CONCLUSION-

Thanks to the Constitution's drafters for crafting it in such a way that it

neither imposes any required provisions for citizens' different rights nor exempts
any citizen from certain fundamental responsibilities that must be fulfilled by all
citizens of the country. It has also conducted extensive research into India's
socioeconomic situation to ensure that no rights or obligations are overlooked.
Apart from certain fundamental rights, the Constitution also grants citizens
certain other rights and obligations, which are contained in Part IV of the
Constitution, titled "Directive Principles of State Policy." Such clauses are based
on the idea that each individual's rights evolve over time, and that such rights
cannot be deemed basic but must be enforced. One of our Constitution's strengths is
that it neither prohibits a person from defending his fundamental rights, nor does
it allow complete freedom to a person in such a way that he exploits or breaches
those rights against society. Perhaps this characteristic of our Constitution
distinguishes it from the rest of the world's major constitutions.

The interpretation of constitutional provisions has seen a new dimension

since the Maneka Gandhi case which has led the Indian courts to deliver judgments
in accordance with the rule of law and to safeguard basic fundamental rights of the
citizens. The aim is that there doesn’t arise any violation to provisions laid down
in the Indian constitution. In that context, the ‘Golden Triangle’ in the Indian
Constitution is of significant importance to safeguard citizens’ basic human
rights. As soon as the Judiciary realized that right to equality, right to freedom
and right to life and personal liberty is the essential rights of the citizens,
which should not be taken away in any scenario, the trinity of Article 14, 19, and
21 was formed.
It is to note that the scope of Article 14, 19, and 21 was first
challenged in the case of Bacchan Singh vs The State of Punjab[13], later on in
Aruna Shanbaug case challenging the constitutional validity of passive Euthanasia,
and in the landmark Sabrimala Judgment. While deciding these cases, the Apex Court
kept in mind the applicability of the Golden Triangle and its importance that no
law can be passed which will be violating the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/golden-triangle-indian-constitution/
https://www.legalbites.in/golden-triangle-in-the-indian-constitution/

It relates to Article-14, A Fundamental right of our Indian Constitution.

Right To Equality- A Fundamental Right
Abstract:
The purpose of this research is to identify the general principle of “right to
equality” the word “Right to equality” need no explanation because it tell its
meaning itself. and it is one the our fundamental right. But there are some hidden
points which are needed to explain & this research project highlights those points
& exception, which are admissible by our Indian constitution. it also helps to know
why discrimination accepted under constitution law of India?

Right to equality given under article 14 of Indian law. it is one of the

fundamental right. It ensure the guarantees to every person the right to equality
before law & equal protection of the laws .it is not only right of Indian citizens
but also right of non-citizens .article 14 says “The state shall of India.” article
14 define no one is above the law. All are equal in eye of law.
1.1 Equality before law
“The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law.

1.2 Meaning of right to equality

This means that every person, who lives within territory of India, has the equal
right before the law. the meaning of this all are equal in same line. No
discrimination based on religion ,race, caste, sex,and place of birth. its mean
that all will be treated as equality among equal .and there will be no
discrimination based on lower or higher class.
Article-14 Of Constitution Of India
The state not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within The territory of India. protection prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, Caste, sex, or place of birth. Prof. Dicey, explaining
the concept of legal equality as it operated in England, said: “with us every
official, from the prime minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is
under the same responsibility for every act done without any legal justification as
any other citizen.”

The phase “ equality to the law “ find a place in all written constitutions that
guarantees fundamental rights. “All citizens irrespective of birth, religion, sex,
or race are equal before law ; that is to say, there Shall not be any arbitrary
discrimination between one citizen or class of citizens and another.” “All citizens
shall, as human persons he held equal before law.” “All inhabitants of the republic
are assured equality before the laws.”

Pantanjali Sastri, c.j., has expressed that the second expression is corollary of
the first and it is difficult to imaging a situation in which the violation of laws
will not be the violation of equality before laws thus, in substance the two
expression mean one and same thing.

According to Dr. Jennings said that: “Equality before the law means that equality
among equals the law should be equal for all. And should be equally administered,
that like should treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to prosecute and
prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all citizens of full age
and understanding without distinctions of race, religion, wealth, social status or
political influence.”
Equal Protection Of Law
“Equal protection of law” has been given in article 14 of our Indian constitution
which has been taken from section 1 of the 14th amendment act of the constitution
of the united state.

Meaning of equal protection of law: here, it means that each person within the
territory of India will get equal Protection of laws.

In Stephen’s college v. university of Delhiunder The court held that the expression
“Equal protection of the laws is now being read as a positive Obligation on the
state to ensure equal protection of laws by bringing in necessary social and
economic changes so that everyone may enjoy equal protection of the laws and nobody
is denied such protection. If the state leaves the existing inequalities untouched
laws d by its laws, it fails in its duty of providing equal protection of its laws
to all persons. State will provide equal protection to all the people of India who
are citizen of India and as well as non citizen of India.
Exceptions To Rule Of Law
In the case of Indra Sawhney the right to equality is also recognized as one of
basic features of Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all person and is not
limited to citizens. A corporation, which is a juristic person, is also entailed to
the benefit of this article. This concept implied equality for equals and aims at
striking down hostile discrimination or oppression of inequality. In the case of
Ramesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1978 SC 327 It is to be noted that aim of both
the concept, ‘Equality before law’ and ‘ Equal protection of the law’ is the equal
Justice.

Underlying principle:-
The Principle of equality is not the uniformity of treatment to all in all respects
it only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both
in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws. Equal law should
be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination
between one person and another.
Rule of Law
The rule of law embodied in Article 14 is the “ Basic feature” of the Indian
constitution. Hence it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the constitution
under article 368 of the constitution.

Meaning of rule of Law

The Rule of law has been given by prof. Dicey the expression the guarantee of
equality before the law. It means that no man is above the law, all are equal in
eye of law. The concept of rule of law come from magnacarta.its means that law is
equal for all in same line. Because state have no religion all are equal in same
line. And uniformity will be applied for all. Every organ of the state under the
constitution of India is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. Absence of
arbitrary power has been held to be the first essential of rule of law. The rule of
law requires that the discretion conferred upon executive authorities must be
contained within clearly define limits. The rule of law permeates the entire
fabrics of the constitution of India and it forms one of its basic features.

Article 361 of Indian constitution Law

The President, or the governor or rajpramukh of a state, shall not be answerable to
any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office
or for any act done or purporting to be done by him In the exercise and performance
of those power and duties. Provided that the conduct of the president may be
brought under review

361. Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs.—

1) The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable
to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his
office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and
performance of those powers and duties:

Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any
court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for
the investigation of a charge under article 61: Provided further that nothing in
this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring
appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a
State.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the

President, or the Governor of a State, in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of
a State, shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the
Governor of a State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in
respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity,
whether before or after he entered upon his office as President, or as Governor of
such State, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has
been delivered to the President or the Governor, as the case may be, or left at his
office stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action therefor, the
name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are
to be instituted and the relief which he claims.

In Srinivas Theatre v. state of T.N., Reddy, J., has noted that equality before law
is a dynamic concept having many facets. one of them there is that there shall be
no privileged person of class and name shall be above state law. A fact there of is
the obligation upon the state to bring about, through the machinery of law, a more
equal society envisaged by the preamble and part ivth ( directive principles of
state policy ) of the Indian constitution.
Permination & Prohibition Of Article 14
Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation the equal
protection of law guaranteed by article 14 does not mean that all laws must be
general in character. It does not mean that the same laws should apply to all
persons. It does not mean that every law must have universal application for, all
person are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. The
varying need of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. From
the very nature of society there should be different places and the legislature
controls the policy and enacts laws in the best interest of the safety and security
of the state. In fact, identical amount to unequal circumstances would amount to
inequality. Thus, a reasonable classification is permitted for the develop society.
article is forbids is class-legislation but it does not forbids reasonable
classification. The classification, however, must not be “Arbitrary, artificial or
evasive” but must be based on some real and substantial Distinction bearing a just
and reasonable relation to the object sought be achieved by the legislation.Article
14 implied where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But
where equals and unequal are treated differently, article 14 does not apply class
legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular
privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of
persons, all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted that
between whom and the persons, not so favored no reasonable distinction or
substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the
exclusion of the other from such privilege.

Special provision for women and Children and SC,ST & backward classes :
Article 14 of Indian constitution law says that all are equal in the eye of law. No
one can prevent the state from making any special provisions for women and
children. For a examples, special seating arrangement for women in buses, trains,
metros trains is not unconstitutional. It was held by court that “reservation of
some seats for women in college.”

According to section 497 of Indian penal code, audultery is consider as offence

when it committed by men , not consider offence if committed by women thus women
cannot be Prosecuted for abetters. It is clear that it makes special provision for
women and which is valid Under constitution law article 15(3). Section 437 of
cr.p.c., 1973 restricts the release of an accused person a capital offence on Bail
except women, children under age of 16 years or ill or infirm persons. in Choki v.
State of Rajasthan, the court has held that it valid on the grounds make special
Provision for women and therefore, it is protected under article. Article 15(4) has
been inserted by the constitution ( first amendment ) Act, 1951. This amendment has
been changed in the supreme court case state of Madras v. champakam dorairajan. In
this case, the reservation of seats for the admission to state medical and
engineering colleges was made on the ground of caste and religion. The court said
that it unconstitutional on the ground that it was based on communal matter.
Article 15(4) was interested in the Indian constitution law after the amendment.
the aim to empower the government to make special provisions for the betterment of
educationally and socially backward classes of citizen of India and for the
Scheduled tribes and scheduled castes. State has made many special provision for
the weaker sections such as ST,SC and educationally and socially backward classes
of citizens of India., Meaning of “ Scheduled caste” means such castes, race, or
tribes or parts of or groups within Such castes, races or tribes as are deemed
under article 341 to be scheduled castes for the purposes of this
constitution.article 341(1) provide additional protection to the members of the
scheduled castes having regard to the social, economical, educational, backwardness
from which they suffer because of their caste.
New Concept Of Equality For The Protection Of People Of India
In the case of the Air India v. Nargesh Meerza Regulation 46 of Indian Airlines
regulations provides an air Hostess will be retire from the service upon attaining
the age of 35 years or on marriage within 4 years of Service or on first pregnancy,
whoever found earlier but regulation 47 of the regulation act the managing director
had the discretion extend the age of retirement one year at a time beyond the age
of retirement up to the age of 45 years at his option if an air hostess was found
medically fit .it was held by the court that an air hostess on the ground of
pregency was unreasonable and arbitrary, it was the violation of article 14 under
constitution law of India. The regulation did not restrict marriage after four
years and if an air hostess after having fulfilled the condition became pregnant,
there was no ground why first pregnancy should stand in the way of her running
service. of the court said that the termination of service on pregnancy was
manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary on the basis of this it was violation of
article 14 of Indian constitution.

In John Vallamattom v. union of India, section 118 of the Indian succession Act,
1925 court invalidated which prohibited the right of a Christian to make valid will
for a religious or charitable purpose only if he made it at least 12 months before
his death. The court occurred the prescription of time and the application of the
provision only to Christian artificial having no nexus with the object of law. In
P. Rajendan v. state of Madras, court said that there was district wise
distribution of seats in state medical colleges on the ground of proportion of
population of a district to the total population of the state. classification will
be valid under article 14, there must be a relation between the classification and
the object sought to be achieved. Any one scheme of admission rules should be
devised so as to select the best available talent for admission to medical college
in the state. in reality discriminatory as a high qualified candidate from one
district may be rejected while a less qualified candidate from another district may
be admitted.

In D.S Nakara v. union of India, in this case supreme court said that Rule 34 of
the central services( pension) rules, 1972 as unconstitutional on the ground that
the classification made by it between pensioners retiring before a certain date and
retiring after that date was not depend upon the any rational principal it was
arbitrary and the infringement of article of article 14 of Indian constitution law.

Conclusion
Keeping in view of above mentioned statements said by the different courts, it is
clear that Article 14 gives the ensurity of equal rights without discrimination. It
says equal everyone is Equal in eye of law. Whether he belongs to different race,
religion, social status or wealth.

As Dr. Jennings rightly said: “equality before the law means that among equals the
law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated
alike. The right to sue and be sued to prosecute and prosecuted for the same kind
of action should be same for all citizens of full age and understanding without
distinctions of race, religion, wealth, social status or political influence.”
Right to equality is a one of the most important part of our Indian constitution,
which gives strengthen to all those people who belongs to Indian nationality. It is
necessity of the upcoming generation to secure their right & change our developing
India in to developed India.
********************
About the author: Mrs. Uma Pal - Asst. Professor, NIMT Vidhi Evam Kanun Sansthan,
Greater Noida, India

# Article 14 of constitution of india,1949

# Dicey- law of the constitution, co edn-p.193.
# U.S.A- section 1of 14th amendment says.”no state shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.”
# Burma-section 13
# Eire- section 40(1)
# Chile-Article 10
# Jennings-Law of the constitution, P.49 (3rd ed.).
# (1992) 1ssc,558: AIR 1992, sc 1632
# Indra sawhney v. union of India, ( 200)1 scc 168: AIR 2000 sc 498.
# Charanjit lal chowdhury v. union of India, AIR 1951 sc 41.
# Sheo shanker v. M.P state of government, AIR nag. 58.
# State of west Bengal v. Anwar ali sarkar, AIR 1952 sc 75.
# Indira Nehru Gandhi v. raj Narain, AIR 1975 sc 2299.
# A.K Kraipak v. union of India, (1971)1 scc 457
# S.G Jaisinghani v. union of India, AIR 1967 sc 1427
# Openion of justice Bhagwati in bachan singh v. state of Punjab, AIR 1982 sc 1325.
# Article 361 of Indian constitution law.
# ( 1992 ) 1 SCC 645: AIR 1992 SC 999.
# Chiranjit lal v. union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
# Abdul Rehman v. Pinto, AIR 1951 Hyd 11.
# R.K . Garg v. union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138.
# Monoponies co.v. city of los angles, 33 cal app. 675
# Dattatarya v. state, AIR 1953 Bom. 311
# Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. state of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 321.
# AIR 1957 Raj. 10
# AIR 1951 SC 226.
# Article 366 ( 24) .
# Bhaiyalal v. Harikrishen singh, AIR 1965 SC 1557,1560: (1965) 2SCR 877.
# AIR 1981 SC 1829.
# ( 2003 ) 6 SCC 611
# Peeria karuppan v. state of T.N., ( 1971 ) 1SCC 38: AIR 1971 SC 2085.
# AIR 1983 SC 130
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1688/Right-To-Equality--A-Fundamental-
Right.html

This case is a landmark judgement which played the most significant role towards
the transformation of the judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India
so as to imply many more fundamental rights from article 21.

This case is always read and linked with

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
case, because this case revolves around the concept of“personal liberty” which
first came up for consideration in the
A.K. Gopalan’s case.

JUDGES INVOLVED IN THE CASE-

This case was decided by a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1978.

The judges involved in the case were-

M.H. Beg, C.J.
P.N. Bhagwati.
Y.V. Chandrachud.
V.R. Krishna Iyer.
N.L. Untwalia.
P.S. Kai asam.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali.
FACTS OF THE CASE–

The factual summary of this case is as follows-

Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The
regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to
Maneka Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)
(c)of the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the
letter.
Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New
Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However,
the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such
reason in the interest of general public.
Later, a writ petitionwas filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the
Constitution in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the government of India
as violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
ISSUES OF THE CASE–

The main issues of this case were as follows-

Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before
depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.
Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a)
and 21of the constitution.
Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of
the principle of natural justice.
J
UDGEMNT OF TEH CASE
–

To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorises the
passport authority to impound a passport “in the interest of the general public”,
it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and
undefined power on the passport authority.
Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide
for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.
Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since it does not
prescribe ‘procedure’ within the meaning of that article and the procedure
practiced is worst.
Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits
restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though
such restrictions cannot be imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).
A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.
One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter
connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which
prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill
the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.

It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the
country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to
restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.