Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides –

“the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
The expressions “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the laws”
may seem to be identical, but they mean different things. While the former
term is a somewhat negative concept implying the absence of any special
privilege by reason of birth, religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth., in
favour of any individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary
law, the latter term is a more positive concept, implying the right to equality
of treatment in equal circumstances.
In State of West Bengal v. Debasish Mukherjee (2011), it has been held that if
an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or
group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of courts and
tribunals to require the State to commit the same in their favour.

Equality before law

It means that no man is above the law of the land and that every person,
whatever be his rank or status, is subject to the ordinary law and amenable to
the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. There is no distinction between
officials and private citizens. All will be treated equally and there will be no
discrimination based on lower or higher class. The concept of equality permits
rational or discriminating discrimination. The concept of equality before law
does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all, which may be a
physical impossibility.
Article 14 guarantees the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment.
In Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010), it has been held
that a person would be treated unequally only if that person was treated worse
than others, and those others must be those who are similarly situated to the
Complainant.
The exceptions allowed by the Indian constitution to Article 14 are –
1.) The President and Governor of a State shall not be answerable to any
court for exercising in their powers and duties of office.
2.) No criminal proceedings can be insinuated against President or
Governor during their term of office.
 3.) Article 361 of the Constitution provides no civil proceedings in which
relief is sought against President or Governor shall be insinuated during
his term of office in any court.
The above immunities, however, don’t bar –
1.) Impeachment proceedings against President.
2.) Suits or other appropriate proceedings against Government of India or
Government of a State.

Equal protection of the Laws

It means that among equals, the law should be equal and equally administered,
that likes should be treated alike. In UOI v. Rakesh Kumar (2010), it has been
held that the State can treat unequals differently with the objective of creating a
level playing field in the social, economic and political spheres.
Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not classification for purpose of
legislation. The legislature can classify persons for legislative purposes so as to
bring them under a well-defined class. A classification should not be arbitrary;
it should be reasonable and be based on qualities and characteristics that have
relation to the object of the legislation. Article 14 works on the principle that
equality is the concept that persons who are unequally circumstanced, cannot be
treated on a par.
If there is any reasonable basis for classification, the Legislature would be
entitled to make a different treatment. It is for the legislature to identify the
class of people to be given protection and on what basis such protection was to
be given.
Article 14 of Indian constitution law says that all are equal in the eye of law. No
one can prevent the state from making any special provisions for women and
children. For examples, special seating arrangement for women in buses, trains,
metros trains are not unconstitutional. Article 14 also provides for protective
discrimination in favour of SCs and STs to uplift them socially and
economically. For example, providing reservation of seats in government
colleges and jobs.
In Yusuf v. State of Bombay (1954), it has been held that in offences relating to
women, e.g. adultery (which has been declared unconstitutional by the SC),
women in india may be placed in a more favourable position, having regard to
their social status and need for protection.
In the case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, Regulation 46 of Indian Airlines
regulations provides that an air Hostess will retire from the service upon
attaining the age of 35
years or on marriage within 4 years of Service or on first pregnancy, whatever
found earlier, but regulation 47 provided the managing director the discretion
to extend the age of retirement one year at a time beyond the age
of retirement up to the age of 45 years if an air hostess was
found medically fit .it was held by the court that the retirement of an air
hostess on the ground of pregnancy was unreasonable and arbitrary. it was in
violation of article 14
of the constitution. The regulation did not restrict marriage after four years
and if an air hostess after having fulfilled the condition became pregnant,
there was no ground why pregnancy should stand in the way of her running
service. the court said that the termination of service on pregnancy was
manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, it was in violation of article 14
of Indian constitution.
In D.S Nakara v. union of India, the supreme court held Rule 34 of the central
services(
pension) rules, 1972 as unconstitutional on the ground that the classification
made by it between pensioners retiring before a certain date and retiring after
that date di not depend upon the any rational principal and it was arbitrary and
infringing article 14.
Apart from this, a case of over classification shall be held to be discriminatory
and invalid as it would violate the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In S Ramesha v. State of Karnataka (1996), it was held that exemption to the
candidate who stood first in the Forest Rangers College from selection as
Assistant Conservator by the Public Service Commission, It being based on
reasonable classification, is not ultra vires Article 14.
Conclusion
According to Dr. Jennings “Equality before the law means that equality
among equals the law should be equal for all. And should be equally
administered, that like should treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to
prosecute and prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all
citizens of full age and understanding without distinctions of race, religion,
wealth, social status or political influence.”