Articles 14 to 18 - Right to Equality
- Legal Journey
- Oct 23
- 17 min read
Updated: Oct 26
Part 3 of the Constitution of India
Fundamental Rights
Articles 12 to 35
Articles 14 to 18
Right to Equality
- Article 14 embodies the general principles of equality before law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons.
- Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the Preamble.
- The succeeding Articles 15, 16, 17, and 18 lay down specific application of the general rules laid down in Article 14.
Article 14. Equality before Law
- It guarantees to any person
- Equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
- Within the territory of India.
Equality before the law
- This expression is of English Origin.
- It is a negative concept.
- It implies absence of any privileges in favour of any individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law.
- It means that no man is above law and that every person, whatever be his/her rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
- This guarantee is an aspect of Dicey’s Rule of Law.
Q) Is this rule absolute?
A) NO, this is not absolute.
- The President, the Governors and the Ambassadors are exceptions to this rule.
Equal Protection of the laws
- This expression is of American Origin.
- It is more of a positive concept.
- It implies equality of treatment in equal circumstances.
- The equals should be treated equally and the unequal should be treated unequally.
- People who are in the same social, economic, political circumstances are to be treated equally. Equality will be established.
- If two persons are in different social, economic, political circumstances, here the principle of equity will be applied because they are in unequal circumstances.
- Hence, the normal rule is Equality while the exception is Equity.
Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1992)
- It was held that the expressions 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of law' do not carry the same meaning though there is a lot in common between them.
- The word 'law' in the first expression was more general in sense and in the second expression it was more specific.
- It was also observed that 'equality before the law' is a dynamic concept having multiple facets.
- One of the facets denotes the absence of any privileged class or person who was above the law and the other denotes the obligation of the state to make the society more equal as envisaged in the Preamble and Part IV of the Indian Constitution.
State of Bombay V. F. N. Balsara (1951)
- This case developed the test of Reasonable Classification.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
- It was held that the concept of equal protection of law is simply a part of the concept of equality before law.
- When the 'equal protection of law' is violated, it is difficult to imagine the 'equality before law' being maintained in such a situation.
- This case stated the twin test for reasonable classification.
Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
- Article 14 forbids class legislation.
- It only permits reasonable classification.
- The classification must NOT be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
- It must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Test of Reasonable Classification
- For a classification to be reasonable, it must fulfil the following two conditions:-
Intelligible Differentia -> Clear and logical basis for classification, avoiding arbitrariness or discrimination.
Rational/Reasonable Nexus -> Logical connection between classification basis and legal objective ensuring fairness and legitimacy.
- The differentia which is the basis of the 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.
- But the question whether a classification is reasonable and proper or not, must, however, be judged more on common sense than on legal subtleties.
Q) Can a single individual be a class in themself?
A) Yes, on account of special circumstances a single individual may be treated as a class by itself.
Ramkrishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendulkar (1958 SC)
- Various propositions were laid down regarding governance of valid classification and are as follows :-
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 others, that single individual may be treated as a class by itself.
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 constitutional principles.
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.
It must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.
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.
The Legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest.
While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a Legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face 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 or corporations to be hostile or discriminating legislation.
The classification may be made on different basis, e.g., geographical or according to objects or occupations or the like.
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.
There can be NO discrimination both in the substantive as well as the procedural law. Article 14 applies to both.
Q) Where does Article 14 apply?
A) 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.
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India (1978 SC)
- This case expanded the scope of Article 14 by interpreting the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 as NOT merely physical but also procedural.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable ensuring that it does not violate the principles of Natural Justice.
Chiranjit Lal V. Union of India (1951 SC)
- The guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does NOT mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in spite of different circumstances or conditions.
E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 SC)
- This case gave Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness(Anti-thesis) also known as New Doctrine.
- Equality before the law not only included rule of law but also principles of Natural Justice.
- Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined, and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits.
- The Court held that the Doctrine of Equality does not mean mathematical equality but implies equality among equals and requires the state to treat similarly situated persons equally.
- Equality is antithesis to arbitrariness. It further held that in fact, equality and arbitrariness were sworn enemies; one belonged to the rule of law in a republic, while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.
ADM Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla (1976 SC) (popularly known as habeaus corpus case)
- During the emergency period, this case underscored the importance of Article 14 in safeguarding Fundamental Rights during times of crisis.
- The dissenting opinion by Justice H. R. Khanna emphasised the inviolable nature of Fundamental Rights, including the right to equality, even during emergencies.
National Legal Services Authority V. Union of India (2014)
- Article 14 does not restrict the word ‘person’ to males and females only, hijras/transgender’s are also included in the definition of ‘person’.
Article 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
- Article 15 is available ONLY to Citizens.
- It provides for a particular application of the general principle embodied in Article 14.
- When a law comes within the prohibition of Article 15 it CANNOT be validated by recourse to Article 14 by applying the principle of reasonable classification.
- It is when the discrimination is based upon one of the grounds mentioned in Article 15, the reasonableness of the classification will be tested under Article 14.
- The word ‘Discrimination’ means to make an adverse distinction or to distinguish unfavourable from others.
Clause (1) - The State shall NOT discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of:-
Religion | Race | Caste | Sex | Place of birth |
Or any of them |
D. P. Joshi V. State of M.B. (1955 SC)
- It was held that a law which discriminates on the ground of residence does NOT violate Article 15(1).
- Place of birth is different from residence.
- What Article 15(1) prohibits is discrimination based on place of birth and NOT based on residence.
Clause (2) - It prohibits discrimination at public places which may be in control of even a private individual.
- Protection under clause (2) is available against State as well as private individuals.
Clause (3) - It is an enabling provision.
- It merely gives discretion to the State to make provision for welfare of women and children.
- For Example, Under Article 42, women workers can be given special maternity relief and a law to this effect will not infringe Article 15(1).
Clause (4) - The State can also make special provision for advancement of SEBC, SCs and STs.
- Inserted by First Constitutional Amendment, 1951.
- It is ONLY an enabling provision and does NOT impose any obligation on the State to take any special action under it.
- It merely confers a discretion to act if necessary by way of making special provisions for backward classes.
- A writ cannot be issued to the State to make a reservation.
- It is NOT an exception but ONLY makes a special application of the principle of Reasonable classification.
Q) What is meant by Backward classes?
A) ‘Backward Classes’ are NOT defined in the Constitution.
- Article 340 of the Constitution empowers the President to appoint a Commission to investigate conditions of socially and educationally backward classes.
- On the basis of the report of the Commission, the President may specify as to who are to be considered as Backward Classes.
State of Madras V. Champakam Dorairajan (1951 SC)
- The Supreme Court in this case held that classification of students on the basis of caste and religion irrespective of merits is VOID.
- The DPSP could NOT override the Fundamental Rights.
- This case highlighted the need for Article 15(4) to allow for favourable provisions for backward classes without violating Article 15(1).
- It led to the enactment of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution to introduce Article 15(4).
M. R. Balaji V. State of Mysore (1963 SC)
- The Supreme Court held that though caste may be a relevant factor, it CANNOT be the sole test for ascertaining whether a particular class is a backward class or not.
- The backwardness of classes w.r.t Article 15(4) cannot be either social or education, but it has to be both social as well as educational.
- Poverty, occupation, place of habitation may all be relevant factors to be taken into consideration.
- This case also held that sub-classification between ‘backward classes’ and ‘more backward classes’ was NOT justified under Article 15(4).
- The Court also capped the maximum reservation to up to 50%.
Indra Sawhney V. Union of India (1993 SC)
- It is also known as the Mandal Commission case.
- The Supreme Court held that sub-classification of backward classes into more backward and backward classes for the purpose of Article 16(4) can be done but as a result of sub-classification the total reservation CANNOT exceed more than 50%.
- This general rule can be relaxed in extraordinary situations for populations living in far flung areas of the country as it may be desirable to treat them differently.
- This interpretation is equally applicable to Article 15(4), as the words ‘backward classes of citizen’ in Article 16(4) are wider and include SCs and STs and other SEBCs.
Clause (5) - It has been provided that the State may by making law can provide for advancement of any SEBC, SC or ST in respect of admissions to educational institutions including private educational institutions whether aided or unaided.
- except minority institutions
- Inserted by 93rd Constitutional Amendment, 2005
T. M. A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka (2003 SC), and
P. A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra (2005 SC)
- The Supreme Court held that the State could NOT make reservation of seats in admissions in privately run educational institutions.
- There, the admission could be done on the basis of a common admission test conducted by the State or these institutions and on the basis of merit.
- To nullify the effects of these judgments, clause (5) was inserted.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur V. Union of India (2008 SC)
- The Constitutional Validity of the 93rd Amendment Act was challenged.
- The Court held that the 93rd Amendment Act is VALID to the extent of its application upon state-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions.
- The Court further observed that imposing reservations on unaided institutions violates the Basic Structure by stripping citizens of their Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on an occupation.
Clause (6) - It enables the State to make special provisions for advancement of any economically weaker section of citizens, including reservation in educational institutions.
- It states that such reservations can be made in any educational institution, including both aided and unaided private institutions, except minority educational institutions covered under Article 30 (1).
- Inserted by 103rd Constitutional Amendment, 2019.
Janhit Abhiyan V. Union of India (2022 SC)
- The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act was upheld.
Article 16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
Clause (1) - It states that there shall be equality of opportunity in public employment or appointment to any post under the State.
- Available to all classes of citizens against the state.
Clause (2) - It provides that state shall NOT discriminate on grounds only of -
Religion | Race | Caste | Sex | Descent | Place of birth | Residence |
Or any of them |
Clause (3) - Parliament can make law prescribing residence as a criteria for employment.
- Hence, this power has NOT been given to the State Legislature.
- It is an exception to Clause (2).
Clause (4) - It is NOT a Fundamental Right.
- It is an enabling provision.
- It gives discretion to the State for providing reservation for appointments of backward class of citizens and does not impose any duty.
- There is a twin test for representation:-
There should be a backward class of citizen;
They should NOT be adequately represented in the service under the State.
- The second test CANNOT be the sole criterion.
- Article 16(4) must be interpreted in the light of Article 335 which says that the claims of the SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
- The reservation for backward classes should not be unreasonable.
- It should be considered having regard to the employment opportunities of the general public.
M. R. Balaji V. State of Mysore (1963 SC)
- The ‘caste’ of a person cannot be the sole test for ascertaining whether a particular class is a backward class or not.
- Poverty, occupation, place of habitation may all be relevant factors to be taken into consideration.
- But, if an entire class is found to be socially and educationally backward, it may be included in the list of Backward Classes.
- However, the Government should review the test and if a class reaches the state of progress where reservation is not necessary, it should delete that class from the list of the Backward Classes.
Indra Sawhney V. Union of India (1993 SC)
- The Court held that there could be NO reservation in promotions to selection posts.
- To nullify the effect of this judgment, Clause (4A) was inserted
Clause (4A) - There will be reservation in promotion for SCs and STs who are not adequately represented in services under state.
- Inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995
Devadasan V. Union of India (1964)
- The Supreme Court in this case observed that Article 16(4) is an exception to article 16(1) of the COI which is incorporated to uplift the socially backward classes.
- The Supreme Court also added that the idea of equal opportunity should not be violated by applying unproportionate reservations otherwise the same would affect Article 14.
- The Court struck down the “carry-forward rule” as unconstitutional on the ground that the power vested in Government under Article 16(4) could not be exercised so as to deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters of public employment for members of class other than the backward class.
Indra Sawhney V. Union of India (1993 SC)
- The Supreme Court overruled the Devadason case and held the ‘carry forward rule’ valid so long as it did not in a particular year exceed 50% of vacancies.
- The 50% limit can only be exceeded in an extraordinary situation prevailing in a state.
Clause (4B) - It enables the State to carry forward the unfilled reserved vacancies which will be treated as a separate quota.
- Inserted by the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000.
Union of India V. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995)
Ajit Singh V. State of Punjab (1996)
- Candidates recruited under the reservation quota CANNOT continue to claim seniority over general category as a matter of right.
- ‘Catch Up Rule’ was introduced.
85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 -> Inserted “Consequential seniority” under Article 16(4A).
- w.e.f when the Constitution 77th Amendment was enacted.
- It provided that the person of reserved category promoted earlier will be treated as senior to general category employee even if reserved category employee has been appointed later on.
82nd Constitutional amendment Act, 2000 -> Inserted Proviso to Article 335
M. Nagaraj V. Union of India (2007 SC)
- The 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendment Acts were upheld.
- The court said that the aforementioned constitutional amendments do not alter the basic structure of Article 16(4) and are valid.
- They retain the controlling factor namely - backwardness and adequate representation which enables the state to make reservations keeping in mind overall efficiency under Article 335.
- These amendments does NOT obliterate constitutional requirements namely :-
Ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation);
Concept of creamy layer (qualitative limitation)
- Subject to these conditions, these amendments are valid.
- In matters of application of the principle of basic structure, twin tests have to be satisfied, namely the ‘width test’ and the ‘test of identity’.
- Additionally, as a safeguard against any possible exploitation, the court said that the subject to the above limitations the State can make reservation but it has to show in each case the existence of compelling reason (Doctrine of Proof of Compelling reason)
Quantifiable data to show backwardness of the class;
Inadequacy of representation of the class;
Such reservation would not affect the efficiency of administration.
- The Court however, made it clear that even if the State has compelling reason, it has to see that the reservation does not lead to excess of 50% ceiling limit, or obliterate creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
Jarnail Singh V. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018 SC)
- The criterion that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SCs and STs being contrary to the Indra Sawhney case was hence declared invalid to that extent.
- In Indra Sawhney case it was held that SCs and STs are the most backward among backward classes and it is, therefore, presumed that once they are contained in the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342, there is no question of showing backwardness of SCs and STs again.
P. G. Institute of Medical and Research V. Faculty Association (1998 SC)
- The Court held that “In making reservation for backward classes the State CANNOT ignore the Fundamental Rights of the rest of the citizens.”
Clause (5) - appointments for positions in religious organisations can be restricted to individuals of the same religion and this will NOT be regarded as a violation of Article 16(1).
Clause (6) - The provision allows the State to reserve appointments or positions for EWS, excluding those indicated in Article 16(4).
- Inserted by 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019.
- This additional reservation is limited to 10% of the posts in each category.
Q) What is the difference between Article 15 and 16?
A) Under Article 16 the guarantee against discrimination is limited to ‘employment’ and ‘appointment’ under the State.
- Article 15 however is more general and deals with all cases of discrimination which do not fall under Article 16.
Indra Sawhney V. Union of India (1993 SC)
- The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in this case is summarised as follows:-
The backward class of citizens in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of case and not only on economic basis but caste alone cannot be the basis for consideration. The Court struck down the economic criterion for reservation on the ground that Article 16(4) does not mention it. The caste could be used for the purpose of identifying the Backward Classes.
Article 16(4) is NOT an exception to Article 16(1). It is an instance of classification. Reservation can be made under Article 16(1). Article 16(4) was held to be a facet of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 and permits reasonable classification just as Article 14 does.
Backward Classes in Article 16(4) are not similar to as socially and educationally backward in Article 15(4). It is much wider. The Court held that it is not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward that it is situated similarly to the SC’s and ST’s.
Creamy layers must be excluded from backward classes.
Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more backward classes.
A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria.
Reservation cannot exceed 50% except in extraordinary cases. Article 16(4) speaks of adequate representation and not proportionate representation.
Reservation can be made by ‘Executive Order’.
No reservation in promotions.
Permanent Statutory body to examine complaints of over-inclusion/under-inclusion.
Mandal Commission Report - No opinion expressed.
Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised only in the Supreme Court.
Article 17. Abolition of “Untouchability”
- Abolished and its practice in any form forbidden.
- “Untouchability” means social disabilities imposed on certain persons due to their castes.
- Restrictions imposed on any person on the basis that the person belongs to a certain caste.
- Punishable offence in accordance with law - upto 6 months and fine upto 500 rupees.
- Parliament originally enacted - Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 which prescribes punishment for practicing untouchability.
- In 1976, Act was renamed as the “Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955”
Q) In addition to Article 17, which other Article also helps in eradication of untouchability?
A) Article 15(2) - No person can be denied access to public spaces on the grounds of untouchability.
Article 18. Abolition of Titles
- Article 18 abolished titles and provides:-
- State is prohibited from conferring title on any citizen or foreigner.
- It does NOT prohibit conferring of :-
Military; or
Academic distinctions.
- It does NOT prohibit conferring an award, because they are not titles.
- It prohibits citizens from accepting any title from any foreign state.
- It prohibits even a foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under State to accept any title from any foreign state without consent of the President [Clause (3)]
- It prohibits a citizen or any foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under State to accept and present or emolument or office from or under any foreign State without the consent of the President [Clause (4)]
- Violation of Article 18 is NOT an offence and there are no specified penalties.
Balaji Raghavan V. Union of India (1996 SC)
- Validity of National awards was challenged under Article 18.
- The National awards do not amount to “Titles” within the meaning of Article 18.
- They should not be used as suffixes or prefixes.
- The Court held that the National awards are NOT violative of the principle of equality as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution.
- The theory of equality does not mandate that merit should not be recognised.
- In view of Article 51-A(f) it is necessary that there should be a system of award and decorations to recognise excellence in performance of the duties.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q) What is the difference between “Equality before Law” and “Equal Protection of the Laws”?
A) “Equality before law” is a negative concept, no one is above the law;
“Equal protection of the laws” is positive, it demands equal treatment of equals in similar situations.
Q) What is meant by ‘reasonable classification’ under Article 14?
A) It allows treating people differently if the classification is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the law’s objective.
Q) Are reservations in promotions allowed under Article 16?
A) Yes, for SCs and STs under Article 16(4A), but subject to limits like the 50% cap and efficiency of administration.
Q) Does Article 18 prohibit national awards like Padma Shri or Bharat Ratna?
A) No. The Supreme Court has held that such awards are NOT “titles” under Article 18 and may be conferred to recognise merit.
Q) Why are Articles 14–18 collectively called the ‘Right to Equality’?
A) Together, they uphold the idea that all citizens are equal before the law and ensure fairness in status, opportunity, and dignity.
Equality before the law is more than a just principle, it’s the foundation of justice.
Stay informed about your constitutional rights by joining us on our telegram for regular updates.
Download a pdf version of this article here.