CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT

TOPIC: RIGHT TO EQUALITY IN INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

SUBMITTED TO: Dr S.P. SINGH

SUBMITTED BY: SHUBHAM KUMAR

SEMESTER: 1st

ROLL NO. : 1765

SESSION: 2017-22
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2) AIMS & OBJECTIVE

3) HYPOTHESIS

4) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5) SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

6) CHAPTERS
a) INTRODUCTION

b) MEANING OF EQUALITY

c) ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

d) ARBITRATION AS A TEST UNDER ARTICLE 14

e) RIGHT TO EQUAL ACCESS TO COURT

f) CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

7) BIBLIOGRAPHY
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe the present accomplishment. Any project completed or done in isolation is
unthinkable. This project, although prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lots of
people.

Firstly, I would like to thank our teacher Dr. S.P. SINGH “SIR” for her valuable
suggestions towards the making of this project.

Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards my seniors who were
a lot of help for the completion of this project. The contribution made by my classmates
and friends are, definitely, worth mentioning. I would like to express my gratitude
towards my family members help also.

Last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards the Almighty for
obvious reasons.

THANK YOU.
 AIMS & OBJECTIVE
The researcher intends to find out

 To discuss (in detail) right to equality in context of Indian constitution.

 To study(in brief) about equality before law and equal protection of law.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher presumes that the

 Equality is the basic feature of the constitution of India and treatment of equals
unequally will be violation of basic structure of the constitution of India.

 Every law cannot be made universally applicable. There are different class of persons
who require special treatment.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 The research methodology adopted for the purpose of this project is the doctrinal
method of research.
 The researcher will include both the qualitative and quantization analysis.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
 Researcher have used purposive and convenient method of sampling due to paucity of
time and various limitations of Research.
 Collections of certain units is respondents.
 INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India guarantees the Right To Equality through Art 14 to 18.In the series of
Constitutional provisions from Article 14 to 18, Art 14 is the most significant. Situations not
covered by Art15 to 18, the general principle of Equality is embodied in Art14 is attracted
whenever discrimination is alleged. The goal set out in our Constitution regarding status &
opportunity is embodied in Art14 to Art18.Right to Equality has declared as Basic Feature of
Indian Constitution by Supreme Court.

The phrase ‘Equality before Law’ occurs in almost all written Constitution which guarantees the
Right to Equality, the Constitution of United States uses the expression ‘Equal protection of
law’. Our Constitution, on the other hand, uses both expressions that are Equality .

The two expressions may seem to be identical, but in fact, they mean different things. As to
their origin, it may be said that ‘Equality before Law 1, while the other expression owes its origin
to the American Constitution. Preamble to the Constitution of India emphasises principle of
Equality as the basic to the Contitution.Even constitutional amendment which offends basic
structure of the Constitution are invalid. The mere fact that Equality which is part of the basic
structure, can be excluded for a limited purpose to protect certain kinds of law, does not
prevent it from being part of the basic feature of Constitution. It was held that essence of the
principle behind Art.14 is part of basic structure. In fact, essence or principle of the right or
nature of violation is more important than equality in the abstract or formal sense.

 Equality is one of the magnificent corner stone’s of Indian Democracy.2

 The doctrine of equality before law is a corollary of Rule of law which pervades the
Indian Constitution.3

1
Dicey, Law of the Constitution,10Ed.(1959)
2
Indra sawhney v. Union of India.
3
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan.
  Neither Parliament nor any State Legislature can transgress the principle of Equality.4

 Equality is the basic feature of the constitution of India and treatment of equals unequally
will be violation of basic structure of the constitution of India.5

4
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala
5
M.G.Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka
 MEANING OF EQUALITY
The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability
Equality basically means access or provision of equal opportunities, where individuals are
protected from being discriminated against. Discrimination in equality can occur in race, sex,
health, religion, family structure, age, politics, disability, culture, sexual orientation or in terms
of believes.

 Equality is the basic feature of the constitution of India and treatment of equals unequally
will be violation of basic structure of the constitution of India.6

The ideal of equality under Indian Constitution:

It has been seen that the Preamble to our constitution promises ‘equality of status and
opportunity to all citizens and that this is the ideal of equality embraces both social and political
equality. So far the ideal of social equality is concerned it is embodied in a series of Articles, of
which Art.14 is the genus, and succeeding Arts. 15-18 contain particular application thereof. Our
constitution is wedded to the concept of equality which is the basic feature of the constitution.
Even a constitutional amendment which offends basic feature is declared as invalid. The state, its
agencies and other local bodies being charged with public duty are bound to take action which
must be in accordance with Art.14.The liability given to the state and its instrumentalities by the
statute enacted under the constitution did not exempt them from honouring constitution itself and
they continued to be ruled by Art.14.The equality clause under Art.14 of the constitution does
not speak of mere formal equality before law but embodies the real concept of real and
substantive equality, strikes at this inequalities.7 A more positive duty of the state is to minimise
inequalities in the status, income and opportunities amongst individuals. Where unequals are
competing, conditions must be created by relaxation or otherwise so that unequals compete in
terms of equality with others in respect of jobs and employment of the state.

6
M.G.Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka.
7
Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh AIR 1999 SC 1160: (1999)3 SCC 601
 ARTICLE 14:-RIGHT TO EQUALITY
A. ARTICLE 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

B. The Right to Equality guaranteed under Art. 14 consists of two parts namely:-

(a) Equality before Law.

(b) Equal protection of Laws.

 Every person is entitled to equality before law and equal protection laws.8

 Article 14 bars Discrimination and prohibits Discriminatory Laws.

 Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a declaration of equality of civil rights for all
purpose within the territory of India and basic principles of republicanism and there is no
discrimination.

 The expression “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” does not mean the
same thing. Meaning of these expressions has to be found and determined having regard
to the context and scheme of our Constitution. The word “Law” in the former expression
is used in a genuine sense – a philosophical sense, whereas the word “Laws” in the latter
expression denotes specific laws in force.

 The benefit of “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” accrues to every
person in India, whether a citizen or not.”We are a country governed by Rule of Law.

 The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Art. 14 in its proper
spectrum encompass social and economic justice in a political democracy.9

8
Faridabad Singh v, New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1996 SC 1175 : (1996) 2 SSC 459
9
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. V. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104 (para 15).
Equality before the Law :

a) “Equality before Law “only means that amongst the equals, the law should be
equal and should be equally administered, and that the like should be treated
alike.10

The “equality before the law” owes its origin to the English Common Law. The doctrine
of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept. 11 It is embodied not only Arts. 15-18 as
well as in Arts. 3, 39, 39 A, 41 and 46.It is a Negative concept because it implies the
absence of any privilege in favour of any individual, and equal subjection of all classes
to the ordinary law12. It means law should be equal and should equally administered, that
is like should be treated alike. In short there shall not be discrimination. It is a
declaration of equality of privilege in favour of every individual 13.it means that no man
above the Law of the land and that every person, whatever is his rank or status is subject
to ordinary law of land. The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of
absolute equality amongst all, which may be a physical impossiblity.Art.14, guarantees
the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment.

b) Rule of Law: (Prof. A.V.DICEY)

Equality before law is co-relative to the concept of Rule of Law for all round
evaluation of healthy social order.

I. Basic Feature of the Rule of Law is that ‘Justice should not only be done but
it must also be seen to be done’.

II. Judicial review of Administration action is an essential part of Rule of

Law.14

III. Independence of Judiciary.

IV. Non Arbitrariness.

10
VENKATARAMAIYA’S LAW LEXICON-Volume 1 (Human Rights)
11
Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India, AIR 1993 SC 477
12
DICEY, Law of the Constitution, 10th Ed. (1959)
13
Amita v. Union of India.
14
State of Bihar v. Sbhash Singh
“A number of distinct meanings are normally given to the provision that there should be equality
before the law. One meaning is that equality before the law only connotes the equal subjection of
all to a common system of law, whatever its content...A second theory asserts that equality
before the law is basically a procedural concept, pertaining to the application and enforcement of
laws and the operation of the legal system....A third meaning normally borne by declarations that
all are equal before the law, perhaps no more than a variant of the second, is that State and
individual before the law should be equal”.

Equal Protection of Law:

a) The phrase “Equal Protection of the Law” owes its origin to the American Constitution.
This is Positive Concept as it implies equality of treatment in equal circumstances both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. So all the persons must be treated alike on
reasonable classification. Among equals law should be equal and equally administered.
The guarantee of equal protection applies against substantive as well as procedural laws.15

b) Limitation of the Doctrine of Equal Protection:

i. Every law cannot be made universally applicable. There are different class of persons
who require special treatment.

ii. State has power to classify persons for legitimate purpose. Every classification is likely
to produce some inequality and mere production of equality is no enough.16

 International Covenant: Article 26- All persons are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of law. Article 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, not only uses both the
expressions but also adds explanatory words, prohibiting discrimination.

 Cook Islands & Western Samoa: Article 64(a) of Cook Islands and Article 15(1) of
the Constitution of Western Samoa17 combine the concept of equality and equal
15
Lachmandas v. State of Bombay, (1952) S.C.R. 710 (726)
16
State of Bombay v. Balsara F.N.
17
Vermeulen v. A.G.,(1986) LCR (Cont.)786 (813)-W.Samoa
 protection in the following words; “The right of the individual to equality before the law
and to the protection of the law”

 Japan: Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution, 1946 also combines the two concepts of
legal equality and non-discrimination. Article 14 provides that “All of the people are
equal under the and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social
relations because of caste, creed, sex, social status, or family origin.”

 Once it is conceded that the phrase “equality before law” has a separate content than
“equal protection of law”, the question arises, what would be the effect of incorporating
the doctrine of equality before law in a written guarantee of fundamental rights and, in
particular, along with the analogous guarantee of equal protection.18

 The guarantee of equal protection would be satisfied if there is some reasonable basis for
differential treatment. But even though a person may be differently circumstanced, e.g., if
he is under a sentence of imprisonment, he may still be entitled to some basic human
rights which may be deduced from the right of equality before the law, e.g.-

a) Right to recognition as a human being before the law.

b) Right of access to courts of law.

c) Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established
by law.

The contents of “Equality before Law” are indeed much wider today than in the days of
Dicey.

Object of Article 14:

The aim or the object of this Article to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary
discrimination shall not be made by the state between a citizen and a citizen who answers the
18
It is unfortunate that though Setalad, in his “Indian Constitution” (p.87), acknowledges the difference in source
and content between the two expressions, he does not explain the consequences, if any, of adopting both
expressions in the Indian Constitution.
 same description and the differences which may obtain between them are of no relevance for
the purpose of applying a particular law reasonable classification is permissible. Article 14
provides that the state shall not deny to any person whether citizen or not, equality before the
law and equal protection of law. It does not mean that same law must be applicable to all but
the law should deal alike with all in one class; there shall be equality of treatment under Equal
circumstances. So the object is that “equals should be treated unlike and unlike should not be
treated alike. Likes should be treated alike. The object of Art. 14 is wider and is to ensure
fairness and equality of treatment.

Test Of Reasonable Classification :

If all men are treated equal and remained equal throughout their lives, then the same laws
would apply to all of them. But we know that men are unequal. Equality does not mean that all
men are protected by the same laws. It is here the Doctrine of classification steps in. All
persons are not equal by nature or circumstances, the varying needs of different classes or
sections of people require different treatment. This leads to classification among different
groups of persons or class. For the purpose of this Article, even a single institution can form a
class by itself and while deciding the question of violation of Article 14, it is to be seen
whether there are any reasonable basis on which a single or group of persons are left out of the
group19. Though discrimination is prohibited, that cannot be applied to nullify a discrimination
recognised by the Constitution itself.

Art.14 prohibits class legislation and not classification for purpose of legislation. A
classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is any Reasonable basis
for classification, the legislature would be entitled to make a different legislation. The
legislature is competent to make classification. It is upon the legislature to identify the class of
the people to be given protection and on what basis such protection is given. Court cannot
interfere20. Art.14 does not require that the Legislative classification should be scientifically or
logically perfect21. Classification for the purpose of legislation cannot be done with
mathematical precision. The concept of equality permits rational or discriminating

19
Kshetriaya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D. B. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 168:
20
D.C.Bhatia v. Union of India, (1995)1 S.C.C. 104.
21
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
 discrimination. Conformity of special benefits or rights or protection to a particular class of
citizens is envisaged under Art.14 and is implicit in the concept of equality 22. Art.14 proceeds
on the premise that equality of treatment is required to be given to persons who are equally
circumstanced. None should be favoured or should be placed under any disadvantage, in
circumstances that do not admit of any reasonable justification for a different.

a) The two tests of classification are as follows:

1. Ineligible Differentia: The classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from other.

2. Rational Relation: That differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act.23

 Where the law is challenged as offending against the guarantee in Art 14, the first duty of
the court is to examine the purpose and policy of the Act and then to discover whether the
classification made by the law has a reasonable relation to the object which the
Legislature seeks to obtain. The object of the Act is to found in its Title, Preamble and
Provisions.

 It is not possible to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which may accord a reasonable
basis for classification in all cases. It depends on the object of the legislature. In order to
be ‘Reasonable’, a classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational.

b) Basis of Classification:
1. The basis of classification may be geographical.

2. The classification may be according to difference in time.24

22
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
23
State of West Bengal v. Anvar Ali, (1952) S.C.R. 289.
24
Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 224
 3. The classification may be based on the difference in nature of trade, calling or
occupation, which is sought to be regulated by the legislation.

Classification Authorised by the other provisions of the Constitution:

1. Any law making special provision for Women (or Children) under Article 15 (3) cannot
be challenged on the ground of contravention of Art. 1425.

2. Where the Constitution itself makes a classification, the charge of discrimination cannot
be levelled against such separate treatment26.

 REASONABLENESS and FAIRNESS is the Heart and Soul of

Article 1427

ARBITRATION AS A TEST UNDER ARTICLE 14

25
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, 1954 SCR 930; AIR 1954 SC 321.
26
Sianik Motors (M/S) v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1480 (1486):1962 (1) SCR 517.
27
Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672 (para 43)
 a) While the American interpretation of the ‘Equal protection of Law’ as well as earlier
decision of our Supreme Court took the view that the test of violation of Art.14 was the
absence of a reasonable classification, while under Art 19, a restriction was to be
considered unreasonable if it was arbitrary or not founded on any rational principle, in
recent cases, the Supreme Court appears to have mingled up the two concepts in
broadening the sweep of Art. 14, thus setting up a dynamic concept of equality 28 .An
arbitrary action may not be always be mala fide.

b) Even if arbitrariness is not found ex facie, the same can be gathered on wholesome
reading of the statute and rule, regulations, orders or notifications issued there under. An
Act which is discriminatory is liable to be labelled as arbitrary29.

c) Where the classification is not reasonable, the impugned legislative or executive action
would be held arbitrary and violative of Art. 14; but the content of and reach of Art.14
must not be confused with the doctrine of classification.

i. Extending a benefit to one class of establishment and denying to the other class
enumerating in the same para of the Act was held to be arbitrary and bad30.

ii. The refusal by university to grant an educational institution permission to start a new law
college on the ground that a law college already existed in that district is unreasonable
and arbitrary as the factor to considered is whether the population requires another such
college for the purpose or not31.
iii. A statute creating no right of appeal or only illusory right of appeal is not violative of Art.
1432.

d) For deciding whether a particular decision was arbitrary or reasonable, the existing
circumstances at the time of taking the decision had to be examined and not those prior to

28
Royappa E.P. v. State of T.N, AIR 1974 SC 555 (583); Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
29
State of A.P v. McDowell & Co. (1996) 3 SCC 709.
30
Indian Express Newspaper (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 supp (4) SSC 758.
31
Shivaji University v. Bharati Vidyapeth, (1999) 3 SCC 224: AIR 1999 SC 1762.
32
Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmadabad, (1999) 4 SCC 468 (Para 8, 10
and 11): AIR 1999 SC 1818.
 the decision33.It has held that right to equality now means not only right to be not
discriminated, but also protection against arbitrary act of State.

e) Equality is not violated by the mere conferment of discretionary power; it is violated by

arbitrary exercise of these on whom conferred.

f) Due to spreading of arbitrariness there is requirement to state reasons in an order or

decision. The recording of reasons in a decision would shield it from attack on the ground
of arbitrariness or unfairness in the decision making process34.

Affirmative action needs protective discrimination:

While in the earlier cases, the Supreme Court understood the guarantee of equality in Art. 14 to
mean absence of discrimination, in later cases, the courts has come to hold that in order that
equality of opportunity may reach the backward classes and minority, the State must take
affirmative action by giving them a preferential treatment or protective discrimination35.

 To make Equality a living reality for the large masses of people, those who are unequal’s
cannot be treated by identical standards. It may be equality in law, but it would certainly
not be real equality. It is necessary to take into account de facto inequalities which exist
in the society and to takaffirmative action by way of giving preferences to the socially
economically disadvantaged persons. Such affirmative action though apparently
discriminatory is calculated to produce equality by eliminatin De Facto inequalities and
placing the weaker sections of the society on a footing of equality.

 When competing rights between the general and the reserved candidates require
adjudication and adjustment with the rights of general candidates, the doctrine of
violation of Art. 14 have no role to play, as some protective discrimination itself is a facet
of Article 14 and it does not again deny equality to the reserved candidates36.
33
Patna Regional Development Authority v. Rashtria Nirman Nigam, (1996) 4 SCC (para 7): AIR 1996 SC 2074.
34
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4SCC 594 (para 36): AIR 1990 SC 1984.
35
St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1SCC 558: AIR 1992 SC.
36
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 2366: (1997) 6 SCC.
  The very concept of equality is valid classification for preferences in favour of
disadvantaged classes of citizen to improve their conditions so as to enable them to raise
their position of equality with other more fortunate classes of citizen.

 Sawant, J.-It was held that the object of positive discrimination was empowerment of
backward class adequate sharing of power.

Principle of natural justice:

Doctrine of natural justice means fairness in action. It means Right to be heard before adverse
action is taken. Principle of Natural Justice is an integral part of the guarantee of equality
assured by Art.1437.Natural Justice is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative
orders affecting prejudicially unless the said rule is expressly excluded38. Principle of
Natural Justice is requirement of Art.14.

Few cases:

 Where permission is granted to open a school, a subsequent decision cancelling the same
without notice is not valid39.

 An order cancelling the contract without notice to the affected person is not valid40.

 Excluding a name from the list of eligible members of contractors on basis of decision of
screening committee, but without notice to the affected person is violation of Art. 1441.

Right cannot be waived:

37
Union of India v. Tulsiram, (1985) 3SCC 398 (Para.95)
38
Jasbir Kaur v. P.S.I.D Corp. Ltd., Chandigarh, AIR 2002 P&H 74.
39
Madersa E. Garibnawaz v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 Guj 65.
40
A. Krishna Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 2003 AP 422.
41
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 2003 P7H 77.
A person cannot voluntarily get discrimination or waive his Fundamental Right against
discrimination42.

1. Any person, natural or artificial, whether he is a citizen or an alien, is entitled to the

protection of Article 14.
2. Government servants do not lose the protection of Article 14 by entering into
Government service43.

3. Even a prisoner in a jail is entitled to equal treatment under the Prison Rules44.

4. The State itself is a juristic person. Hence, where no special provision is made, the State
has equal rights with other persons. The benefit of S. 5 of Limitation act under delay in
filing appeal could be condoned, must be given to State also45.

Right to Compensation:

Apart from liability to pay damages under the law of Torts the Supreme Court has also ordered
to pay compensation to the citizen for loss or injury (physical or mental), caused by the arbitrary
action of the public authority46.

RIGHT TO EQUAL ACCESS TO COURT

42
Basheshar Nath v. I.T. Commer., AIR 1959 SC 149: 1959.
43
State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Nath Das, AIR 1961 SC 1715.
44
Ranbir Singh Sehgal v.State Of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 510.
45
Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353: (1987) 2 SCC 107.
46
L.D.A. v. M.K.Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243.
Equal access to the courts for vindication of legal right may also be regarded as a condition of
equal protection and a person should not be deprived of such protection unless there is any
reasonable basis of such classification. By ‘just grievances’ is meant the adjudication of disputes
relating to his rights. When the legislature seeks to deprive a citizen of his right to access to the
court without any reasonable basis for this special treatment, there is denial of equal protection.

Access to the court is a right vested to every citizen and that the same cannot be denied even
when the statutes are silent. Access to the Court is an important right to every citizen.

A dispute was a ‘ long-standing ‘ one is no reasonable ground for denying the right to have their
legal dispute adjudicated as those who have got that right47.

Limitation for Rule of access to the Court:

1. It does not prevent the adjudication of Special cause or Dispute by special tribunals.

2. When a right is created by the statute, the statute may provide for a special remedy and a
special forum for the determination of such right, in which case, there is no right to take
the matter to the ordinary courts except in certain cases.

3. Reasonable checks may be imposed, in the public interests, to prevent vexatious

litigations.

Justice should be available to all :

In recent times, it has been realised that there cannot be any real equality in the ‘Right to
sue and sued ‘, unless legal advice is available to the poorer people, in the same manner
as to others, whether in civil or criminal matters. Without free advice, there is a virtual
denial of equal justice to the poor man.

Earlier Article 39A to provide free legal Aid is a directive principle which cannot be enforced in
the court of law. In 1979, the court opened a new vista by combining Art 39 A with Art. 21 and
elevated the right under Art. 39A to the status of a fundamental right. Art. 39 A. Inserted in the
47
Surajmal v.Viswanatha, (1955) 1 SCR 448: AIR 1954 SC 545.
constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which says, “The state shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in
particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic
or other disabilities”.

The object of this Article was to ensure equal justice which has been promised to all citizens, by
the Preamble, and to further guarantee of equality before the under Article 14.

Denial to a necessary party of the right to participate in the proceedings

would amount to violation of Article 1448:

1. The condition precedent to such free legal aid is that the accused is indigent or illiterate
and is otherwise unable to engage a lawyer49.

2. This right as soon as the accused is arrested and subsists throughout the trial50.

3. This right is not dependent upon the accused applying for such assistance. Being a
constitutional mandate, it is a duty of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge to inform the
accused that if he is unable to engage a lawyer, he is entitled to free legal aid.

4. The assistance offered must be effective for a meaningful defence.Assigining an

inexperienced lawyer will not discharge the obligation of the State.

Important Case:
Smt. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.

48
Neyvely Lignite Corp. Ltd. v. Spl Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), AIR 1995 SC 1004.
49
Khatri v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627.
50
Hussainara v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 (1374)
Facts of the case:

On July 4 1977, Smt. Maneka Gandhi received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer,
Delhi, intimating her to surrender the passport (No. K. 869668) within 7days from the date of
receipt of the letter, as it was decided by the Government of India to impound her passport under
Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act 1967 in the public Interest.

The Petitioner sends a letter to the Regional Passport Officer asking the reasons and requesting
her to provide a copy of the Statement of Reasons for making the order.

On reply it was send by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, on July 6, 1977
stating that the Government has decided to impound the passport

1. In the interest of the Public and

2. Not to hand over her a copy of the statement of reasons.

So, the Petitioner filed a petition.

 Is Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act 1967, violates the Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution? Under Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act, the Passport Authority
impounded the passport of the petitioner “in the interest of general public”. Thus it
confers unguided and unfettered power to the Passport Authority.

 It is violative of the Equality clause contained in Article 14.

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

Right to equality is a Fundamental Right. It can be enforced in High Court under Article 226 and
in Supreme Court under Article 32.Fundamental Rights can be enforced only if the state violates
it. Right to Equality is considered as basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Right to Equality
under Art.14 is vested not only to citizens but to all persons. It includes equality before Law and
Equal Protection of Law. No one is above the law of the land. Everyone is equal in the eyes of
law. There should be no discrimination. Law must be equal and must be equally administered. So
like must be treated alike and unlike. Equality before law is negative concept and Equal
protection of law is positive concept. Reasonable Classification is allowed in the administration
of justice. But it should have some relation to the object of the legislature.

In every society there are two classes namely upper class and lower class. The standard of living
of the upper class is high but that of lower class is low. As a result it is the duty of the state to
uplift the lower class in the society to bring Equality. Absolute equality is impossible but there
should not be inequality. Discrimination on the basis of caste, sex, race, religion, language etc
must be not there at all. A sense of equality must be there then and then only then will be unity in
any state.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

1. Prof. Jain M. P. ,Indian Constitutional Law, 5th Edition, 2009, Pg. 806
2. DrBasu, Durga Das: Introduction to the Constitution of India; 20th Edition: 2012

3. Kashyap, Subhash C. (1994). Our Constitution : an introduction to India's Constitution

and Constitutional law (2nd ed. ed.). New Delhi: National Book Trust, India. pp. 94-151.
ISBN 9788123707341.

MAGAZINES

1. YOJANA

2. PRATIYOGITA DARPAN

3. INDIA TODAY

WEBSITES

1. http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1049.html

2. https://www.questia.com/library/criminal-justice/u-s-constitutional-history-and-
issues/equality

3. www.legalservicesindia.com/....html