Right to Equality (Art.14-18)

Legal provision

• Article 14: the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within India.
• Article 15: no discrimination against a citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (clause 1). The same grounds cannot bar access to shops, restaurants, hotels, wells, tanks and roads (clause 2). Special provision is allowed for women and children (clause 3), for backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (clauses 4 and 5), and for economically weaker sections (clause 6).
• Article 16: equality of opportunity in public employment (clause 1), with no discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence (clause 2). Only Parliament may prescribe a residence requirement (clause 3). The State may reserve posts for a backward class not adequately represented (clause 4) and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion (clause 4A). Clause (4B) carries forward unfilled reserved vacancies. Clause (5) protects laws on the religion of a religious office-holder. Clause (6) allows up to ten per cent for economically weaker sections.
• Article 17: "Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Enforcing any disability arising from it is an offence punishable by law.
• Article 18: the State cannot confer a title, except a military or academic distinction (clause 1). A citizen cannot accept a foreign title (clause 2). A non-citizen holding office under the State needs the President's consent for a foreign title (clause 3). Any office-holder needs the President's consent for a foreign present, emolument or office (clause 4).
• Amendments: clause 15(4) is from the First Amendment (18 June 1951), 15(5) from the 93rd (20 January 2006), and 15(6) and 16(6) from the 103rd (14 January 2019). Clause 16(4A) is from the 77th (17 June 1995), with "consequential seniority" added by the 85th. Clause 16(4B) is from the 81st (9 June 2000).

Meaning and definition

The Right to Equality is the group of Articles 14 to 18 in Part III. Article 14 is the general rule. It protects every "person", so citizens, foreigners and companies are covered. It has two limbs. "Equality before law" means no one is above the law. "Equal protection of the laws" means people in like positions must be treated alike.

Articles 15 to 18 are specific applications. Article 15 protects only citizens against discrimination on five grounds. Article 16 does the same for public employment. Article 17 abolishes one social evil outright. Article 18 stops the State from creating a titled class. All five are claimed against the State, except Articles 15(2) and 17, which also reach private persons.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: Article 14 and reasonable classification

Treating everyone identically can itself be unfair. A flat tax on a daily-wage worker and a billionaire is "equal" but unjust. So Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows a reasonable classification. A classification is valid if it meets two conditions, the twin test.

1. It rests on an intelligible differentia, a real basis that separates those grouped together from those left out.
2. That differentia has a rational link to the object of the law.

In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, the Union appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of companies promoted by Ram Krishna Dalmia. The Court held that one person or one named group can be a class by itself if there is sufficient reason. It upheld the notification and stated the twin test.

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 let the State send "any case" to a Special Court with a faster, less protective procedure. It gave no guide for choosing which cases. By 6:1, the Court struck down section 5(1). Patanjali Sastri, C.J. dissented. A stated aim such as a speedier trial did not replace a real differentia in the statute.

Step 2: the limbs and the persons outside Article 14

The first limb is a negative idea: no person is above the ordinary law. The second is a positive idea: like persons must get like treatment. Some persons stand outside the ordinary reach of Article 14.

• The President and Governors: no criminal proceedings during the term of office. Civil proceedings for personal acts need two months' notice (Article 361).
• Members of Parliament and State Legislatures: privileges for what they say in the House (Articles 105 and 194).
• Foreign diplomats and United Nations officials: immunities under the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 and the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947.

Step 3: the arbitrariness test

Classification is not the only test. An action with no classification at all can still be unequal if it is arbitrary. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, a senior civil servant challenged his transfer. His petition failed on the facts. In Bhagwati, J.'s opinion for three Judges, the Court said equality is "antithetic to arbitrariness". This is the doctrine of arbitrariness. It is a second test beside classification, not a replacement. Maneka Gandhi later carried the idea into Article 21.

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), Nariman and Lalit JJ. held that instant triple talaq was manifestly arbitrary and breached Article 14. The Bench struck the practice down by 3:2. It shows the test can reach a rule made by a community, not only the executive.

Step 4: Article 15, no discrimination on five grounds

Article 15(1) protects only citizens. The word "only" matters. If a rule rests on a listed ground together with another real consideration, the court looks at the whole basis. Clause (2) is different. It binds private persons too, because shops, hotels and wells were shut to people by private conduct.

Clause (3) allows special provision for women and children. It is not a blank cheque. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (decided 6 December 2007), the Court struck down section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The section barred women from places that serve liquor. A "protective" rule that restricts women's choice of work is not saved by clause (3).

In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, seven Judges unanimously struck down a Madras order that reserved college seats by caste and religion. It breached Articles 15(1) and 29(2). The State could not justify it by a Directive Principle. Parliament answered with the First Amendment, which added clause (4).

Clause (4) allows special provision for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (5) extends this to admission in educational institutions, including private unaided ones, but not minority institutions under Article 30(1). Clause (6) allows a separate provision, up to ten per cent, for economically weaker sections. In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Court held that "sex" in Articles 15 and 16 includes gender identity. It treated transgender persons as a third gender and directed that they be treated as socially and educationally backward classes.

Step 5: Article 16, equality in public employment

Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity in public jobs. Clause (2) has a longer list of grounds than Article 15. It adds "descent" and "residence". Clause (3) is the one clause that names Parliament, not the State. Only Parliament may require residence in a State for certain posts.

Clause (4) is an enabling power. The State may reserve posts for a backward class that is not adequately represented, but it is not bound to. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, seven Judges held by 5:2 that Article 16(1) allows reasonable measures that address real differences in starting positions. This is substantive equality. Kerala's Rule 13AA gave Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe clerks more time to pass the same promotion test, and the Court upheld it.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India is the leading case on reservation. A nine-judge Bench held by 6:3 that:

• Caste can be a starting point for identifying a backward class, but the creamy layer must be excluded.
• Total reservation under Article 16(4) ordinarily cannot exceed 50 per cent, except in extraordinary situations.
• Article 16(4), as it then stood, applied only to initial appointment, not promotion.
• The 1991 memorandum reserving ten per cent for other economically backward sections was invalid (Jeevan Reddy, J., para 115).

Parliament then inserted clause (4A) for promotion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and clause (4B) for carry-forward of vacancies. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, five Judges upheld both as enabling provisions. A State may use them only with quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation. It must also keep the 50 per cent ceiling, the creamy layer exclusion and the efficiency of administration under Article 335. The 85th Amendment added consequential seniority to clause (4A). In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), a five-Judge Bench removed the need to prove the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It kept the need for data on inadequate representation.

In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, a Bench of five Judges upheld the 103rd Amendment's ten per cent quota for economically weaker sections by 3:2. Lalit, C.J. and Bhat, J. dissented. The majority held that reservation on economic criteria alone does not breach the basic structure. The quota excludes Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. The dissenting Judges held that exclusion discriminatory.

Step 6: Article 17, untouchability

Articles 14 to 16 ask whether a difference is justified. Article 17 allows no test and no exception. The word "Untouchability" sits in quotation marks and is not defined. In Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna, the Mysore High Court read it in its historical sense, not its literal sense. Article 17 binds private persons, because the evil was practised in daily social life. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 punishes denying entry to shops, wells and places of worship on that ground. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (decided 1 December 1992), the Supreme Court restored convictions under that Act. The accused had stopped a Scheduled Caste group from drawing water from a new borewell.

Step 7: Article 18, titles

Article 18 stops the State from creating a titled class, as the British did with "Rai Bahadur". Military and academic distinctions are exempt. Clause (2) is an absolute bar on a citizen accepting a foreign title. In Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (decided 15 December 1995), five Judges unanimously held that the Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not "titles". Recipients must not use them as a prefix or suffix to their names.

Don't confuse: classification and arbitrariness

Common mistakes

• Saying Article 14 bans all classification. It bans only unreasonable classification.
• Saying Article 15 protects every person. It protects only citizens, while Article 14 protects every person.
• Saying clause (4A) allows promotion reservation for any backward class. It covers only Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Saying the 50 per cent limit is absolute. Indra Sawhney allows it to be crossed only in extraordinary situations.
• Saying Royappa struck down the transfer. The petition failed. The test comes from Bhagwati, J.'s opinion.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958)

  Facts. The Union appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of companies promoted by Ram Krishna Dalmia and his associates.

  Principle. Article 14 bars only unreasonable classification. A valid one needs an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object. One person can be a class.

  Why it matters. It gave the twin test.

• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)

  Facts. The Special Courts Act, 1950 let the State send any case to a Special Court with no guiding policy.

  Principle. By 6:1, section 5(1) was struck down for want of an intelligible differentia.

  Why it matters. It shows a classification failing the twin test.

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

  Facts. An IAS officer challenged his move from Chief Secretary to other posts under Articles 14 and 16.

  Principle. The petition was dismissed. In Bhagwati, J.'s opinion, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.

  Why it matters. It is the source of the arbitrariness test.

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

  Facts. A Madras order reserved seats in State medical and engineering colleges by caste and religion.

  Principle. The order breached Articles 15(1) and 29(2). A Directive Principle cannot override a Fundamental Right.

  Why it matters. It led to Article 15(4).

• State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)

  Facts. Kerala's Rule 13AA gave Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe clerks extra time to pass a promotion test.

  Principle. By 5:2, the rule was upheld. Article 16(1) allows measures that give real equality of opportunity.

  Why it matters. It treats Article 16(4) as part of equality, not only an exception.

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

  Facts. Office memoranda of 1990 reserved 27 per cent of Central posts for Other Backward Classes, on top of 22.5 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

  Principle. By 6:3, the 27 per cent quota was upheld. The creamy layer is excluded, the 50 per cent ceiling applies, and promotion is outside clause (4).

  Why it matters. It is the base of reservation law.

• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

  Facts. Four amendments allowing promotion reservation with consequential seniority were challenged.

  Principle. All four were upheld as enabling. A State needs quantifiable data and must respect the 50 per cent ceiling, the creamy layer and Article 335.

  Why it matters. It sets the conditions for promotion reservation.

• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

  Facts. The 103rd Amendment created a ten per cent quota for economically weaker sections, excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.

  Principle. By 3:2, the amendment was upheld. Lalit, C.J. and Bhat, J. dissented.

  Why it matters. Economic criteria alone can support reservation.

• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)

  Facts. Transgender persons asked to be recognised as a third gender.

  Principle. Sex in Articles 15 and 16 includes gender identity. Transgender persons are to be treated as socially and educationally backward classes.

  Why it matters. It widened the meaning of sex.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Article 14 covers every person. Article 15 covers only citizens.
• Twin test: intelligible differentia and rational nexus (Dalmia, 1958).
• Arbitrariness test: Royappa (1974). Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.
• Article 15(2) and Article 17 reach private persons.
• Indra Sawhney: creamy layer excluded, 50 per cent ceiling, no promotion under the original clause (4).
• Clause (4A) covers only Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Nagaraj requires quantifiable data.
• Clauses 15(6) and 16(6): ten per cent for economically weaker sections (103rd Amendment, 3:2 in Janhit Abhiyan).
• Article 18(2) is an absolute bar on a citizen accepting a foreign title.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• General Principles relating to Fundamental Rights(Art.13)
• Freedoms and Restrictions under Art.19
• Right to Life and Personal Liberty