Scribd
Upload
134 views2 pages

Article 14 States That The State Shall Not Deny To Any Person Equality Before The Law or The Equal Protection of The Laws Within The Territory of India

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. Equality before law means that no person is above the law regardless of status. Equal protection means that the same law must be applied equally to all persons in similar circumstances without discrimination based on religion, race, or social status. Reasonable classification is permitted under equal protection but the classification must be based on an intelligible difference related to the objective of the law. Two cases are discussed - one in India where European prisoners received better treatment than Indian prisoners in violation of equality, and one in the US where a local ordinance was applied in a discriminatory manner against Chinese applicants.

Uploaded by

akhil Srinadhu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
134 views2 pages

Article 14 States That The State Shall Not Deny To Any Person Equality Before The Law or The Equal Protection of The Laws Within The Territory of India

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. Equality before law means that no person is above the law regardless of status. Equal protection means that the same law must be applied equally to all persons in similar circumstances without discrimination based on religion, race, or social status. Reasonable classification is permitted under equal protection but the classification must be based on an intelligible difference related to the objective of the law. Two cases are discussed - one in India where European prisoners received better treatment than Indian prisoners in violation of equality, and one in the US where a local ordinance was applied in a discriminatory manner against Chinese applicants.

Uploaded by

akhil Srinadhu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Article 14 states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the

equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India. 1 Distinction between equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws - Equality before law means no person either poor or privileged
and none shall be above law. Equal protection of law does not mean that equal same law
identically should be applied to all the persons or every law must have a universal application
within the country irrespective of the difference in the circumstances. It does not postulate equal
treatment of every person without any distinction. What it postulates is application of same law
alike and with no discrimination towards all the persons who are situated similarly. This denotes
equality of treatment in equal circumstances. This implies that law should be administered
equally and the like should be treated alike with no discrimination of religion, race, political
influence or social status.2

“Equality before law” postulates the former declares that everyone is equal before law, that no
one can claim special privileges and that all classes are subjected to the ordinary law of the land.
The word “equal protection before law” postulates that equal protection of alike under similar
situations.3
Under equal protection of laws, the Constitution permits reasonable classification which should
not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”. The reasonable classification should fulfil some
conditions.4

(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;

(2) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act.

Intelligible differentia is differentiating the persons grouped together from the persons left out
the group. In our case, the persons who have participated in events amid lockdown and who
haven’t cooperated with the state departments is taken as whole. The second condition is

1
INDUS CONST. art. 14.
2
Jagannath Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 1245.
3
2 DURGA DAS BASU, COMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5 (9th ed. 2014).

4
2 DURGA DAS BASU, COMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 51 (9th ed. 2014).
differentiation must be based on reasonable nexus with the object which the order seeks to
achieve

In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent, Tihar Jail5, - “There were Indian and European
Prisoners in the Tihar jail. Both were treated differently in the jail. Europeans got better diet.
Court held that difference between Indian and European prisoners in the matter of treatment
and diet violates right to equality under Article 14 of Indian prisoners. They all are prisoners
they must treat equally, and such types of actions are discriminatory towards the Indian
Prisoners.”

17¶. In a US case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins6, - In the San Francisco city there were 320 laundry
business shops and out of them 240 were owned by Chinese subjects, wrote to Board of
Supervisors for renewal of their license and all the Chinese subjects were denied the license, but
the 80 other subjects belonging to the Home Country were granted license to continue their
business. Here it was held that since the law was applied by the authorities in a discriminatory
manner and with an evil eye. This situation is discriminating in nature among the persons in
similar situations, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.

5
Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1505.

6
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

You might also like