INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
3. CLASSIFICATION BUT LEGISLATION
4. TEST OF CLASSIFICATION
5. CASE LAW
6. CONCLUSION
 : INTRODUCTION :
Articles 14 of the constitution guarantee the
right to equality to every citizen of India
.Articles 14 embodies the general principal of
equality before law and prohibits
unreasonable discrimination between persons.
Articles 14 embodies the idea of equality
expressed in the preamble. Articles 15, 16, 17
and 18 lay down specific application of the
general rules laid down Article 14.
 A –EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
(Article 14)
Article 14 declares that ‘the state not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India’ .Thus Article 14 uses two
expressions “equality before the law “and “equal protection of
law”. The phrase “equality before the law” finds a place in
almost all written constitutions that guarantees fundamental
rights. Both these expression has been taken from the American
constitution. Both these expressions aim at establishing what is
called “equality of status” in the preamble of the constitution.
While ‘equality before the law’ is a somewhat negative concept
implying the absence of any special privilege in favour of
individuals and equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law.
“Equal protection of law” is a more positive concept implying
equality of treatment in equal circumstances. However one
dominant idea common to both the expressions is that of equal
justice.
In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,
Patanjali Sastri, C.J., has rightly observed that the second
expression in corollary of the first and it is difficult to imagine a
situation in which the violation of the equal protection of laws
will not be the violation of the quality before law.
Equality - A positive concept.- Basawaraj v. The Spl.
Land Acquisition officer, was a case delay of 5-1/2 years in filling
the appeals before the Karnataka High court which dismissed
the appeals under section 54 of the Limitation Act. The
appellant quoted a large number of case of the high court
wherein the delay had been condone without considering the
most relevant factor i.e sufficient cause. The Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal and held:
Article 14 of the constitution is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud, even by wrong decisions made in other cases.
The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has
only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated
persons have been granted relief / inadvertently or by mistake,
such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get
the same relief as well. If a wrong is a trite, which cannot be
claimed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is
a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore ,
cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner.
If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of
an individual or a group of individual or a wrong order has been
passed by a judicial forum ,others cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of a higher court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong
 PERMITS CLASSIFICATION BUT
PROHIBITS CLASS LEGISLATION
ARTICLE 14

The equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 does not

mean that all laws must be general in character. It does not
mean that the same laws should apply to all persons .It does not
mean that every law must have universal application for ,all
person are not ,by nature , attainment or circumstance in the
same position .The varying needs of different classes of persons
often require separate treatment .From the very nature of
society there should be different laws in different laws in
different place and the Legislature control the policy and enacts
laws in the best interest of the safety and security of the state
.In fact , identical treatment in unequal circumstances would
amount to inequality. So, a reasonable classification is not only
permitted but is necessary if society is to progress.
Thus, what Article 14 forbids is class –legislation but
it does not forbid reasonable classification .The classification,
however , must not be “ arbitrary ,artificial or evasive ” but must
be based on same real and substantial distinction bearing a just
and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by
the legislation .Article 14 applies where equals are treated
differently without any reasonable basis .But where equals and
unequals are treated differently , Article 14 does not apply.
class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination
by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons
arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons ,all of whom
stand in the same relation to the privilege granted that between
whom and the persons not so favoured no reasonable
distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the
inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such
privilege.
 TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION
While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions
by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends.
But classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”.
It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction
bearing a just a reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the legislature .classification to be reasonable must
fulfil the following two conditions:-
(1) The classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group ; and
(2) The differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the Act.

The differentia which is the basis of classification and the

object of the Act are two distinct things. What is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis
of classification and the object of the Act which makes
the classification .It is only when there is no declared
discriminatory. Thus, the legislature may fix the age at
which persons shall be deemed competent to contract
between themselves but no one will claim that
competency .No contract can be made to depend upon
the stature or colour of the hair .such a classification will
be arbitrary.
The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been
explained in a number of cases by the Supreme Court. In
re special court bill case , Chandrachud ,j ., (as he then
was )reformulated new propositions to be followed
regarding the applicability of Article 14.This has been
rightly criticised by Mr. Seervai as making the well-
settled principles unsettled and creating confusion and
encouraging litigation .The principles laid down by Das ,j
.,in Dalmia’s case has not been disputed by Chandrachud,
j ., and therefore there was no need to reformulate the
same unless it was necessary to add something to the
existing principles .In view of this ,the proposition laid
down in Dalmia’s case still holds good governing a valid
classification and are as follows :-
(1) A law may be constitutional even though it relates
to a single individual if on account of some special
circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not
applicable to other ,that single individual may be
treated as a class by itself.
(2) There is always presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon
him who attacks it to show that there has been a
clear transgression of constitution principles.
(3) The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases
by showing that on the fact of the statute ,there is
no classification at all and no difference peculiar to
any individual or class and not applicable to any
 other individual or class ,and yet the law hits only a
particular individual or class.
(4) It must be presumed that the Legislature understands
and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that
its laws are directed peculiar to any individual or class
and not applicable to any other individual or class and yet
the law hits only a particular individual or class.
(5) In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality
the court may take into consideration matters of
common knowledge ,matters of report ,the history of the
times and may assume every state of facts which can be
conceived existing at the time of the legislation.
(6) That the legislature is free to recognise degree of harm
and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the
need is deemed to be the clearest.
(7) While good faith and knowledge of the existing
conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed
,if there is nothing on fact of the law or the surrounding
circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which
the classification may reasonably be regarded as based
,the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to
the extent of always holding that there must be some
undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain
individuals to be hostile or discriminating legislation.
(8) The classification may be made on different basis ,e.g.,
geographical or according to objects or occupations or
the like.
(9) The classification made by a legislature need not be
scientifically perfect or logically complete .Mathematical
nicety and perfect equality are not required .Equality
before the law does not require mathematical equality of
all persons in all circumstances. Equal treatment does not
mean identical treatment. Similarity ,not identity ,of
treatment is enough.
(10) There can be discrimination both in the substantive as
well as the procedural law. Article 14 applies to both.

If the classification satisfies the test laid

down in the above propositions, the law will be declared
constitution .The question whether a classification is
reasonable ,and proper or not ,must ,however ,be judged
more on commonsense than on legal subtleties.
 CASES LAW
In D.S Nakare v. union of India ,the supreme court
struck down Rule 34 of the central services Rules ,1972 as
unconstitutional on the ground that the classification
made by it between pensioners retiring before a particular
date and retiring after that date was not based on any
rational principle and was arbitray and violative of Article
14 of the constitution .In that case, Desai ,J ., who spoke
for the majority assimilated both the doctrines ,viz ., the
doctrine of arbitrariness and the doctrine of classification
.Re-stating the concept of equality and the test to be
applied in order to satisfy the requirement of Article 14 his
Lordship said :-
“ Thus , the fundamental principle is that Article 14
forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation which
classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification
being founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together
from those that are left out of the group and that the
differentia must have a rational nexus to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question.”
 The society is composed of unequals and a welfare state
has to strive by both executive and legislative action to
help the less fortunate and to improve their condition so
that social and economic unequality in the society may
be bridge. This would require a law to be made applicable
to that group in order to ameliorate their lot. In order to
meet that situation the court had evolved the doctrine
of classification was evolved to sustain a legislation of
state action in order to help weaker sections of the society
or some such sections of the society or some such
segments of the society in need of succour .The state
,therefore ,must satisfy the court that the twin tests have
been fulfilled . Applying this test the court held that the
pensioners formed a class and the classification between
them on them on the basis of a particular date ,viz .,those
retiring before entitle to old rate of pension and those
retiring after that date entitled to liberalised rate of
pension and those retiring after that date entitled to
liberalised rate of pension ,was not based on any rational
principle nor related to the object that was to help the
retired government sarventas.
In Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana , the
reservation of 25 seats foe admission to M.B.B.S and B.D.S
course for student who were educated from classes one to
eight in common rural schools was held to be violative of
Article 14 and invalid as the classification between the
rural educated and urban educated student for this
purpose was wholly arbitrary and irrational having no
nexus to the object sought to be achieved of providing
extra facilities to students coming from rural schools to
enter medical college. The same Government prescribe
standards of education , equipment ,grants and facilities
including the qualification of the staff for being employed
in urban and rural schools imparting instructions from
first to eight standard. Thus ,all students of classes Ix to
XII, those coming from rural schools and those from urban
are similarly placed yet they are artificially divided by a
reference to a part even wholly unrelated to the object
sought to be achieved and hence the reservation bases on
such classification was held to be constitutionally invalid
 :CONCLUSION:
Keeping in view of above mentioned statements said by
the different Courts , it is clear that Article 14 gives the
ensurity of equal right without discrimination .It says
equal everyone is equal in eye of law. Whether he belongs
to different race, religion , social status or wealth.
As Dr. jennings rightly said : “equality before the law
means that among equals of law should be equals the law
should be equal and should be equally administered ,that
like should be 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 ”.Right to
equality is a one of the most important part of our Indian
constitution ,which gives strengthen to all those people
who belongs to Indian nationality . It is necessity of the
upcoming generation to secure their right & change our
developing Indian in to developing India.