Article 14 of the Indian Constitution addresses both formal and substantive equality through its dual mandate of 'equality before the law' and 'equal protection of the laws.' While it enshrines the principle of formal equality by ensuring that every individual is treated the same by the law, it also opens the door to substantive equality by allowing for legal interpretations and measures that can address deeper inequities and discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court's interpretations, especially in cases like E.P. Royappa, have expanded the understanding of Article 14 to include substantive fairness and created a legal framework that recognizes the need for differentiated treatment to achieve genuine equality .

Substantive equality differs from formal equality in that it focuses on achieving fair outcomes by considering individual circumstances and historical disadvantages. While formal equality emphasizes treating everyone the same by the law, substantive equality acknowledges that to achieve true equality, different groups may need different treatment. This has implications such as the provision of affirmative action or reservations for marginalized communities to address past injustices and provide them with equal opportunities moving forward. Substantive equality requires laws and policies to be adaptive to real-world inequalities rather than merely providing identical treatment .

Constitutional articles promote substantive equality for women in India by providing for positive discrimination and special provisions to correct historical discrimination. Article 15(3) allows the state to make special provisions for women and children, while Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) specifically aim at advancing socially and educationally backward classes, which includes measures that support women’s empowerment. These articles collectively enable the implementation of laws like reservations, workplace harassment protection, and maternity benefits, reflecting a commitment to achieving actual equality by addressing women's specific needs and challenges within the socio-political and economic spheres .

The case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) highlights the challenges of applying formal equality by illustrating how laws can be applied in a discriminatory manner without clear criteria. The West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, allowed the state government to select cases for special courts, leading to arbitrary treatment of similarly situated individuals, contrary to Article 14's mandate of uniform treatment. This case underscores the difficulty in ensuring that formal equality—treating individuals the same under the law—does not inadvertently lead to unequal outcomes when discretion is applied arbitrarily .

The legal precedent set by the M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962) case regarding substantive equality in India was the recognition and validation of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. The Supreme Court upheld the need for positive discrimination through reservations to address historical injustices and backwardness, thereby establishing substantive equality as a constitutional and necessary form of addressing inequalities. This case laid the groundwork for affirmative action policies by acknowledging that substantive measures are needed to ensure true equality beyond formal declarations .

Justice Bhagwati's interpretation of Article 14 in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu is significant because it expanded the understanding of equality from a narrow focus on formal classification to include a broader concept of substantive fairness. He argued that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality, meaning that any state action that is arbitrary violates Article 14. This interpretation marked a shift from merely preventing discrimination between equals to also addressing arbitrary actions by the state, thus broadening the scope for achieving substantive equality in legal interpretation .

The policy of reservations is seen as a crucial example of substantive equality in India because it provides affirmative action to help historically disadvantaged groups like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) overcome socio-economic barriers. By reserving seats in educational institutions and government jobs, the policy aims to level the playing field, addressing deep-rooted inequalities that cannot be resolved through formal equality alone. This ensures fairer outcomes and opportunities for communities that have faced systemic discrimination and exclusion .

The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 14 with regard to arbitrary state actions has evolved to include a broader scrutiny of state discretion beyond mere classification by emphasizing that any form of arbitrariness violates the principle of equality. Initially, Article 14 was primarily understood in context with reasonable classification. However, with landmark cases like E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court has expanded its interpretation, emphasizing that arbitrariness in state action is antithetical to equality and encompasses unfair, unreasonable state actions even without traditional classification. This nuanced interpretation allows for more rigorous judicial review and ensures accountability in state discretion .

The Supreme Court case Javed & Ors. v. State of Haryana reinforced the principle of reasonable classification under Article 14 by upholding a law prohibiting bigamous marriages, based on the principle of reasonable classification using intelligible differentia. The court clarified that while arbitrary classification is impermissible, distinctions that have a legitimate basis and a rational nexus to the objective of the law are allowed. This decision illustrated how laws can differentiate between people if the classification serves a reasonable and justifiable purpose, thus integrating a more nuanced approach to equality under the law .

The Shayara Bano v. Union of India case reflects the tension between formal and substantive equality as it involved the invalidation of the practice of triple talaq, seen as discriminatory against women. While formal equality would suggest equal application of rights and rules, substantive equality required recognizing the specific disadvantages and discrimination faced by women within this practice. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down triple talaq highlights the need to go beyond equal treatment under the law and engage in corrective measures to ensure that equal rights result in actual equality in societal outcomes .