Art 14 Equality before law and equal protection of

laws
Equality before law is necessary component of Rule of Law
14th Amendment to the U S Constitution ensure equal protection
of laws
Art 17 of UDHR 1948 declares that all are equal before law and
are entitled to equal protection of laws.
Constituent History of Art 14 & 21
On October 31, 1947 after several debates and discussions on
various drafts on right to liberty and equality the Draft Art 15
was adopted in following terms;
 Draft Art 15
No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law, nor shall any
person be denied equality before the law or equal
protection of the laws within the territory of
India.
At the stage of clause by clause reading, draft Art
15 was splited in two separate articles which are
in the form of present Art 14 and 21
Art 14-The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory
of India.
Two facets of Equality
1. Equality before law
2. Equal protection of laws
 Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
a. Intelligible or rational differentia made by law
b. Such differentia must have a relation with the
object sought to be achieved by that law.
e.g. age, sex, language, social-cultural background,
religion, health condition etc…
There is no exhaustive list of such differentia, it all
depends on the place, time and need, few
illustrations can be looked into;
 A. I. I. M. S. Students Union v. A. I. I. M. S (2002) 1 SCC 428
For the admission to PG courses A. I. I. M. S. has reserved 40% of
seats to its own graduates irrespective of their performance in
the entrance test. All other outside candidates has to secure
merit in the entrance test.
This rule was struck down and observed that it is not a reasonable
classification to completely neglect the performance of its own
graduates. There shall be minimum criteria for them also
otherwise it will suppress merit. The SC held that there shall be
only 25% of seats reserved for its own students and that too
they have to obtain uniform minimum qualifying marks in the
entrance examination.
 Chiranjit Lal Chaudhary v. U o I AIR 1951 SC 41
The petitioner was an ordinary shareholder of the Sholapur
Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. The company through its
directors had been managing and running a textile mill of
the same name.
In 1949 on account of mismanagement & neglect of the
affairs of the Company, a situation had arisen that brought
about the closing down of the mill.
The action of the company prejudicially affected the
production of an essential commodity, apart from causing
serious unemployment amongst certain sections of the
community.
The Central Govt thereupon issued an Ordinance which was
later replaced by the Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co
(Emergency Provision) Act, 1950. By this Act, the
management & administration of the assets of the Company
was placed under the control & directors appointed by the
Govt.
The old directors were dismissed and the assets of the Company
were handed over to the custody of the new management.
Petitioner contended that the impugned Act infringed right to
equality guaranteed u/Art 14 of the constitution vis-à-vis
other companies and their shareholder.
Petitioner approached the SC for the protection of his FR u/ Art
14, 19 (1) (f) & 31 against the enforcement of the Sholapur
Spinning & Weaving Co (Emergency Provision) Act, 1950.
SC dismissed the petition and held that a law may be
constitutional even if it applies to a single individual if, on
account of some special circumstances or reasons
applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single
individual may be treated as a class by itself and that
unless that it was shown that there were other companies
similarly circumstanced, the legislation must be presumed
to be constitutional.
Sholapur Co formed a class by itself because the
mismanagement of the Company’s affairs prejudicially
affected the production of an essential commodity & had
caused serious unemployment in a section of the
community.
 State of W. B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75
The respondent and 49 other persons were charged with various offences alleged
to have been committed by them in the course of their raid as an armed gang
on Jessop Factory at Dum Dum.
They were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment by the
Special Court to which the case was sent for trial by the Governor of West
Bengal by a notification dated 26th January, 1950, in exercise of the powers
conferred by section 5 (1) of the WB Special Courts Act 1950.
Thereupon the respondent applied to the High Court under Art 226 of the
Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the conviction and
sentence on the ground that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the
case inasmuch as Sec 5 (1), under which it was sent to that Court for trial, was
unconstitutional as it denied to the respondent the equal protection of the
laws enjoined by Art 14.
The High Court by a Full Bench ( 5 Judges) quashed the conviction and directed
the trial of the respondent and the other accused persons according to regular
law.
Therefore the State of WB preferred a special leave to appeal to SC
The Supreme Court dismissed appeal and invalidated Sec 5(1) of
WB Special Courts Act 1950
because it conferred arbitrary powers on the Govt to classify
offences or classes of offenses or classes of cases or cases at its
pleasure and the Act did not lay down any policy or guidelines
for the exercise of its discretion to classify offences or cases.
As regards the reference in the Preamble to the necessity for
‘speedier trial of offences’, it was held that the expression
‘speedier trial’ was too vague, uncertain and illusive to afford a
basis for rational classification.
Das J. held the section to be partially invalid insofar as it
empowered the government to direct cases as distinguished from
classes of cases. According to him, the provision for speedier
trial of certain offences was the object of the Act which was a
distinct thing from the intelligible differentia which had to be the
basis for the classification. The differentia and the object being
different elements, the object by itself could not be the basis of
classification of offences or cases.
The Court ruled the case against State of West Bengal and held the
West Bengal Law void as it gave arbitrary power to the executive
and the legislature to decide which cases are to go a special Court
and which ones are to be decided by a normal Court without
making any classification in the law itself.
 State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318
Section 39 of Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, which
authorises the Government to permit the use or
consumption of foreign liquor on cargo boats, warships,
troopships and in military and naval messes and canteens.
It is valid to exempt military and naval messes and canteens
from restrictions on use of imported liquor, owing to the
nature of the services they render and their traditions.
There is a reasonable classification in favour of arm
forces. They constitute a different class unto themselves
as compared to any other citizen or person is concerned.
 E. P. Royappa v State of T.N. AIR 1974 SC 555
The petitioner is a member of the IAS in the cadre of the
State of Tamil Nadu.
On 2 August, 1968 the petitioner was confirmed in the
Selection Grade of the Indian Administrative Service
with effect from 22 May, 1961.
There were 8 Selection Grade posts in the State of Tamil
Nadu. The petitioner was No. 4 in that list.
The petitioner in the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969
was posted to act as Fifth, Fourth, Third and on 5 April
he was posted as Second Member, Board of Revenue.
On 11 July, 1969 the post of Additional Chief Secretary was
temproraily created in the grade of Chief Secretary for one
year and Petitioner was posted on it.
The State Government further directed that, the post of Chief
Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to
Government and the First Member, Board 'of Revenue
were deemed to be in the same category and they were
inter- changeable selection posts.
On 13 November, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as
Chief' Secretary to Government with effect from the
afternoon of 13 November, 1969 Ramakrishnan whose date
of superannuation was 14 November, 1969 he has been
granted refused level with effect from 14 November, 1969.
On 7 April, 1971 the petitioner was appointed Deputy Chairman of
the State Planning Commission. That post was created
temporarily for a period of one year in the grade of Chief
Secretary to Government.
The petitioner did not join the post. The petitioner went on leave
from 13 April, 1971 to 5 June, 1972.
When the petitioner was on leave Raja Ram, the First Member,
Board of Revenue was by an order dated 18 August, 1971 asked
to hold the additional charge of the post of Deputy Chairman
for one year with effect from 13 August, 1971.
On 6 June, 1972 the petitioner returned from leave. He was again.
posted as Deputy Chairman, State. Planning Commission on a
salary of Rs. 3500/- per month.
The petitioner did not join that post. The. petitioner pointed
out that the post of Deputy Chairman which was created
for one year did not exist after 13,April, 1972.
By an order dated 27 June, 1972 the Government of Tamil
Nadu accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary
post of Officer on Special Duty in the grade of Chief
Secretary, to Government for a period of one year from the
date of appointment or till the need for it ceased whichever
was earlier.
By the same order the petitioner was transferred and
appointed as Officer on Special Duty in the post
sanctioned' aforesaid. The petitioner did not join that post.
The petitioner in the month of July, 1972 filed this petition.
The petitioners contentions were as.
First, the petitioner is appointed to a post or transferred to a post which is
not validly created. The post of Officer on Special Duty is said to be
not a post carrying duties and responsibilities of a like nature to cadre
posts within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative
Service (Cadre) Rules,. 1954.
Second, under rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules,
1954 no member of the Service shall be appointed to a post other
than a post specified in Schedule III unless the State Government
concerned in respect of posts under its control or the Central
Government in respect of posts under its control, as the case may be,
make a declaration that the said Post is equivalent in status and
responsibility to a post specified in the said Schedule.
It is, therefore, said that the Petitioner who is a cadre post holder, viz.,
holding the post of Chief Secretary cannot be posted to a non-
seheduled Post without a declaration that the nonscheduled post is
equal in status and responsibilities to a scheduled post.
Third, the petitioner is posted to an office which is inferior in status and
office to that of the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the order is a hostile
discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16. Fourth, the creation of
the post as well as the; appointment and transfer of the petitioner to
the post is mala-fide.
The Supreme Court rejected all the contentions and held that there
is no violation of either Art 14 or 16 for that matter but while
talking about Art 14 the SC observed that any arbitrary action
will be violative of Art 14 and the old doctrine of reasonable
classification shall not confine the activist magnitude of Art 14.
 M. G. Baddapannawar v. St of Karnataka AIR 2001 SC 260
SC held Equality as a BS and any unequal
treatment to equal and equal treatment to
unequal is violative of BS