Right to Equality (Articles 14–18)
- Article 14: Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws
-
- Guarantees legal equality and prohibits special privileges.
- While equality before law is negative (British origin), equal protection of laws is positive (US origin).
- Article 14 is the foundation of a democratic society, ensuring justice, fairness, and equality for all individuals.
- It not only guarantees non-discrimination but also promotes social and economic equity, enabling inclusive governance aligned with constitutional values.
Scope and Application:
-
- Applicability:
- Article 14 applies to State actions as defined in Article 12. Actions by private individuals are not covered unless specified, such as in Article 15(2) (prohibition of discrimination in public places).
- Exceptions for Constitutional Authorities:
- Immunity for President and Governor under Article 361:
- No legal proceedings can be initiated during their tenure.
- Impeachment and suits against the government are exceptions.
- International exceptions include foreign sovereigns and ambassadors.
- Immunity for President and Governor under Article 361:
- Applicability:
Legislative Classification:
-
- Principles of Classification:
- A classification is valid if based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the objective of the law.
- Example: Educational qualifications can be a valid criterion for promotions if linked to job efficiency.
- Principles of Classification:
Reasonable Discrimination:
-
- Article 14 permits rational discrimination when it is necessary to achieve social or economic equality.
- Example: Reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially backward classes to uplift disadvantaged groups.
What Article 14 Prohibits:
-
- It disallows class legislation, which creates arbitrary distinctions without valid justification.
- Over-classification that disrupts equality is also prohibited.
Judicial Interpretations:
-
- Illegality Cannot Justify Another: Courts do not permit invoking jurisdiction to demand the replication of illegal acts for others.
- Example: Coal Block Allocations (1993–2011) declared invalid due to:
- Lack of objective criteria.
- Arbitrary decision-making without guidelines.
- Violation of public trust and national interest principles.
- Example: Coal Block Allocations (1993–2011) declared invalid due to:
- Illegality Cannot Justify Another: Courts do not permit invoking jurisdiction to demand the replication of illegal acts for others.
Importance of Article 14:
-
- Forms the essence of democracy and is regarded as a basic feature of the Constitution.
- Encourages social and economic justice within a political democracy.
Difference Between Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of the Laws
Aspect | Equality Before Law | Equal Protection of the Laws |
Nature | Negative concept | Positive concept |
Meaning | Prohibits special privileges for individuals based on birth, creed, or status. Ensures equal subjection of all classes to ordinary law. | Guarantees equal treatment for all individuals in similar circumstances and requires affirmative action to bridge inequalities. |
Objective | Reflects Dicey’s Rule of Law, ensuring no one is above the law, including government officials. | Ensures a level playing field for socially and economically weaker sections. |
Influence | Derived from Dicey’s Rule of Law. | Inspired by the American concept of “equal protection.” |
Application | Treats everyone equally without special privilege. | Allows reasonable classification to ensure justice and fairness. |
Examples | All citizens, regardless of status, are subject to the same criminal law. | Reservation policies for economically or socially backward classes to ensure equal opportunities. |
Note: In India, constitution is the source of individual rights
Exceptions to equality
-
- President and governor not answerable to court for their official acts
- No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President or the governor in any court during his term of office
- No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or governor
- Civil proceeding on personal acts only after two months’ notice
- No liability of true reporting in newspapers
- No member of Parliament shall be liable for anything said or vote
- Article 31C
- Foreign sovereigns enjoy immunity; this includes even UNO
- Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination
- Prohibitions:
- State cannot discriminate against citizens based solely on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Clause 1).
- Discrimination by private individuals regarding public spaces, like restaurants, wells, and roads, is also barred if maintained by public funds (Clause 2).
- Permissible Exceptions:
- Special provisions for women and children (Clause 3).
- Measures for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) (Clause 4).
- Economic Reservations:
- The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced Clause 6, enabling special provisions for economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and employment, reserving up to 10% of seats for them in educational institutions and public jobs.
- Prohibitions:
1st Constitutional Amendment Act:
- Introduction of Article 15(4): This amendment allowed the State to implement affirmative action for socially and economically backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- Context:
- Article 29(2) prohibited discrimination in educational admissions based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
- The Champakam Dorairajan case (1951) highlighted a conflict between affirmative action policies and Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 14 and 15.
- This marked the first significant clash between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
- Challenged Provisions:
- Article 46, which promotes the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections, was viewed as contradictory to Articles 14 and 15.
- Resolution: The conflict was resolved by the 1st Constitutional Amendment, enabling special provisions for disadvantaged groups.
93rd Constitutional Amendment Act (2005):
- Introduction of Article 15(5): This amendment empowered the State to make special provisions for socially and economically weaker sections in educational institutions, including reservations.
- Scope:
- Article 15(4) addresses broader affirmative action measures, while Article 15(5) specifically focuses on educational institutions.
- Minority educational institutions are explicitly excluded from the purview of Article 15(5).
- Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
- Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment. It prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. This principle upholds meritocracy in state services.
- Exceptions to equality:
- Residence condition: Parliament can impose residency requirements for specific posts, though currently, only Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have such provisions.
- Reservation for backward classes: The state can reserve posts for classes not adequately represented in state services.
- Religious institutions: Religious or denominational posts can require the incumbent to belong to a particular religion.
- Economic reservation: A 10% quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) was introduced by the 103rd Amendment, 2019.
Mandal Commission and Reservation Policy
-
- In 1979, the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) identified 3743 backward castes, constituting 52% of the population (excluding SC/STs). It recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs, capped at 50% total reservation.
- Key judicial and legislative actions:
- Mandal Case (1992): SC upheld 27% OBC reservation with conditions:
- Exclude the creamy layer.
- No reservation in promotions (except SC/STs via 77th and 85th Amendments).
- Total reservation should not exceed 50%.
- Unfilled vacancies (backlog) could carry forward but must adhere to the 50% rule.
- Mandal Case (1992): SC upheld 27% OBC reservation with conditions:
- Legislative milestones:
- 81st Amendment (2000): Allowed separate backlog vacancies, exempting them from the 50% ceiling.
- 76th Amendment (1994): Included Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation law in the Ninth Schedule to shield it from judicial review.
Judicial Pronouncements Regarding Reservation
Case | Issue | Judgment | Impact |
State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) | Caste-based reservation in jobs and education challenged under Article 15(1). | Struck down the Government Order as it violated equality under Article 15(1). | Led to First Constitutional Amendment (1951) introducing Article 15(4). |
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) | Validity of 27% reservation for OBCs and exclusion of the creamy layer. | Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs with creamy layer exclusion. Limited reservations to 50% and to initial appointments only, not promotions. | Established framework for OBC reservations and introduced the creamy layer concept. |
Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) | Quota in private unaided educational institutions challenged. | Ruled that imposing quotas in private unaided institutions violated Article 19(1)(g). | 93rd Amendment introduced to override this decision, enabling reservations. |
M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006) | Extension of reservations for SCs/STs in promotions. | Upheld reservations in promotions but imposed three conditions: backwardness proof, quantifiable data on underrepresentation, and improved administrative efficiency. | Reinforced conditions for implementing reservations in promotions. |
Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008) | Validity of 93rd Amendment and Central Educational Institutions Act, 2006. | Upheld both the amendment and the Act but left open the question of quotas in private unaided institutions. | Validated government actions on reservation in public and aided institutions. |
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (2013) | Quotas under the Right to Education Act, 2009 in private unaided institutions. | Upheld quotas, emphasizing education is not a commercial activity and prioritizing children’s rights under Article 21A. | Expanded reservations to private unaided institutions under the Right to Education Act. |
Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) | Requirement of quantifiable data to prove backwardness for SC/STs in promotions. | Ruled that quantifiable data is not required to prove backwardness for SC/STs in promotions. | Simplified the process of implementing reservations for SC/ST promotions. |
Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act (2018) | Consequential seniority for SC/STs with retrospective effect from 1978. | Upheld the Act, allowing SC/STs to retain seniority over general category peers even in subsequent promotions. | Validated consequential seniority, overturning the “catch-up rule.” |
Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
-
- Introduced by the 103rd Amendment (2019), it provides 10% reservation in government jobs for individuals not covered under SC/ST/OBC quotas.
- Eligibility criteria:
- Family income below ₹8 lakh/year.
- Excludes those owning significant landholdings or urban properties.
- Benefits apply to general-category individuals meeting economic criteria.
Arguments in Favor and Against Reservation Based on Economic Status
Aspect | Arguments in Favor | Arguments Against |
Need for New Criteria | Caste-based backwardness is significant, but changing socio-economic conditions require broader deprivation metrics, such as economic status. | Reservation should focus on caste-based disadvantage, as it addresses systemic inequalities. Overreliance on economic criteria dilutes the historical intent of affirmative action. |
Judicial Observations | The Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) case emphasized that backwardness can also stem from economic hardship or gender identity, necessitating dynamic criteria. | The Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) held that exceeding the 50% reservation cap violates the equality norm, a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure. |
Dissatisfaction Among Excluded Groups | Economic reservation addresses the discontent of communities with similar economic hardships but no access to caste-based quotas. | Extending reservations based on economic criteria could fuel demands for further quotas, such as sub-categorization within SC/ST/OBC groups and caste-based censuses, further complicating the reservation framework. |
Income Criteria Concerns | Broader income-based metrics can capture diverse segments of disadvantaged groups outside traditional caste boundaries. | Setting the ₹8 lakh annual income ceiling creates parity between socially backward groups (OBC creamy layer) and economically weaker sections, which are fundamentally different in their disadvantages. |
Clarity in EWS Quota | Economic reservation ensures inclusivity by addressing disparities not confined to caste. | The EWS definition is too broad, grouping families below the poverty line with those earning ₹8 lakh annually. There is no population-based rationale for the 10% EWS quota. |
Expanding Demands | Economic reservations could potentially reduce caste-based grievances and promote equitable socio-economic policies. | Expanding reservations could encourage demands for promotions-based quotas, private sector reservations, and other divisive policies, undermining meritocracy and increasing social tension. |
Public Sector Shrinkage | Economic quotas can help bridge gaps in education and skills among weaker sections, preparing them for opportunities beyond public sector jobs. | Shrinking government jobs mean the 10% EWS quota may not significantly benefit the targeted groups, limiting its overall effectiveness. |
Merit Concerns | It ensures a level playing field by addressing barriers faced by economically weaker sections, aligning with the spirit of affirmative action. | Reservations are perceived as anti-merit, and expanding them further could deepen this belief, eroding public trust in the system as a fair tool for social justice. |
Sinho Commission Report | The 2010 report highlighted the need for targeted benefits for economically weaker sections, indirectly supporting the case for economic reservations. | The report never explicitly recommended reservations for EWS but emphasized improving access to welfare schemes, suggesting that reservations may not be the most effective tool for addressing economic disadvantage. |
Should Reservation in Promotions Be Implemented?
Aspect | Arguments in Favor | Arguments Against |
Equality of Opportunity | Ensures fair representation for marginalized groups as per constitutional provisions. | Reservation in promotions is not a fundamental right, only an enabling provision (Articles 16(4), 16(4A)). |
Representation of SC/STs | Addresses underrepresentation in senior positions (e.g., only 4 SC/ST officers at the secretary level). | May lead to promotions of less competent individuals, affecting efficiency. |
Merit Redefined | Merit includes diversity and fulfilling constitutional goals, improving governance. | Competence and merit could be compromised, reducing administrative effectiveness. |
Legal Backing | Validated by 1977 recruitment rules and Supreme Court judgments, provided efficiency is maintained. | Reservation may adversely impact the overall efficiency of administration. |
Current Scenario of Reservations in Promotions for SC/STs
- Introduction of Creamy Layer in Promotions: The 2006 Nagaraj vs Union of India verdict established the application of the creamy layer filter for SC/ST employees in promotions.
- Requirement for Quantifiable Data: The judgment required states to collect ‘quantifiable data on the backwardness’ of the SC/ST category to justify granting reservations in promotions.
- Application of Creamy Layer in Promotions: The ruling specified that the creamy layer concept is applicable in cases of promotions for SC/ST employees.
- Exception in Direct Recruitment: The creamy layer filter does not apply to SC/ST candidates during direct recruitment processes.
-
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. It is absolute, with no exceptions, and applies to both private individuals and the state.
- Enforced through the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which penalizes discrimination arising from untouchability.
- The term “untouchability” is not explicitly defined in the Constitution or the Act.
- SC clarified that untouchability refers to historical social disabilities and not personal disputes (Mysore High Court ruling).
Offences Under the Act: The following acts are punishable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955:
- Denial of Access to Public Spaces: Refusing entry to hospitals, educational institutions, or other public institutions.
- Prohibition on Worship: Preventing individuals from worshipping in public religious places.
- Disabilities in Using Public Resources: Denying access to reservoirs, taps, roads, cremation grounds, shops, hotels, or other public services.
Expanded Scope of the Act (1976 Amendment)
The Act was broadened to include:
- Insult Based on Untouchability: Insulting or humiliating members of Scheduled Castes based on untouchability.
- Preaching Untouchability: Advocating untouchability directly or indirectly.
- Justification of Untouchability: Supporting untouchability on historical, philosophical, or religious grounds.
Penal Provisions
-
- Punishments:
- First conviction: Imprisonment and fine.
- Subsequent convictions: 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment with higher fines.
- Disqualifications:
- Individuals convicted of untouchability offences are barred from contesting elections to the Union or State Legislatures.
- Punishments:
Presumption of Guilt
-
- If a Scheduled Caste member faces discrimination, courts presume guilt under the Act unless proven otherwise.
- This statutory presumption strengthens the Act’s effectiveness in addressing caste-based discrimination.
- Article 18: Abolition of Titles
- Article 18 prohibits the state from conferring titles of nobility, promoting equal status among all citizens.
- Key provisions:
- Bans hereditary titles like Maharaja or Rai Bahadur.
- Citizens cannot accept foreign titles without presidential consent.
- Exceptions to the Rule:
- Academic and Military Distinctions: The State is allowed to confer military or academic honors (e.g., “Dr.,” “Major”).
- Public Institutions: Universities and similar institutions are free to confer titles or honors to recognize merit or contributions.
- Awards Like Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan:
- These awards are decorations and not titles.
- They cannot be appended to a recipient’s name as a prefix or suffix.
Criticism of Awards
-
- Violation of “Equality of Status”:
- Critics argue that these awards create rank distinctions, contrary to the Preamble’s promise of equality.
- Example: Bharat Ratna recipients are ranked ninth in the Warrant of Precedence, below Cabinet Ministers.
- Lack of Constitutional or Legal Sanction:
- There is no provision in the Constitution or law penalizing recipients for using awards as titles.
- Critics highlight instances of misuse, where individuals append awards (e.g., “Padma Vibhushan”) to their names.
- Violation of “Equality of Status”:
Judicial Interpretation
-
- Supreme Court Verdict:
- Non-military awards like Padma awards are valid as long as they are not used as titles.
- Such decorations do not violate Article 18 or Article 14 if used for recognizing extraordinary merit.
- Supreme Court Verdict:
Controversies and Developments
-
- Protest by Acharya Kripalani:
- Called for the abolition of government awards like Bharat Ratna, claiming they contradict the spirit of Article 18.
- Led to the temporary suspension of awards during the Janata regime (1977), later reinstated by Indira Gandhi.
- Restoration and Continued Practice:
- Despite criticisms, these awards remain integral to recognizing merit in arts, literature, science, and public service.
- Protest by Acharya Kripalani: