot cast their vote, hence depriving their right of
being able to elect representatives of their choice. Thus, although the Indian constitution provides the right to vote to
every adult in the country, it is the same legal document that prohibits prisoners to participate in the process of
elections. Therefore, law does apply distinctly in distinct circumstances and situations.

Doctrine Of Reasonable Classification

As aforementioned, though Article 14 is available to persons in India, it is not an absolute right, hence meaning that
there are exceptions. The concept of Rule of Law prevails over everything in the country and equality is guaranteed
by the same. The doctrine of reasonable classification makes its way into the legal system in order to facilitate
breakthrough in the society. On various instances, the apex court of India, the Supreme Court seated at New Delhi,
has adjudicated that Article 14 allows for reasonable classification.

It is a fact that not every individual born in this country is similar to one another, for instance some are born into the
poor families whereas few are born in the wealthier families. To assume that all these are equal would be unfair, and
hence the need to differentiate amongst prejudice with reason and prejudice without reason becomes important.

Therefore, to meet the requirements of people in various circumstances and eventually to govern the same in an
effective and efficient matter, a reasonable classification must be made and the same reasons must be the stepping
stone in order to draw the nexus between object to be achieved and the distinction made[2]. The doctrine of
reasonable classification, is classification made by Sate, of groups, transactions or even objects in order to achieve
particular ends that would eventually assist in the progression of the community.

The test of reasonable classification was laid down by S.R Das J. as:
In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled viz.

i. That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others left out of the group, and
ii. That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.

The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is
that there must be nexus between them.[3] Intelligible differentia in simple words relate to the capability of
understanding the difference, here with respect to the classification being made.

While this being said, what is important to be noted is that though the courts of India have allowed for reasonable
classification with special reference to Article 14, these are the same courts that have denied class legislation. Class
legislation is irregular discrimination by providing privilege to a certain class selected inconsistently from a larger
group that has a forward foot, which eventually results in an unreasonable classification amongst those classes. The
Supreme Court in R.K Garg v Union of India [4]permitted for reasonable classification but laid down an outright
prohibition of class legislation.

In order to make the application of the doctrine of reasonable classification even more clear, the Supreme court has
on various occasions laid down the basic principles that determine the reasonability of any classification.

Principles of Reasonable classification laid down in Dalmia[5] Case:

 Right to equality ensures that everyone in similar circumstances must be treated similarly in imposing
liabilities and in bestowing privileges upon them
  It is the State that has the power to determine who falls under a class, only for the objectives of legislation or
matter of law, through the procedure of classification
 A single person may be classified as a class solely based on reasons that can applicable to that person alone
and not on others.
 The constitutionality of the enactment will be favoured by the court and the individual who alleges violation
of norms set by constitution carries the burden of proving the same.
 The classification made needn't be scientifically or logically sound, the need for the classification being
perfect does not arise.
 In situations where there is no reason behind the classification, the assumption of constitutionality must not
be stretched to an extent where it holds that the reasons are hid in respect of few individuals being subjected
to discriminative legislation.
 Degree of harm must be scrutinized by the legislature in order to limit itself to cases where the harm is
minimum. Therefore, even if harm is recognized the classification must not be evasive, arbitrary or artificial.

Therefore, by fulfilment of these criteria while making any classification will render such classification reasonable,
upon thorough scrutiny.

Case Laws Related To Doctrine Of Reasonable Classification

There are numerous Indian cases where the doctrine of reasonable classification had been debated, discussed and
has been applied to the circumstances of the cases

 State of Gujarat & Another v Shri Ambica Mills Ltd[6]:

The Supreme Court held that the decision to decide whether a classification made under Article 14 is
unreasonable or reasonable lies with an approach from the judiciary alone. Increase in complexities of the
society increases the problems attached with it and hence the legislation focuses itself on the changes.
Finally, the court held that the legislation faces towards the cruel world, rather than the clear and rational
facsimile. Classification is innate in the legislation.

 D.S. Nakara & Others v Union of India[7]:

The facts of the case included a memorandum issued by the government where it stated that those retired
post 31st March 1979 would be entitled to a liberalized pension. However the supreme court held this
classification to be unreasonable since the distinction of those entitled on pensions solely based on the date
they retired had no nexus with the objective that was aimed to be achieved. Hence, this was a violation of
Article 14 and doctrine of reasonable classification could not be applied.

 Madhu Limaye v The Superintendent, Tihar Jail[8]:

In this case, the petitioners were Indian prisoners, who challenged the jail's decision to treat the European
and Indian prisoners differently. In one place where the European prisoners were given a better nutritious
diet, the Indian prisoners were deprived of this. The Supreme Court held that this behaviour was an outright
violation of Article 14 and hence ordered the officials of the Jail to rectify their actions. The court ruled out
any exceptions, including the usage of Doctrine of Reasonable Classification.

Personal Stance
Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed to all persons residing in the territory of India and hence
becomes quintessential for the state to protect the same. However, with that being said, it is also fair to acknowledge
that not all persons in the country are at the same footing, and there will be situations where a distinction must be
made in order to protect the ones who need the protection.

Rule Of Arbitrariness

While the doctrine of reasonable classification has been used in quite a few cases by the courts of the country to
determine whether any legislation is in contradiction to Article 14, this doctrine was challenged in E.P Royappa v
State of Tamil Nadu[9]. The judgment laid down in this case gave birth to a fresh equality concept.

In R.D Shetty v International Airport Authority [10], Justice P.N Bhagwati was of the opinion that Right to
Equality afflicts arbitrariness because all such inconsistent actions compulsorily include denial of fairness. It is
important to highlight that the doctrine of reasonable classification was neither included as a paraphrase of Right to
Equality nor was it implied to be the conclusion of that article.

Conclusion
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal protection of laws and equality before law, two very essential
concepts, to all the persons in the territory of India. Due to the social, political and economical imbalance, a
distinction had to be made in quite a few cases in the courts of the country to suit the needs of those who need the
protection.