Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Article 14

    Uploaded by

    akanksha dubey
    (1) Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. This includes both negative concept of equality (equal treatment) and positive concept (laws for equal treatment). (2) Originally, classification of groups was tested under the doctrine of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. However, in 1970 the Supreme Court established that equality is a dynamic concept, expanding Article 14 to also guarantee natural justice and prohibit arbitrary state action. (3) Several important court cases are mentioned that have further expanded the meaning of equality over time, such as ensuring equal pay and prohibiting discrimination based

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Article 14

    Uploaded by

    akanksha dubey
    27 views4 pages
    (1) Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. This includes both negative concept of equality (equal treatment) and positive concept (laws for equal treatment). (2) Originally, classification of groups was tested under the doctrine of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. However, in 1970 the Supreme Court established that equality is a dynamic concept, expanding Article 14 to also guarantee natural justice and prohibit arbitrary state action. (3) Several important court cases are mentioned that have further expanded the meaning of equality over time, such as ensuring equal pay and prohibiting discrimination based

    Original Title

    ARTICLE 14

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. This includes both negative concept of equality (equal treatment) and positive concept (laws for equal treatment). (2) Originally, classification of groups was tested under the doctrine of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. However, in 1970 the Supreme Court established that equality is a dynamic concept, expanding Article 14 to also guarantee natural justice and prohibit arbitrary state action. (3) Several important court cases are mentioned that have further expanded the meaning of equality over time, such as ensuring equal pay and prohibiting discrimination based

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    27 views4 pages

    Article 14

    Uploaded by

    akanksha dubey
    (1) Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. This includes both negative concept of equality (equal treatment) and positive concept (laws for equal treatment). (2) Originally, classification of groups was tested under the doctrine of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. However, in 1970 the Supreme Court established that equality is a dynamic concept, expanding Article 14 to also guarantee natural justice and prohibit arbitrary state action. (3) Several important court cases are mentioned that have further expanded the meaning of equality over time, such as ensuring equal pay and prohibiting discrimination based

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    ARTICLE - 14

    A.V. DICEY IN HIS BOOK"THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 1885" DEVLOPED THE CONCEPT OF
    "RULE OF LAW" .(ORIGINATOR WAS SIR EDWARD COKE)

    RULE OF LAW (DISCUSSED IN 2 PLACES IN PREAMBLE AND IN ARTICLE 14)- SUPREMACY OF LAW NOT
    GOVERNMENT.

    (ARTICLE 14 IS NOT ABSOLUTE ,EXCEPTION LIKE PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR IN ARTICLE 361 ,THEY ARE
    NOT NSWERABLE BEFORE ANY COURT IF THEY WORK REGARDING THERE OFFICE DUTIES .)

    ARTICLE 14 - STATE CANNOT DENY FOR EQUALITY BEFORE LAW AND EQUAL
    PROTECTION OF LAW WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA TO A PERSON.
    EXPRESSION -

    1. 14(1) -EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

    . (NEGATIVE CONCEPT) ENGLISH ORIGIN

    . PROHIBITS UNEQUAL TREATMENT

    . GENRIC

    NOTE- LADY JUSTICE IS BLINDFOLDED , SO EVERYONE IS EQUAL EVEM PRESIDENT.CLERK ETC


    TIME OF JUDGEMENTPOSITION, AUTHORITY,RANK HAVE NO WEIGHTAGE , EVERYONES IS AT THE SAME
    PEDISTIAL

    2. 14(2) - EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW (POSITIVE CONCEPT)FROM AMERICAN CONSTITUTION,


    AMERICAN CONCEPT . DEMANDS LAWS FOR EQUAL TREATMENTS(LIKES SHOULD BE TREATED
    ALIKE)

    .NO UNIVERSAL LAW - FOR EXAMPLE- Crime by an adult and by a minor.

    . USED IN SPECIFIC

    NOTE- FOR BETTER PUBLIC WELFARE CLASSIFICATION,DIFFERENTIATION IS MUST,RECOGNISE DIFFERENT


    FACTORS LIKE CASTE,GENDER,STATUS DIFFERENCE.
    THEN ONLY BETTER LAW WILL COME TO EXISTENCE..

    FOR PROTECTING THIS CLASSIFICATION FROM UNDUE ADVANTAGE , A TEST IS


    FORMALATED( DEVLOPED) , THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS IN THIS TEST IN (OLD DOCTRINE)
    1. INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA -INTELLIGENT REASON SHOULD BE THERE FOR CLASSIFICATION.

    2. RATIONAL NEXUS - PURPOSE OF DIFFERENTIATION OR CLASSIFICATIONAND THE REASON


    YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE..there should be a nexus(RELATION) in between
    they will check is there any connection/nexus towards the object sort to be achieved
    by the statute.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This became a old doctrine,in 1970 because it was said by supreme court that it feels like restrictive and negative approach to
    equality.
    Equality is a dynamic concept, there was new doctrine introduce BY SUPREME COURT because they thought
    needs will increase will time AND meaning of public welfare will change in E.P. ROYAPPA V. STATE OF TAMIL nadu
    EQUALITY IS A DYNAMIC CONCEPT , IT CANNOT BE CRIBBED,CABINED,OR CONFINED WITH
    TRADITIONAL LIMITS
    new doctrine9(this was dynamic and in activist in nature)- EQUALITY BEFORE LAW WILL NOT ONLY MEAN RULE OF LAW
    , BY EXPANDING SCOPE IT WAS SAID THAT, IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE NATURAL JUSTICE.
    THIS VIEW WAS ALSO ADDOPTED IN CASE -MANEKA GANDI V. UOI(THIS SAID THAT SOUL ACTION OF ARTICLE
    14 IS TO STRIKE OUT ARBITARINESS FROM STATE ACTION AND THIS WILL ENSURE FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY).
    IF ANY ACTION IS ARBITARY THEN THIS IS AGAINST EQUALITY NO MATTER IT QUALIFY THE TEST OR NOT..

    NEW DOCTRINE =OLD DOCTRINE + REASONABLENESS and targets


    arbitariness .
    Expansion of this concept is there in Golden triangle between article 14,19,21

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EQUALITY BEFORE LAW - available for any person(citizen+ non citizen)


    ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CITIZENS OF INDIA - 15,16,19,29 AND 30
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IMPORTANT CASES
    1.AIR INDIA V. NARGESH MEERZA(1981) - Court held that terminating the services of an air
    hosteess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to discrimination.

    2.RANDHIR SINGH V. UOI (1982) -Equal pay for equal work though not a fundamental right but
    clearly it is a constitutionsl goal under articles 14,16 and 39(c) of the constitution.

    3.D.S. NAKARA V. UOI(1983) - Classification was made between the pensioners who retired
    before a specific date and those who retired after that date . such classification was held
    irrational.

    4.MITHU V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1983) - Section 303 (provided for mandatory death penality for
    anyone who commits murder and is on life imprisonment),which the court declared arbitrary
    and not based on any rational principle.

    5.NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY V. UOI (2014) -Article 14 does not restrict the word
    'person' to males and females only,hijab/transgender's are also included in the definition of
    'person'.

    6.SHAYARA BANO V. UOI- The court held declared the muslim law practice of triple talaq as
    unconstitutional(arbitary and against the principle of equality)

    7.NAVTEJ SINGH V. UOI (2018) - LGBT individuals were legally allowed to engage in consensual
    intercourse. Section 377 of IPC was held to be violative of right to equality for same sex couples.
    In this one part of Section 377 was dicriminalise(removed).

    8.INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF KERALA (2018) - Supreme court


    declared unconstitutional the Sabrimala Temple's custom of probhiting women in their
    'menstruating years' (10 - 50 years of age) from entering the temple premises.

    9.CHIRANJIT LAL CHOWDHURI V. UOI(1950) (COMAPNY DEALS WITH ESSENTIAL ACCOMMODITIES)

    10.STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. ANWAR ALI SARKAR 1952 - The purpose of the act was to
    provide for the spediar trial of certain offences.(WEST BENGAL SPECIAL COURTS ACT,1850 -
    SECTION 5(1))
    This Act is voilative of article 14.

    11. lucknow devlopment authoruty v. a.k. gupta (1994)

    You might also like