0
0
Om Narendra Singh, B.Com LL.B, Lloyd School Of Law
Introduction:
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, has been a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence for over seven decades. As society evolves and new challenges emerge, the interpretation and application of Article 14 continue to adapt. This article delves into the recent developments in the understanding and implementation of Article 14, exploring its impact on various facets of law and governance in contemporary India.
The Widening Scope of Article 14: Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has progressively expanded the scope of Article 14, moving beyond the traditional concept of reasonable classification to encompass broader principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
The Non-Arbitrariness Principle: The landmark case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) marked a significant shift in the interpretation of Article 14. Justice P.N. Bhagwati observed: “From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.”
This principle was further reinforced in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the court held that the procedure established by law must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine: A recent and significant development in the interpretation of Article 14 is the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court held that a law can be struck down under Article 14 if it is manifestly arbitrary. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman defined manifest arbitrariness as “something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle.”
This doctrine has since been applied in several cases, including Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), where the court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (adultery law) as being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Article 14 in Specific Legal Domains:
Personal Laws and Gender Equality: Article 14 has been instrumental in challenging gender discriminatory provisions in personal laws. In the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), popularly known as the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court relied on Article 14 to strike down the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple.
Similarly, in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the court interpreted the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in light of Article 14, holding that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family property, regardless of whether the father was alive or not when the amendment came into force.
LGBTQ+ Rights: The application of Article 14 has been pivotal in advancing LGBTQ+ rights in India. In the landmark judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the provision violated Article 14 as it discriminated against individuals based on their sexual orientation.
Economic Policies and Taxation: Article 14 continues to play a crucial role in scrutinizing economic policies and tax laws. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003), the Supreme Court, while upholding the validity of circular No. 789 dated 13th April 2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, emphasized that Article 14 permits reasonable classification provided it is not arbitrary, artificial, or evasive.
More recently, in Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020), the Supreme Court struck down the RBI circular prohibiting banks from dealing in virtual currencies, finding it disproportionate and violative of Article 14.
Environmental Law: Article 14 has been invoked in environmental cases to ensure equal protection of the right to a clean environment. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court, while dealing with air pollution in Delhi-NCR, emphasized the need for equal application of environmental norms to all citizens, invoking Article 14.
Criminal Law and Procedure: Recent interpretations of Article 14 have had significant implications for criminal law. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the court held that the application of Section 377 of the IPC to consensual homosexual acts between adults was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the court struck down Section 497 of the IPC (adultery law) as being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14, noting that it discriminated against women by treating them as property of their husbands.
Challenges in Implementing Article 14:
Balancing Equality with Affirmative Action: One of the ongoing challenges in implementing Article 14 is balancing the principle of equality with the need for affirmative action. The Constitution itself provides for special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (Article 15(4) and 16(4)). The courts have grappled with this issue in cases like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), trying to strike a balance between formal equality and substantive equality.
Indirect Discrimination: While Article 14 prohibits direct discrimination, addressing indirect discrimination remains a challenge. In cases where a law or policy is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate impact on certain groups, courts have had to develop nuanced approaches to apply Article 14.
Intersectionality: The intersectionality of various forms of discrimination based on gender, caste, religion, and economic status often complicates the application of Article 14. Courts are increasingly recognizing the need to consider multiple, intersecting grounds of discrimination.
New Forms of Discrimination: As technology advances and society evolves, new forms of discrimination emerge, challenging the traditional understanding of equality. For instance, issues related to data privacy and artificial intelligence raise new questions about equal protection under the law.
Recent Trends and Future Directions:
Substantive Equality: There is a growing recognition of the need to move beyond formal equality to achieve substantive equality. This approach considers the actual impact of laws and policies on different groups, rather than merely ensuring equal treatment on paper.
Proportionality Test: Courts are increasingly applying the proportionality test in Article 14 cases, especially when dealing with state actions that infringe on fundamental rights. This test, as elaborated in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), involves assessing whether the state action has a legitimate aim, whether the means used are suitable, necessary, and balanced.
Intersectional Approach: There is a growing trend towards adopting an intersectional approach in interpreting Article 14, recognizing that individuals may face multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination.
Digital Equality: As digital technologies become increasingly integral to daily life, ensuring digital equality is emerging as a new frontier in the application of Article 14. This includes addressing issues of access to technology, data privacy, and algorithmic bias.
Conclusion:
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution continues to be a dynamic and powerful tool in the pursuit of equality and justice. Its interpretation and application have evolved significantly, expanding beyond the traditional concept of reasonable classification to encompass broader principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and substantive equality.
As India faces new challenges in the 21st century, from technological disruptions to evolving social norms, Article 14 will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping legal responses. The ongoing judicial discourse around Article 14 reflects a commitment to adapting this constitutional principle to address contemporary forms of discrimination and inequality.
Looking ahead, the key challenge lies in ensuring that the promise of equality enshrined in Article 14 is realized in practice, bridging the gap between constitutional ideals and social realities. This will require not only continued judicial innovation but also proactive legislative measures and policy initiatives that give effect to the spirit of Article 14.
As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, Article 14 remains a beacon of hope, guiding India towards a more just, equitable, and inclusive future. Its evolving interpretation and application will continue to shape the contours of Indian democracy, ensuring that the constitutional promise of equality remains relevant and effective in addressing the challenges of our times.
ReferencesΒ
-
The Constitution of India (Ministry of Law and Justice):
The Constitution of India -
Supreme Court Judgments (Supreme Court of India):
Supreme Court Judgments -
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) Case Summary:
E.P. Royappa Case Summary -
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) Case Summary:
Maneka Gandhi Case Summary -
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) Case Summary:
Shayara Bano Case Summary -
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) Case Summary:
Navtej Singh Johar Case Summary -
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) Case Summary:
Joseph Shine Case Summary
