This article has been written by Ms. Damini Chauhan, a student of BBA.LLB (Hons), from United world school of law, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar. This author is a 5th year law student.
INTRODUCTION
Everyone in this room is capable of comprehending Article 14, or the “Right to Equality,” of the Indian Constitution. Our nation is still unable to achieve true freedom even after 73 years of independence. Discrimination and other evils still exist in our land. This taboo even affected the author of our Constitution. Even today, there are still some places where discrimination against people is practised on the basis of factors such as religion, race, sex, caste, and country of origin.
Because they were aware of the situation in India, our Constitution’s authors decided to include Article 14 as a fundamental right for both citizens and people who do not reside on our land.
This article’s primary goal is to clarify what Article 14 is all about. When a guy from a lower caste is depicted as being inferior to individuals from an upper caste, when a husband mistreats his wife, when a lady cannot finish her education because of family pressure, etc. These are discriminatory instances. Here, we can see how crucial it is for the government to uphold citizens’ equality.
In essence, Article 14 stipulates that “The State shall not deny to any individual within the territory of India, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.”
The fundamental tenet of liberalism is that all citizens should be treated equally, and Article 14 guarantees this for all of our residents. Any person’s freedom is inversely proportional to the level of equality they have in society.
EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
We are all aware that our nation is the biggest democracy in the world and that it practises democracy. Here, everyone is free to act independently and think anything they want (with certain fair limitations, of course), and our state is there to impose those limitations. All individuals on our nation’s territory should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
The primary idea of equality before the law is that everyone should be treated similarly, regardless of their status—whether they are male or female, from an upper caste or lower caste. No one in the nation may receive any special benefits from this state. It also goes by the name of legal equality.
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND ABSOLUTE EQUALITY
On the one hand, the principle of equality before the law forbids giving any community or group of individuals a preferential advantage. It makes no mention of treating everyone equally under all circumstances. It contends that for the state to avoid interfering with society by granting extra privileges, an extremely ideal situation must exist.
The Right to Equality, on the other hand, is not unqualified and is subject to a number of restrictions. Therefore, equals ought to be treated equally. There are many exceptions to the rule of equality before the law, such as the immunity granted to the president and governor. Reservations are another common example that demonstrates how the right to equality is not unrestricted and can be used effectively to meet the needs of society.
The topic of whether or not the right to equality is absolute was brought up in the well-known case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no ultimate right to equality. In this instance, it was discovered that the State of Bengal abused its authority to arbitrarily send any matter to the Special Court that they established. In light of this, it was decided that the Act of State of Bengal breaches the right to equality.
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND RULE OF LAW
Although we have already covered equality before the law in great detail, there is also a clear link between equality before the law and the rule of law. In fact, according to Prof. Dicey’s explanation of the Rule of Law, everyone in this place is equal before the law and neither above nor below it. Every person is guaranteed equality before the law under the rule of law.
According to the Rule of Law, everyone in a country should be treated equally, and since there is no official state religion, the state should not discriminate against any particular religion in this situation. Instead, the idea of uniformity should be used. It basically derives from Magna Carta, a charter of rights signed in the UK that forbids the use of sovereign power without due process.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
One of the benefits of equality is this. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Act of the US Constitution provides for equal protection of the law. This idea states that everyone living in India would receive equal treatment and legal protection. It stipulates that the state cannot refuse to treat everyone equally inside Indian territory (for equal protection of the law).
It makes the state responsible for preventing the violation of rights. Socioeconomic reforms can be made to achieve this.
In Stephens College v. The University of Delhi, the similar idea was raised. The validity of the priority provided to Christian students in the admissions process was the main concern expressed in this case when the college admissions procedure was examined. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a minority institution receiving funding from the state is allowed to give preference to or reserve seats for students from its neighbourhood.
The Supreme Court ruled that the admission program’s discriminatory treatment of applicants does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and is necessary for the minority segment.
EQUALITY – A POSITIVE CONCEPT: BASAWARAJ V. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
In the well-known case of Basawaraj v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant appealed the High Court of Karnataka’s unsatisfactory ruling to the Supreme Court. The appellant claims that the High Court erred by refusing to excuse the delay because there were numerous reasons why they were unable to get at the High Court on time. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is not intended to create permanent illegality, not even by extending an earlier bad decision, according to a well-established legal principle.
It was determined that the appellant in this case was negligent since they were unable to provide a good enough reason for the delay, and their appeal was therefore denied.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Everyone has access to justice when it comes to equality before the law. No one can be denied access to the court system. In this case, everyone should be treated equally before the legal system. Some fundamental human rights are included in the phrase “access to justice.” By “access to justice,” we mean that everyone should have the freedom to attend judicial proceedings.
In addition, a large number of people lack access to justice owing to ignorance or lack of economic knowledge. Here, it means that the government must take a crucial role in ensuring that they receive justice. Our legal system needs to be reformed in order to provide access to justice. We must improve the legal aid programme.
PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARINESS
There is a fine line separating arbitrary from non-arbitrary behaviour. The right to equality forbids the state from acting arbitrarily. This essay challenges the idea of arbitrariness and discusses the Equal Protection of the Law. Every governmental organ is subject to a number of limitations to prevent arbitrary action. It is crucial to do this in order to stop the state’s organ from making any arbitrary decisions.
THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
In essence, the notion of legitimate expectation is not a legal right but rather a moral duty on the part of the government to consider and enact laws that guarantee equality to all citizens of a region. In cases where public authorities fail to protect people’s interests, it grants the right of judicial review in administrative law (or when Public authority rescinds from the representation made to a person).
It serves as a link between what people expect from authorities and what they actually do. However, in order to qualify as valid expectations, they had to be rational and reasonable.
For the purpose of achieving authoritative law, the court has established a number of tools (here motive is to meet the legitimate expectation). These tools are available to safeguard everyone against state institutions abusing their authority. It restricted a state’s ability to exercise arbitrary authority, even though it is a moral restriction.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SPECIAL COURTS
Equality before the law is not always guaranteed and has a number of caveats, as was previously discussed. One of these exceptions is found in Article 246(2). According to Article 246(2), “Subject to clause (1) and notwithstanding anything in clause (3), the Legislature of each State also has power to establish legislation with respect to any of the issues specified in List III of the Seventh Schedule” (here List III is Concurrent List).
The Special Courts Bill v. Unknown case called into question the legality of Special Courts that were constituted under the Special Courts Act. The topic of whether or not this Act’s creation of special courts violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution was raised. It was decided that these special courts are constitutionally legitimate because there is information about them that is rational and logical.
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION
Administrations are free to respond or make decisions in every situation based on the circumstances. Here, it’s critical to first grasp the meaning of the word discretion. Discrimination is essentially the ability of any person to discern between what is right and bad, truthful and untrue, etc., and to respond to these situations as appropriate. After that, I’ll explain why administrative discretion is necessary. The legislature bases every law it passes on a number of assumptions, thus it is impossible for it to precisely predict all of the consequences. To ensure equality across all societal segments is the primary goal of administrative discretion. This administrative discretion should be exercised with caution and should never cross the line. The level of discretion could be arbitrary.
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST
This administrative discretion should be exercised with caution and should never cross the line. The level of discretion could be arbitrary.
TEST FOR REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION
The Supreme Court explains equality before the law jurisprudence in this decision, Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar. the standard used to decide whether or not state actions are legal under the Constitution. Only in this instance was the infamous “classification exam” administered. In this case, the High Court ruled that, where required, a government can create a commission to investigate an issue. Here, the government’s primary goal is to commit to supporting issues of public interest.
It involves administrative judgement. In this case, the government ultimately has the power to decide anything. It was determined in this instance as well that the government’s actions were reasonable and supported by the law.
The Supreme Court ruled that social and economic equality is what is meant when we talk about equality in any political democracy. There is no other form of equality, and the government should make every effort to achieve social and economic justice.
TEST OF REASONABLE DISCRETION
The petitioner (Oregano Chemical Industries) filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against the order Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that imposed a high penalty under Section 14(B) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Acts, 1952 for the delayed payment of Employees’ Provident Funds and Family pension of their employees. This case is very well known and involves Oregano Chemical Industries v. Union of India. The issue here is between Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and Section 14(B) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952. In this case, the government was told to offer the remedy available to the Fund so that damages may be made up.
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner or another person designated by the Central Government is authorised by Section 14(B) to seek damages from an employer who has failed to make a payment to the fund, provided that the employer has had an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Additionally, this provision states that the Central Board may waive their damages in the event of a sick industrial company. In this case, the court determined that the government had arbitrarily employed this section, going beyond its reasonable power of discretion and infringing on Article 14 of our constitution.
NO EQUALITY IN ILLEGALITY
Equal treatment under the law is not possible for those who have committed crimes. In front of a court or other legal authority, someone who is engaging in illegal activity cannot assert their right to equality. The Patna High Court’s decision in the case of Baliram Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar makes it very obvious that there cannot be equality for illegal conduct because the petitioner was at fault and was forced to make up for his illegal deed.
CONCLUSION
Finally, I would want to add that because our nation is democratic, each and every citizen has been granted a set of fundamental rights, and that it is important to guarantee that these rights are not violated by anyone, even the government. Our constitution’s guarantee of equality is not actually being fully upheld, despite the fact that our judicial system has advanced numerous legislative requirements relating to it. As hard as our judiciary and the other two state organs fight to uphold equality among all of our citizens, it will be incredibly challenging to eliminate inequity as long as people are unaware of their rights. The residents’ role became crucial for the preservation of their own rights.
In order to ensure that no one is denied their rights, the right to equality required to be implemented practically. Everyone, from Mahatma Gandhi to Bhim Rao Ambedkar, dreams of living in a nation without discrimination.
REFERENCE
- SCC Online.
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-equality/
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening