S.N.D.T.

Women’s University
Law School
The Constitutional Law of India
Subject:- Right to Equality

Class :- LLB 1st Year

Name :- Pratiksha Tripal Bhagat

ROLL NO:-4

Submitted to: Mrs. Mishra Madam

1
 Index
SR. No. Topic Page No
1 Introduction 3

2 History of the Right To Equality 4

3 Meaning of Equality 5

4 ARTICLE 14- Right to Equality 6-7

5 Equality before the Law 8

6 Equal Protection of Law 9

7 Equality – A positive concept 9

8 Protection against arbitrariness 10

9 The doctrine of legitimate expectation 10

10 Constitutional Validity of Special Courts 11

11 Reasonable Classification Test 12

12 Right to equal access to the Courts 13

13 Justice should be available to all 14

14 Important Case 15

15 Article 15 16-18

16 Article 16 18-19

17 Article 17 20-21

18 Article 18 21-22

19 Conclusion 22

20 Webliography 23

21 Bibliography 23

2
 Introduction
RIGHT TO EQUALITY Right to Equality is the first fundamental right assured to
the people of India. Article 14-18 of the Constitution guarantees this right to every citizen
of India. Equality is one of the magnificent corner-stones of the Indian democracy. “In other
constitutions generally, this right embodied in Article 14. As such this right was considered
to be a negative right of an individual not to be discriminated in access to public offices or
places or in public matters generally. It did not take account of the existing inequalities
arising even from public policies and exercise of public powers. The makers of Indian
Constitution were not satisfied with such type of undertaking. They knew of the widespread
social and economic inequalities in the country sanctioned for thousands of years by public
policies and exercise of public power supported by religion and other social norms and
practices.”
They were of the opinion that only Article 14 would not be sufficient enough to deal
with these inequalities so they introduced Articles 15-18 in the Constitution along with
Article 14 which deals specifically in and expressly abolished and prohibited some of the
existing inequalities. “Thus, the right to equality in the Constitution of India is not merely a
negative right not to be discriminated against but also a positive right to be treated as an
equal. Under the later aspect of the right, which is the essence and core of the right to
equality, the State is under the obligation to take necessary steps so that every individual is
given equal respect and concern which he is entitled to as a human being.”
Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the preamble. It lays down the
general principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination
between the persons. The Succeeding Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18 lays down specific
applications of the general rules laid down in Article 14. Article 14 is the equality clause
because of its wide ambit and applicability. It applies to all persons while Article 15 and
others cover only citizens. Article 15 relates to prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
Religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in
matters of public employment. Article 17 abolishes untouchability and Article 18 abolishes
title.

3
 History of the Right To Equality

A legalist Guan Zhong (720–645 BC) declared that all persons under the jurisdiction
of the ruler are equal before the law.
The 431 BCE funeral oration of Pericles, recorded in Thucydides's History of the
Peloponnesian War, includes a passage praising the equality among the free male citizens of
the Athenian democracy:
If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if
to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class
considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the
way.
In ancient times, violent repression of even basic equality was commonplace.
Despite the recent overthrow of the Roman monarchy and the establishment of the Roman
Republic and sacrosanct Tribunes of the Plebs, Cincinnatus's son Caeso led a gang that
chased plebs from the forum to prevent the creation of equitable written laws. In Rome's
case, the organization of the plebs and the patricians' dependence upon them as both
laborers and soldiers meant the Conflict of the Orders was resolved by the establishment of
the Twelve Tables and greater equality. Nominally, all citizens except the emperor were
equal under Roman law in the imperial period. However, this principle was not
implemented in most of the world and even in Europe the rise of aristocracies and nobility
created unequal legal systems that lasted into the modern era.
The state of Nebraska adopted the motto 'Equality Before the Law' in 1867 and it
appears on both the state flag and the state seal.
In India we took fundamental rights from USA in our constitution. Fundamental
rights are soul of our constitution.

4
 Meaning of Equality
The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank,
or ability
Equality basically means access or provision of equal opportunities, where
individuals are protected from being discriminated against. Discrimination in equality can
occur in race, sex, health, religion, family structure, age, politics, disability, culture, sexual
orientation or in terms of believes.
Equality is the basic feature of the constitution of India and treatment of equals
unequally will be violation of basic structure of the constitution of India.
The ideal of equality under Indian Constitution
It has been seen that the Preamble to our constitution promises ‘equality of status
and opportunity to all citizens and that this is the ideal of equality embraces both social and
political equality. So far the ideal of social equality is concerned it is embodied in a series
of Articles, of which Art.14 is the genus, and succeeding Arts. 15-18 contain particular
application thereof. Our constitution is wedded to the concept of equality which is the basic
feature of the constitution. Even a constitutional amendment which offends basic feature is
declared as invalid. The state, its agencies and other local bodies being charged with public
duty are bound to take action which must be in accordance with Art.14.The liability given
to the state and its instrumentalities by the statute enacted under the constitution did not
exempt them from honouring constitution itself and they continued to be ruled by
Art.14.The equality clause under Art.14 of the constitution does not speak of mere formal
equality before law but embodies the real concept of real and substantive equality, strikes at
this inequalities a more positive duty of the state is to minimise inequalities in the status,
income and opportunities amongst individuals. Where unequals are competing, conditions
must be created by relaxation or otherwise so that unequals compete in terms of equality
with others in respect of jobs and employment of the state.

5
 ARTICLE 14- Right to Equality

(A) ARTICLE 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person
equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
(B) The Right to Equality guaranteed under Art. 14 consists of two parts
namely
(a) Equality before Law.
(b) Equal protection of Laws.

• Every person is entitled to equality before law and equal protection laws.

• Article 14 bars Discrimination and prohibits Discriminatory Laws.

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a declaration of equality of civil rights for

all purpose within the territory of India and basic principles of republicanism and
there is no discrimination
• The expression “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” does not mean
the same thing. Meaning of these expressions has to be found and determined having
regard to the context and scheme of our Constitution. The word “Law” in the former
expression is used in a genuine sense – a philosophical sense, whereas the word
“Laws” in the latter expression denotes specific laws in force.
• The benefit of “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” accrues to every
person in India, whether a citizen or not.”We are a country governed by Rule of
Law.
• The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Art. 14 in its
proper spectrum encompass social and economic justice in a political democracy.

• The expression “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” does not mean
the same thing. Meaning of these expressions has to be found and determined having
regard to the context and scheme of our Constitution. The word “Law” in the former
expression is used in a genuine sense – a philosophical sense, whereas the word
“Laws” in the latter expression denotes specific laws in force.

6
• The benefit of “Equality before law” and “Equal protection of law” accrues to every
person in India, whether a citizen or not.”We are a country governed by Rule of
Law.

• The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Art. 14 in its
proper spectrum encompass social and economic justice in a political democracy.

7
 Equality before the Law
“Equality before Law “only means that amongst the equals, the law should be equal
and should be equally administered, and that the like should be treated alike.
The “equality before the law” owes its origin to the English Common Law. The
doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept. It is embodied not only Arts. 15-18
as well as in Arts. 3, 39, 39 A, 41 and 46.It is a Negative concept because it implies the
absence of any privilege in favour of any individual, and equal subjection of all classes to
the ordinary law. It means law should be equal and should equally administered, that is like
should be treated alike. In short there shall not be discrimination. It is a declaration of
equality of privilege in favour of every individual.it means that no man above the Law of
the land and that every person, whatever is his rank or status is subject to ordinary law of
land. The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality
amongst all, which may be a physical impossiblity.Art.14, guarantees the similarity of
treatment and not identical treatment.
(b) Rule of Law: (Prof. A.V.DICEY)
Equality before law is co-relative to the concept of Rule of Law for all round
evaluation of healthy social order.
I. Basic Feature of the Rule of Law is that ‘Justice should not only be done
but it must also be seen to be done’.
II. Judicial review of Administration action is an essential part of Rule of
Law.
14
III. III. Independence of Judiciary.
IV. IV. Non Arbitrariness.
“A number of distinct meanings are normally given to the provision that there
should be equality before the law. One meaning is that equality before the law only
connotes the equal subjection of all to a common system of law, whatever its content...A
second theory asserts that equality before the law is basically a procedural concept,
pertaining to the application and enforcement of laws and the operation of the legal
system....A third meaning normally borne by declarations that all are equal before the law,
perhaps no more than a variant of the second, is that State and individual before the law
should be equal”.

8
 Equal Protection of Law
The phrase “Equal Protection of the Law” owes its origin to the American
Constitution. This is Positive Concept as it implies equality of treatment in equal
circumstances both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. So all the persons must
be treated alike on reasonable classification. Among equals law should be equal and equally
administered. The guarantee of equal protection applies against substantive as well as
procedural laws.

b) Limitation of the Doctrine of Equal Protection:

i. Every law cannot be made universally applicable. There are different class of
persons who require special treatment.

ii. State has power to classify persons for legitimate purpose. Every classification is
likely to produce some inequality and mere production of equality is no enough
Equality – A positive concept
Basawaraj v. the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
In the famous case of Basawaraj v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer where the
appellant went to the Supreme Court for the unsatisfactory decision of High Court of
Karnataka. According to the appellant, the High Court committed an error by not condoning
the delay as there were enough reasons for them to be not able to reach the High Court on
time. It is a well established legal proposition that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is
not there to create perpetual illegality, even by extending the previous wrong decision.
It was held that here the appellant was negligent on their part as the appellant was
not able to show the sufficient cause for the delay and thus here their appeal was rejected.
Access to Justice
By equality before the law, it means everyone has access to justice. No one can be
barred from access to justice. Here all should be treated equally in front of the judicial
system. The word “Access to Justice” includes some basic rights of a person. By term
access to justice, we mean that every person should have the right to appear in court.
Also, there are many people who are deprived of access to justice due to economical
knowledge or due to lack of awareness. Here it means that the government needs to play a
vital role in providing justice to them. For granting Access to Justice we need to reform our
judicial system. We need to work on the legal aid system.
9
 Protection against arbitrariness
There is a thin line of difference between being arbitrary and non-arbitrary actions.
The right to equality prevents the arbitrary action of the state. This article speaks about the
Equal Protection of Law and it is against the doctrine of arbitrariness. For protection against
arbitrariness, there are several restrictions put on every organ of the state. It is an important
part to prevent the organ of the state from making any arbitrary decision.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is basically not a legal right but rather it is a
moral obligation on the part of the administration to look and make laws that provide
equality to all people in a territory. It gives the right of judicial review in administrative law
to protect the interest of people when public authority fails to do so (or when Public
authority rescinds from the representation made to a person).
It acts as a bridge between the expectation of individuals and any act of authority.
However, these expectations needed to be reasonable and logical that’s why they are called
legitimate expectations.
There are several instruments provided by the court for achieving the motive of
authoritative law (here motive is to meet the legitimate expectation). These instruments are
provided to prevent everyone against the misuse of power by the organs of the state. It put a
type of restriction( although it is a moral restriction) on a state to use its power arbitrarily.

10
 Constitutional Validity of Special Courts
It was discussed earlier that Equality before Law is not absolute and has several
exceptions to it Article 246(2), is one of such exceptions. Article 246(2) states that:
“Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and subject to clause (1), the
Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule”(here List III is Concurrent List).
The validity of Special Courts which were established under the Special Courts Act
has been questioned in The Special Courts Bill v. Unknown case. It was questioned whether
the formation of special courts under this Act was not violating Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. It was held that as there was reasonability and logicality information of these
special courts so these courts are constitutionally valid.
Administrative discretion
It is the freedom of administration to react or decide any situation according to the
circumstance. Here it becomes important for one to understand the term discretion first.
Discretion basically describes the understanding of any person to decide what is wrong and
what is right, what is true and what is false etc and reacting to these situations accordingly.
Nextly I would like to explain the need for administrative discretion.
The legislature legislates any law on many presumptions and it cannot exactly
foresee everything that is going to take place because of that law. The main purpose of
administrative discretion is to maintain equality in all sections of society. However, this
administrative discretion should not go beyond the line and should be used with proper care.
The discretion may amount to arbitrariness.

11
 Reasonable Classification Test
Here, in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, the Supreme Court
describes the jurisprudence of equality before the law. The test to determine whether
conducts of state are constitutionally valid or not. The very famous “classification test” has
been given in this case only. Here the High Court held that a Government can make a
commission to enquire a case when it is necessary to do so. Here the main purpose of the
government is to make any commitment to help matters of public importance.
It’s a case of administrative discretion. Here ultimately the freedom to make any
decision rests in the hand of the government. In this case, also it was held that the actions of
the government are reasonable and are justified by the law.
The Supreme Court decided that in any political democracy by the term equality we
mean social and economic equality. There is no other kind of equality and the state should
ensure this social and economic justice at any cost.
Test of Reasonable Discretion
In the very famous case of Oregano Chemical Industries v. Union of India, the
petitioner(Oregano Chemical Industries) filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
against the order Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which imposed a high penalty
under Section 14(B) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Acts, 1952 for the delayed payment of Employees’ Provident Funds and Family pension of
their employees’. Here the conflict arises between Section 14(B) of Employees Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Here the government was directed to provide the remedy allocable to the Fund so that
damages may be compensated.
Section 14(B) states the right of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such
other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government to recover damages from the
employer who have failed in the contribution to the fund-provided that such employer has
given enough chance to be heard before recovering such damages.
This section also provides that their damages can be waived if there is a sick
industrial company by the Central Board. Here the Court held that in this case, the
government has arbitrarily used this section which is beyond the reasonable discretion of
the government and is a type of violation of Article 14 of our constitution.

12
 No equality in illegality
There cannot be equality before the law for the person who is a wrongdoer. A person
who is doing illegal acts cannot ask for Right to Equality in front of a court or the judicial
system. The case of Baliram Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar of Patna High Court clearly
explains that there cannot be equality for illegal acts as the petitioner was himself at fault,
therefore, he was made to compensate for his illegal act.
Right to equal access to the Courts :
Equal access to the courts for vindication of legal right may also be regarded as a
condition of equal protection and a person should not be deprived of such protection unless
there is any reasonable basis of such classification. By ‘just grievances’ is meant the
adjudication of disputes relating to his rights. When the legislature seeks to deprive a citizen
of his right to access to the court without any reasonable basis for this special treatment,
there is denial of equal protection.
Access to the court is a right vested to every citizen and that the same cannot be
denied even when the statutes are silent. Access to the Court is an important right to every
citizen.
• A dispute was a ‘ long-standing ‘ one is no reasonable ground for denying the right
51
to have their legal dispute adjudicated as those who have got that right

Limitation for Rule of access to the Court:

I. It does not prevent the adjudication of Special cause or Dispute by special
tribunals.

II. When a right is created by the statute, the statute may provide for a special
remedy and a special forum for the determination of such right, in which case, there is no
right to take the matter to the ordinary courts except in certain cases.

III. Reasonable checks may be imposed, in the public interests, to prevent vexatious
litigations.

13
 Justice should be available to all

In recent times, it has been realised that there cannot be any real equality in the
‘Right to sue and sued ‘, unless legal advice is available to the poorer people, in the same
manner as to others, whether in civil or criminal matters. Without free advice, there is a
virtual denial of equal justice to the poor man.
Earlier Article 39A to provide free legal Aid is a directive principle which cannot be
enforced in the court of law. In 1979, the court opened a new vista by combining Art 39 A
with Art. 21 and elevated the right under Art. 39A to the status of a fundamental right. Art.
nd
39 A. Inserted in the constitution by the 42 Amendment Act, 1976, which says, “The state
shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal
opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or
schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied
to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”.

The object of this Article was to ensure equal justice which has been promised to all
citizens, by the Preamble, and to further guarantee of equality before the under Article 14.

Some important points

a) The condition precedent to such free legal aid is that the accused is indigent or
53
illiterate and is otherwise unable to engage a lawyer .

54
b) This right as soon as the accused is arrested and subsists throughout the trial .

c) This right is not dependent upon the accused applying for such assistance. Being a
constitutional mandate, it is a duty of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge to inform the
accused that if he is unable to engage a lawyer, he is entitled to free legal aid.

d) The assistance offered must be effective for a meaningful defence.Assigining an

inexperienced lawyer will not discharge the obligation of the State.

14
 Important Case
Smt. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.
Facts of the case: On July 4 1977, Smt. Maneka Gandhi received a letter from the
Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, intimating her to surrender the passport (No. K. 869668)
within 7days from the date of receipt of the letter, as it was decided by the Government of
India to impound her passport under Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act 1967 in the public
Interest.
The Petitioner sends a letter to the Regional Passport Officer asking the reasons and
requesting her to provide a copy of the Statement of Reasons for making the order.
On reply it was send by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, on
July 6, 1977 stating that the Government has decided to impound the passport
1. In the interest of the Public and
2. Not to hand over her a copy of the statement of reasons.

So, the Petitioner filed a petition.

• Is Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act 1967, violates the Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution?
Under Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act, the Passport Authority impounded the
passport of the petitioner “in the interest of general public”.
Thus it confers unguided and unfettered power to the Passport Authority
• It is violative of the Equality clause contained in Article 14.

15
 ARTICLE 15
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them.
● No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex place of birth or any
of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regards to- (a)
access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use
of wells, tanks, bathing Ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly
out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
● Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision
for women and children.
● Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
● Nothing in this Article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent
the state from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes or scheduled
tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions
including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than
the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.
Article 15(1) would have come in the way of making favorable provisions for
backward sections of society. Clause (1) prohibits the State from discriminating against
citizens on grounds only of religion, race, sex, caste, and place of birth or any of them. The
right guaranteed in clause (1) is conferred on a citizen as an individual and is available
against his being subjected to discrimination in the matter of rights, privileges and
immunities pertaining to him as a citizen generally.
 On grounds only – Attention is drawn to the word ‘only’ in Clause (1) and (2) of
Article 15, viz. the State shall to discriminate against any person on grounds only of
religion, race caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. It is the effect or operation of the
statute which is the determining factor and not its purpose or motive. Accordingly, the court
should hold a law repugnant to the guarantee given by Article 15(1) if, as a result of the
law, a person is denied any right or privilege solely because of his religion, caste, race, sex
or place of birth.

16
 Clause (1), (2) and (3) together it will follow that while there can be no
discrimination in general on the ground of sex, special provision in the case of women and
children are permissible. Thus it would be no violation of Article 15 if institutions are set up
by the State exclusively for women or places are reserved for women at public
entertainments or in public conveyances.
The two most contentious issues in the application of Article 15(4) have been: (i)
determination of backward classes and (ii) extent or quantum of reservation. In Article
15(4), by the words ‘socially and educationally’, the problem of determining such classes is
similar under both the provisions.
From the several judicial pronouncements concerning the definition of backward
classes, several propositions emerge. First, the backwardness envisaged by Article 15(4) in
both social and educational and not either social or educational. This means that a class to
be identified a backward should be both socially and educationally backward.
In Balaji, the Court equated the “social and educational backwardness” to that of the
“Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes”. The Court observed: “It was realized that in the
Indian society there were other classes of citizens who were equally, or may be somewhat
less, backward than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it was thought that
some special provision ought to be made even for them.”
Secondly, poverty alone cannot be the test of backwardness in India because by and
large people are poor and, therefore, large sections of population would fall under the
backward category and thus the whole object of reservation would be frustrated.
Thirdly, backwardness should be comparable, though not exactly similar, to the
scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Fourthly, ‘caste’ may be a relevant factor to define backwardness, but it cannot be
the sole or even the dominant criterion. If classification for social backwardness were to be
based solely on caste, then the caste system would be perpetuated in the Indian society.
Also this test would break down in relation to those sections of society which do not
recognize caste in the conventional sense as known to the Hindu Society.
Fifthly, poverty, occupations, place of habitation, all contributes to backwardness
and such factors cannot be ignored.
Sixthly, backwardness may be defined without any reference to caste. As the
Supreme Court has emphasized, Art. 15(4) “does not speak of castes, but only speaks of

17
classes”, and that ‘caste’ and ‘class’ are not synonymous. Therefore, exclusion of caste to
ascertain backwardness does not vitiate classification if it satisfies other tests.
Backwardness under Article 15(4) must be social and educational, and that social
backwardness is, in the ultimate analysis, the result of poverty. One’s occupation and place
of habitation could be the other relevant factors in determining social backwardness.
ARTICLE 16
Right to Equality is one of the basic fundamental rights that the constitution of India
guarantees to all the citizens of the country. Article 16 deals with the equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment. The constitution of India has given a wide
interpretation to this article.
Equal opportunity is a term which has differing definitions and there is no consensus
as to the precise meaning. The constitution of India has given a wide interpretation to this
article. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) principles apply to:
● Access to jobs
● Conditions of employment
● Relationships in the workplace
● The evaluation of performance and
● The opportunity for training and career development.
**DIFFERENCE OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 16**
The goal of Articles 14 and 16 is limited to equality among comparable, a necessary
implication of which is permissibility of reasonable classification, having nexus with the
object to be achieved. An important point of distinction between Arts. 14 and 16 is that
while Art. 14 applies to all persons, citizens as well as non-citizens, Art. 16 applies only to
citizens and not to non-citizens.
Following are some points regarding the Article 16:
● There shall be quality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State.
● No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any
employment or office under the State. The prohibited grounds of discussions are religion,
race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them. The words, any
employment or office under the State make it clear that Article 16(2) also applies only to
public employment.

18
 ● 16(2) is confined to employment or office under the state, meaning services under
the Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities

● Art. 16(2) are somewhat wider than those under Art. 15(2) because At. 16(2)
prohibits discrimination on the additional grounds or descent and residence apart from
religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth.
● Under 16 (3) Parliament is competent to regulate the extent to which it would be
permissible for a State to depart from the law laid down.
● 16(4) contemplates special provision being made in favour of the socially
disadvantaged classes. Both must be balanced against each other. Neither should be allowed
to eclipse the other. Accordingly, the rule of 50% reservation in a year should be taken as a
unit and not the entire strength of the cadre, service or the unit as the case may be.
● The overriding effect of Cl. (4) of Art. 16 on Cls. (1) and (2) could only extend to
the making of a reasonable number of reservations of appointments and posts in certain
circumstances. A ‘reasonable number’ is one which strikes a reasonable balance between
the claims of the backward classes and those of other citizens. The Court emphasized that
each year of recruitment has to be considered by itself and the reservation for backward
communities should not be as excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the
legitimate claims of other communities.

19
 ARTICLE 17 (ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY)
● Article 17 says that to abolish untouchability and forbids its practice in any form
● In 1976, the Untouchability Act 1955 has been comprehensively amended and
renamed as Protection Civil Rights Act 1955 to enlarge the scope and make penal
provisions more stringent.
● The Act defines civil right as any right accruing to a person by reason of the
abolition of untouchability by article of the Constitution.
● The term untouchability has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the
Act.
● However, the Mysore High Court held that the subject matter of article 17 is not
untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but the ‘practice as it had developed
historically in the country’.
● Untouchability is a social practice which is earlier done by people on the basis of
their caste, creed, etc.
● It is said that lower caste or creed people is not given any response from higher
caste.
● Higher caste people disrespect them between people.
● So, this is not show equality among people earlier.
● So, Government give right to equality and state act among untouchability.
● It refers to the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons by reason
of their birth in certain cases.
● Hence, it does not cover social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusion
from religious services etc.
● Under the protection of Civil Right Act, 1955, the offences committed on the
ground of untouchability are punishable either by imprisonment up to 6 months or by fine
up to Rs. 500 or both.
● A person convicted of the offence of untouchability is disqualified for election to
the parliament or state legislature.
● The Act of abolition of untouchability declares following acts as offences:
1. Preventing any person from entering any place of public worship or from
worshipping therein. 2. Justifying untouchability on traditional, religious, philosophical or
other grounds. 3. Denying access to any shop, hotel or places of public entertainment 4.
Insulting a person belonging to scheduled caste on the ground of untouchability 5. Refusing

20
to admit persons in hospitals, educational institution or hostels established for public
benefit. 6. Preaching untouchability directly or indirectly. 7. Refusing to sell goods or
sender services to any person.

ARTICLE 18 (ABOLITION OF TITLES)

1. No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the
State.
2. No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
3. No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or
trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign
State.
4. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the
consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or
under any foreign State.
Description: The State shall not confer any title on anybody whether a citizen or a
non-citizen except the recognition of academic and military distinctions. Bharat Ratna,
Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri and other State awards are not regarded as
titles in terms of Article 18(1) of the constitution. The Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan
Vs Union of India 1996 case stated that these are meritorious awards based on excellence in
the respective fields. The theory of equality does not mean that the State should not
recognize the excellence.
A ‘title’ is something that hangs to one’s name, as an appendage (either prefix or
suffix e.g. Sir, Nawab, Maharaja, etc.). A democracy should not create titles and titular
glories. This will go against the realization of social equality.
However, the recent conferment of titles of “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”,
“Padma Shri”, etc. (introduced in 1954) are said to be not prohibited under Article 18 as
they merely denote State recognition of good work by citizens in the various fields of
activity. It may be noted that Article 18 does not secure any fundamental right but imposes
a restriction on executive and legislative power. Further, conferring of titles offended
against the fundamental principle of equality of all citizens guaranteed by Article 14.
Article 18(2) It states that no citizen shall receive any title from a foreign State. For
example Sunil Gavaskar was invited to get Knighthood but he was not allowed.

21
 Article 18(3) It prohibits a foreigner who is in the service of the government of
India or that of a State, from accepting any title from any foreign State without the consent
of the President.
Article 18(4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall
without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument or office of any kind
from or under any foreign State. The following two points must be considered: (1) There is
no penalty prescribed for the infringement of the above prohibition. (2) Article 18 is merely
a directory.
Conclusion:
Right to equality is a Fundamental Right. It can be enforced in High Court under
Article 226 and in Supreme Court under Article 32.Fundamental Rights can be enforced
only if the state violates it. Right to Equality is considered as basic feature of the Indian
Constitution. Right to Equality under Art.14 is vested not only to citizens but to all persons.
It includes equality before Law and Equal Protection of Law. No one is above the law of the
land. Everyone is equal in the eyes of law. There should be no discrimination. Law must be
equal and must be equally administered. So like must be treated alike and unlike. Equality
before law is negative concept and Equal protection of law is positive concept. Reasonable
Classification is allowed in the administration of justice. But it should have some relation to
the object of the legislature.
In every society there are two classes namely upper class and lower class. The
standard of living of the upper class is high but that of lower class is low. As a result it is
the duty of the state to uplift the lower class in the society to bring Equality. Absolute
equality is impossible but there should not be inequality. Discrimination on the basis of
caste, sex, race, religion, language etc must be not there at all. A sense of equality must be
there then and then only then will be unity in any state.

22
 Webliography
● https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-constitution-right-to-equality-under-
article-14-of- constitution/
● https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-constitution-reservation/
● https://www.lawnotes.in/Article_16_of_Constitution_of_India
● https://www.lawnotes.in/Article_16_of_Constitution_of_India
● https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-article-18-of-Indian-
constitution
● https://lawjugaad.com/article-18-of-indian-constitution/
● https://gradeup.co/right-to-equality-article-14-of-indian-constitution-i
● https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-equality/

Biblography

• Om Prakash. Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies, Delhi:

Metropolitan Book, 1954

• S.K. Public Interest Litigation: A Critique, Bombay: N.M.Tripathi, 1985. 3.

Contract Law in India: Text and Cases (Author: Akhileshwar Pathak)

• S.P. and S.V. Raju. ed., Fundamental Rights and the Citizen, New
Delhi: Academic Books Limited, 1972.
• Bhaskara Mohan. “Public Interest Litigation A Study”,
• Deshpande, V.S. “Rights and Duties under the Constitution”, Journal of
Indian Law Institute, 15:1 (1973)
• Deshta, Sunil and Deshta, Kiran. “Philosophy of Right to Life: A
Movement from Rigidity to Flexibility”. Civil and Military Law Journal

23