INTRODUCTION:
In a general sense, everybody here is capable of understanding ARTICLE 14 of the Indian Constitution, i.e., "Right to Equality" Even after 76 Years of Independence, our country is not able to gain actual independence. Evils like discrimination are still prevailing in our country. Even the one who created our Constitution suffered from this anathema. Even now there are some places where people are not treated equally and they are discriminated against on different grounds such as religion, race, sex, caste, place of origin, etc.
Therefore, considering the social realities and circumstances of Indian Society, our Constitution-makers added ARTICLE 14 in the Indian Constitution as the Fundamental Right to citizens as well as those who are not citizens of our territory.
The primary objective of this ARTICLE is to elucidate the "Right to Equality" under ARTICLE 14 of the Constitution. Instances of a husband mistreating his wife, a girl unable to finish her education due to family pressure, or a lower caste individual being treated as inferior to upper caste people are clear examples of discrimination. These scenarios highlight the crucial role of the State in upholding equality among its 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. "To treat all citizens equally is the basic concept of liberalism, and ARTICLE 14 ensures the same for our citizens. The liberty of any person is directly connected to the equality he/she is getting in society.
ARTICLE 14: 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 rejects any type of discrimination based on caste, race, and religion, place of birth or sex. This ARTICLE is having a wide ambit and applicability to safeguard the Rights of people residing in India.
This article is divided into two parts:
1.Equality before law:
Negative concept- All persons should be treated equally, no discrimination is allowed.
This concept is taken from the British concept of 'Rule of Law' - The originator of the concept of rule of law was Sir Edward Coke. It means that no man is above law and also that every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law irrespective of their position and rank.
According to Professor A.V Dicey, for achieving Rule of law 3 principles/postulates must be followed which are as follows:
1. Supremacy of law- Absolute supremacy of law as opposed to arbitrary power of the Government.
2. Equality before law- No one is above the law, everyone is bound to obey the same law.
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit- It means Constitution originated from the ordinary law and the real source of the right of individual is not the written Constitution but the rules as defined and enforced by the courts. (this concept is not applicable in india because our written constitution is the Supreme law of the land).
2. Equal Protection of Law:
This concept is taken from 14th Amendment of USA's Constitution.
Positive concept- Like should be treated Like, Unlike should not be treated like, discrimination allowed but it should not be arbitrary and should be reasonable.
Class Legislation is not allowed.
Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons.
Reasonable classification is allowed if based on Intelligible Differentia (Intelligent reason for classification).
Whether the discrimination is reasonable, is upon judiciary to decide, the requirements are that it should have relation with the rationale to be achieved and the rational to be achieved should be just.
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.This provision confers rights on all persons whether citizens or foreigners. Moreover, the word 'person' includes legal persons, viz, statutory corporations, companies, registered societies or any other type of legal person.
The concept of "equality before law" is of British origin while the concept of 'equal protection of laws' has been taken from the American Constitution.
The first concept connotes:
(a) the absence of any special privileges in favour of any person,
(b) the equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts, and
(c) no person (whether rich or poor, high or low official or non-official) is above the law.
The second concept, on the other hand, connotes:
(a) the equality of treatment under equal circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws,
(b) the similar application of the same laws to all persons who are similarly situated, and
(c) the like should be treated alike without any discrimination. Thus, the former is a negative concept while the latter is a positive concept
However, both of them aim at establishing Equality of Legal Status, Opportunity and Justice.
Scope of ARTICLE 14 of the Indian Constitution:
The scope of ARTICLE 14 is very wide. Both citizens and non-citizens get the benefit of the Right to Equality under this Article. This Right applies not only to natural persons but also to juristic persons within the territory of the State. This Right is generally used by individuals against State actions, not private actions. It is applicable at the time when the Right to Equality of individuals is infringed upon by the State or by any arbitrary action of the executive. ARTICLE 14 was incorporated into the Constitution to remove unreasonable discrimination and to provide fair and non-arbitrary treatment in State actions. The principles of ARTICLE 14 promote fairness, rationality, and non-arbitrariness for all members of society.
Features of Article 14:
Some of the features of Article 14 are as follows:
1.ARTICLE 14 is protected by the Constitution as it is one of the most important Fundamental Rights of the people: Fundamental Rights are those rights that are granted as well as guaranteed by the Constitution. ARTICLE 14, which guarantees the Right to Equality to all the people of the State, is protected by the Constitution, and anyone infringing on this right of others would be punished by the Law.
2.ARTICLE 14 is not an absolute right but a qualified one: Fundamental Rights are not absolute in nature. Restrictions can be imposed on ARTICLE 14 by the State if it deems it reasonable to do so. But the amount of restriction to be imposed on it is generally decided by the courts.
3.ARTICLE 14 is justiciable: It means that if anyone's right is infringed upon by another person or the State, then he can go to court for protection of his right. He is permitted to move to the courts for the enforcement of ARTICLE 14. The Indian Judiciary allows the people of the state to move directly to the Supreme Court if a person's Fundamental Rights are violated.
4.ARTICLE 14 is not permanent or sacrosanct, it can be suspended by the State: ARTICLE 14 is one of the Fundamental Rights that can be suspended by the State at any time during an emergency.
RELEVANT CASES OF ARTICLE 14:
√ CASE LAW: Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981)
Court held that terminating the services of an air hostess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to discrimination.
√ CASE LAW: Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)
Equal pay for equal work though not a fundamental right is clearly a constitutional goal under ARTICLES 14,16 and 39(c) of the Constitution.
√ CASE LAW: D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)
Classification was made between the pensioners who retired before a specific date and those who retired after that date. Such classification was held irrational.
√ CASE LAW: Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
SECTION 303 provided for mandatory death penalty for anyone who commits murder and is on life imprisonment, which the court declared arbitrary and not based on any rational principle.
√ CASE LAW: National legal services authority v. Union of india (2014)
ARTICLE 14 does not restrict the word 'person' to males and females only, hijras/transgender's are also included in the definition of 'person'.
√ CASE LAW: Navtej Singh Johar vs union of India (2018)
LGBT individuals were legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. SECTION 377 of IPC was held to be violative of Right to Equality for same sex couples.
√ CASE LAW: Indian young lawyers' association v. State of kerala (2018)
Supreme court declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala temple's custom of prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' from entering the temple premises.
√CASE LAW : Shayara Bano v. Union Of India (2016)
In the case, a Muslim woman named Shayara Bano challenged the constitutionality of 'Triple Talaq' when her husband divorced her by saying 'talaq' three times instantly without any legal proceedings in that matter.
She submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of 'Triple Talaq'. The petitioner argued that it was illegal and unconstitutional in nature as it violated the Fundamental Rights of Muslim women. By Triple Talaq', a Muslim man could divorce a Muslim woman instantly by pronouncing 'Talaq' thrice without any intervention by the State or the Court. It can be done by writing, orally, or by electronic means. She argued that her Fundamental Rights had been violated. Her life changed in an instant when her husband divorced her just by writing a letter, in which he wrote 'talaq' three times. She faced great difficulty in surviving, as he had no money. She was left alone without any financial or emotional support. After facing all those troubles, she submitted a petition to challenge its validity. It was stated that the nature of "Triple Talaq' was arbitrary, which is against the dignity of a woman. The Supreme Court observed that this 'Triple Talaq' system of divorce violates ARTICLES 14, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution. The women's Right to Equality, the Right to Live with Dignity, and the Right to Freedom of Religion are denied if Muslim men are given this right to instant divorce. The Court upheld this Triple Talaq' divorce system as a law that promotes Gender Inequality and is unjust and unfair for Muslim women. It was also stated that the personal laws of a religion cannot override the principles of equality and Fundamental Rights that are incorporated in the Constitution.
It declared the practice of Triple Talaq' as discriminatory. The Apex Court concluded by declaring that the Triple Talaq' is unconstitutional as it is against Muslim women's rights and dignity. They should be treated on par with men. So the Court ordered the Legislature to make laws that are equal for both genders without unnecessary discrimination based on religious customs.
√ CASE LAW: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. 1978,
Justice Bhagwati said that Equality is against the arbitrariness of State action. So this doctrine ensures equality of treatment. "The seven-Judge Bench held that a trinity exists between ARTICLE 14, ARTICLE 19 and ARTICLE 21. All these ARTICLES have to be read together. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under ARTICLE 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be tested with reference to ARTICLE 14."
Natural Justice as a part of Article 14: √ From the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, • It is evident that Natural Justice (natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)) is an integral part of ARTICLE 14. The court held that "the Principle of Natural Justice helps in the prevention of miscarriage of Justice, These Principles also check the arbitrary power of the State."
CONCLUSION
The evolution of the Right to Equality under ARTICLE 14 of the Constitution from its incorporation to its present-day broad scope is remarkable. The interpreters of the Constitution, i.e., the Indian judiciary, declared the Fundamental Rights a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution to ensure a just and equitable society without the fear of getting these rights violated by any other person. Any legislation that contradicts the Right to Equality and other Fundamental Rights as well is violative of the Basic Structure and subsequently ultra-vires to the Constitution.
However, in reality, the lack of awareness among the general public has resulted in people becoming the victims of unequal treatment and not even resisting such treatment. Eradication of inequality is impossible unless individuals are made aware of their rights. It is necessary to ensure each and every individual of the country is made aware of his rights and also the various aspects of such rights. Mere information about the Right to Equality is not much of use if an individual has no idea about various aspects of it, in case of violation of which such individual can approach the courts for remedy. The Indian judiciary has brought about a revolutionary change in the concept of the Right to Equality by interpreting it in various ways and through various precedents and has always worked for the protection of fundamental rights. However, it is necessary for the people to be aware and approach the courts seeking appropriate remedies. Awareness about options like legal aid is also. equally important in championing this cause.
Also read :
