In a constitutional democracy such as Bharat, equality is not a favour bestowed by the State. It is a limitation upon the State and a guarantee to the individual. This distinction lies at the heart of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It defines the relationship between public power and individual liberty, governmental authority and constitutional accountability, and the formal promise of democracy and the substantive demands of justice.

Article 14 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 expression “any person” is significant: Article 14 is not confined to citizens. Subject to the Constitution and applicable law, its protection extends to every person within India. The provision establishes that no person is beyond the protection of law and that State action is subject to constitutional discipline. The State may govern, regulate and administer, but its actions must remain within constitutional boundaries.

Article 14 contains two related guarantees. “Equality before the law” expresses the principle that no person is entitled to special legal privilege and that all persons are subject to the ordinary law, subject to constitutionally recognised exceptions. “Equal protection of the laws” requires the State to treat persons who are similarly situated alike, while permitting constitutionally valid distinctions where relevant differences justify different treatment. Article 14 therefore does not demand mechanical uniformity. It prohibits unjustified discrimination and requires State action to conform to constitutional standards.

From formal equality to substantive constitutional disciplineThe significance of Article 14 becomes clearer through the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. In its early application, equality was frequently examined through the doctrine of reasonable classification. A classification would ordinarily satisfy Article 14 if it was founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing those included from those excluded, and if that differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.This doctrine remains important, but it is not a complete statement of Article 14. A classification may be formally intelligible yet constitutionally impermissible if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, disproportionate where proportionality is applicable, or unrelated to a legitimate constitutional objective. Conversely, Article 14 does not require the State to treat unlike situations identically. A complex society cannot be governed without distinctions based on relevant circumstances, provided those distinctions remain constitutionally defensible.

The Supreme Court gradually developed a broader understanding of equality. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Court stated that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies. The judgment marked an important shift away from treating Article 14 solely as a prohibition on unequal treatment between identified classes. It recognised that State action may violate equality because of its arbitrary character, even where a conventional classification analysis does not fully capture the constitutional defect.

The proposition that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality does not mean that every unreasonable, inefficient or undesirable governmental decision automatically violates Article 14. Constitutional review remains structured by the nature of the right affected, the source of power, the statutory framework, the classification or distinction involved, and the applicable standard of review. Article 14 requires more than judicial disagreement with policy; it requires a constitutionally cognisable defect.Article 14 has therefore evolved into a broader standard governing public power. Governmental authority must be exercised for legitimate purposes, on relevant considerations and through legally permissible means. The constitutional question is not simply whether the State possesses power to act, but whether the manner and substance of its action can be justified under the Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi........

© Greater Kashmir