Fundamental Rights-

Right to Equality, Prohibition of discrimination,

Right to Equality of Opportunity

Prepared by:
Dr. Daksha Sharma
Assistant Professor (Law)
School of Law, Bennett University
Times of India Group, Greater Noida, Delhi (NCR)
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• The right to equality provides
- Equal treatment of everyone before the law,
- Prevents discrimination on various grounds
- Treats everybody as equals in matters of
public employment, and
- Abolishes untouchability and titles.
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• The doctrine of equality before the law is a necessary
corollary of Rule of Law which pervades the Indian
Constitution.
• Equality before the law (Article 14)
- Article 14 treats all people the same in the eyes of the law.
- This provision states that all citizens will be treated equally
before the law. 
- The law of the country protects everybody equally and
treats people in the same manner under same
circumstances.
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• Prohibition of discrimination (Article 15)
- This article prohibits discrimination in any manner.
- No citizen shall, on grounds only of race, religion, caste,
place of birth, sex or any of them, be subject to any
liability, disability, restriction or condition with respect to:
– Access to public places
– Use of tanks, wells, ghats, etc. that are maintained by the State
or that are meant for the general public
– The article also mentions that special provision can be made
for women, children and the backward classes
notwithstanding this article.
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article
16)
- Article 16 provides equal employment opportunities in State
service for all citizens.
- No citizen shall be discriminated against in matters of public
employment or appointment on the grounds of race, religion,
caste, sex, place of birth, descent or residence.
- Exceptions to this can be made for providing special provisions
for the backward classes.
• Abolition of untouchability (Article 17)
- Article 17 prohibits the practice of untouchability.
- Untouchability is abolished in all forms.
- Any disability arising out of untouchability is made an offence.
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• Abolition of titles (Article 18)
- Article 18 abolishes titles.
- The State shall not confer any titles except
those which are academic or military titles.
- The article also prohibits citizens of India from
accepting any titles from a foreign State.
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• Art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, declares that all are equal before
the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of laws.
 Right to Equality (Art. 14 to 18)
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461

The principle of equality as basic to the

Constitution. This means that even a
constitutional amendment offending the right
to equality will be declared invalid. Neither
Parliament nor any State Legislature can
transgress the principle of equality.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Article 14
- Equality before Law: Negative Concept- No
special privilege in favour of anyone, that are
equally subject to the ordinary law of the land.
- Equal Protection of Laws: Positive Concept-
Application of the same laws alike and without
discrimination to all persons similarly situated.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Srinivas Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC
1004
“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.”
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Art. 14 forbids class legislation but permits
reasonable classification.
• Classification to be reasonable should fulfil 2 tests:
1. Not arbitrary, evasive or artificial and based on
intelligible differentia
2. Differentia adopted as the basis of classification
must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Onus: On the person to prove the infirmity.
• Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001
SC 2616
- Rule has been declared as being inconsistent
with Art. 14 as the classification made by the
rule was not founded on any intelligible
differentia having a reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Air India v Nargesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829
- The service rules forcing air hostesses to retire
on the grounds of marriage, first pregnancy or
35 years of age, whichever occurred earlier,
were held unconstitutional.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Stephens College v. The University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC
558
- Validity of preference given to Christian students in the
admission process. Here the Supreme Court held that
minority institution which is receiving aid from state funds
is entitled to grant preference or to reserve seats for the
students of its community.
- The Supreme Court held that differential treatment of
candidates in the admission programme does not violate
Article 14 of Indian Constitution and it is needed for the
minority section.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 SC
- The West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 was instituted to provide for
the speedier trial of certain offences.
- Section 3 of the Act empowered the State Government to constitute
special Courts and Section 5, whose constitutionality was impugned
allowed these Special Courts to try such offences according to the
directions of the State Government.
- No object for making the classification between different offences under
the Act.
- Held, the Act conferred arbitrary powers in the government to classify
offences or classes of offences at its pleasure.
- The necessity of a speedy trial was too vague and uncertain a criterion to
form the basis of a valid and reasonable classification. 
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a
single individual.
(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon
him who attacks it to show that there has been a class
transgression of the constitutional principles;
(c) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands
and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its
laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience
and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
(d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of
harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases
where the need is deemed to be the clearest;
(e) Matters of common knowledge, matters of
common respect, history of the times and every
state of facts shall be taken into consideration; and
(f) Good faith and knowledge of the existing
conditions on the part of a legislature are to be
presumed.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• National Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v. UOI, AIR
2014 SC 1863
- Legal recognition of persons who fall outside the
male/female gender binary, including persons who
identify as “third gender”.
- While drawing attention to the fact that transgender
person were subject to “extreme discrimination in all
spheres of society”, the Court held that the right to
equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) was framed
in gender-neutral terms (“all persons”).
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Harsh Mander v. UOI, 2018 Del HC
- Decriminalized begging on the ground of right to
equality under Article 14 by removing around 25
sections of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act,
1959 which criminalized different forms of
begging. 
- Held that begging is not any form of a disease
and this mindset has led to stigmatization and
ultimately towards criminalization in the society.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Shayara Bano v UOI, WP (C) 118/2016
- The practice of instantaneous triple talaq
[Talaq-ul-biddat] was unconstitutional. 
- The Bench observed that the fundamental
right to equality guaranteed under Article 14
of the Constitution, manifested within its fold,
equality of status.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of
Kerala, WP (C) 373/2006
- The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional
the Sabarimala Temple’s custom of prohibiting
women in their ‘menstruating years’ from
entering the temple premises.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Navtej Singh Jauhar v UOI, WP (C) 572/2016
- The Supreme Court unanimously struck down
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, to the
extent that it criminalized same-sex relations
between consenting adults.
- LGBT individuals are now legally allowed to
engage in consensual intercourse.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Joseph Shine v UOI, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676
- Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was
struck down, thereby decriminalizing adultery.
- Violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Held that the section is an archaic and
paternalistic law, which infringes upon a woman’s
autonomy and dignity.
- The bench overruled its judgments in Sowmithri
Vishnu, Vishnu Revathi, and Y Abdul Aziz.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Contentions of Petitioner
- The provision criminalizes adultery on classification based on sex
alone which has no rational nexus to object to being achieved. The
consent of the wife is immaterial. Hence violative of Article 14 of
the constitution.
- The provision says if the husband gives consent or connive then
adultery is not committed.
- Only men with the right to prosecute against adultery which is
violative of Article 15.
- The provision is unconstitutional as it undermines the dignity of a
woman by not respecting her sexual autonomy and self-
determination and is violative of Article 21.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Contention of Respondents
- Adultery is an offence which breaks the family
relations and deterrence should be there to
protect the institution of marriage.
- The discrimination by the provision is saved by
Article 15(3), which provides state right to
make special laws for women and children.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Issues raised
1. Whether the provision for adultery is arbitrary and
discriminatory under Article 14?
2. Whether the provision for adultery encourages the
stereotype of women being the property of men and
discriminates on gender basis under Article15?
3. Whether the dignity of a woman is compromised by denial
of her sexual autonomy and right to self-determination?
4. Whether criminalizing adultery is intrusion by law in the
private realm of an individual?
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Judgment
- Such classification is arbitrary and
discriminatory and has no relevance in present
times where women have their own identity
and stand equal to men in every aspect of life.
This provision clearly violates Article 14.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Administrative Discretion and Art. 14
- A Law conferring unguided and unrestricted
power on an authority is arbitrary and
discriminating.
- Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in administrative
action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment.
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Arbitrary State Action
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC
1325
“Wherever we find arbitrariness or
unreasonableness there is denial of rule of
law.”
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
- Right of Hearing- Audi Alteram Partem Rule-
applicable to quasi judicial bodies as well as
administrative order.
- Judicial Discretion- Discretion vested in a
judicial officer exercisable on the facts and
circumstances of each particular case may not
amount to a denial of equal protection unless “
there is shown to be present in it an element
of intentional and purposeful discrimination.”
 Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Recent Cases filed:
- Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking
Removal Of Anomalies To Ensure Uniform
Adoption And Guardianship Guidelines
- Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On
Students' Plea Against VTU Decision To Hold
Offline Exams
 Art. 15 (1) and (2)
No Discrimination on grounds of Religion etc.

• Art. 15 (1): Specifically bars the state from

discriminating against any citizen of India on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of
birth, or any of them.
 Art. 15 (1) and (2)
No Discrimination on grounds of Religion etc.

• Art. 15 (2): It prohibits subjection of a citizen to any

disability, liability, restriction or condition on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth with
regard to-
a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and
places of 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 general
public.
 Art. 15 (1) and (2)
No Discrimination on grounds of Religion etc.

• The word discrimination in Art. 15(1) involves

an element of unfavorable bias.
• To adjudge the validity of an Act under these
articles, a distinction is to be drawn between
the object underlying the impugned Act and
the mode and manner adopted therein to
achieve the object.
 Art. 15 (1) and (2)
No Discrimination on grounds of Religion etc.

• Validity of the Act has to be judged by the

method of its operation and its effect on
fundamental rights involved.
• Art. 15 is a facet of Art. 14.
• Art. 15 covers only citizens.
• Art. 15 and Personal Laws
 Art. 15 (1) and (2)
No Discrimination on grounds of Religion etc.

• T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983

AP 356
- S. 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
• Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh, AIR 1984
Del 66
- Delhi High Court upheld the validity of S.9,
HMA, 1955
 Art. 15 (1) and (2)
No Discrimination on grounds of Religion etc.

• Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar

- The SC upheld S. 9 to be valid vis-à-vis Art. 14
and Art. 21.
• S. 16, HMA, 1955- Legitimacy on children born
out of void marriage
 Art. 15 (3)
• Article 15 Clause (3), (4)and (5) states that the
legislature is free to formulate special provisions:
a) For women and children,
b) For the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
c) Make provision relating to their admission to
educational institutions including private educational
institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State,
other than the minority educational institutions.
 Art. 15 (3)

• Art. 15 (3) and 15 (4) constitute exceptions to

Arts. 15 (1) and 15 (2)
• Object of Art. 15 (3)- To strengthen and
improve the status of women.
• Wide enough to include employment.
 Art. 15 (3)

• Walter Alfred Baid v. Union of India, AIR 1976

Del 302
- Rule making male candidates ineligible for the
post of senior tutor in the school of nursing
was held to be violative of Art. 16 (2) and was
not saved by Art. 15 (3).
 Art. 15 (3)

• Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijay

Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 1648
The Supreme Court held that u/Art. 15 (3), the
State may fix a quota for appointment of
women in government services.
 Art. 15 (3)

• Special Provision
- It means the provisions by which the state
may make to improve women’s participation
in all activities under the supervision and
control of the state. It amounts to affirmative
action.
 Art. 15 (3)
• Similar provisions apply to children. The
provision of free education for children or
measure for prevention of their exploitation
would also not come within the inhibition of
Article 15 (1).
 Art. 15 (3)

• M.C. Sharma v. Punjab University, Chandigarh,

AIR 1997 P & H 87
- Held, discrimination can be made in f/o
women u/Art. 15 (3) if it is found that the
women are not equal with the men.
- Reservation, being made is to be tested on the
grounds of reasonableness.
 Art. 15 (4)

• 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 the Scheduled Tribes.
 Art. 15 (4)
• Clause (4) of Article 15 makes special provision for
the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for
the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and
such a provision cannot be challenged on the
ground of it being discriminatory.
 Art. 15 (4)

• This clause was inserted by way of First

Amendment Act of the Constitution in 1951.
• State of Madras v. Champkam Dorairajan AIR
1951 SC 226
• Jagwant Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1952 Bom. 461
 Art. 15 (4)

• Determination of ‘Socially and educationally

backward classes’.
• No criteria u/Art. 15(4), matter lies with the
state.
• Courts too can go into this question.
 Art. 15 (4)
• From various pronouncements, the definition of
backward classes emerge:
1. The backwardness envisaged by Art. 15 (4) is
both social and educational and not either social
or educational.
2. Poverty alone cannot be the test of
backwardness.
3. Backwardness should be comparable, though
not exactly similar to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
 Art. 15 (4)
4. Caste may be a relevant factor to define
backwardness but it cannot be the sole or the
dominant criterion.
5. Poverty, occupations, place of habitation, all
contribute to backwardness and such factors
cannot be ignored.
6. Backwardness may be defined without any
reference to caste. Art. 15 (4) does not speak of
caste but only speaks of classes.
 Art. 15 (4)

• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 469

- Reservation of seats for Backward Classes and
more Backward Classes, SCs (15%) and STs (3%).
- Held, the order was bad for the following reasons:
1. Solely based on caste.
2. The test adopted by the State to measure
educational backwardness was the basis of the
average of student- population in the last high
school classes of all high schools in the State.
 Art. 15 (4)
3. Art. 15 (4) does not envisage the classification
between ‘backward’ and ‘more backward classes’.
• Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823
- Held that a family whose income was less than Rs.
1,200 per year and which followed such occupation
as agriculture, petty business, inferior services,
crafts etc. would be treated as ‘backward’.
- Economic condition and profession were taken into
account.
 Art. 15 (4)
• S.V. Balaram v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
1972 SC 1375
- List prepared by the Backward Classes
Commission appointed by Andhra
Government was held valid as it was prepared
by applying several tests like general poverty,
occupations, caste and educational
backwardness.
 Art. 15 (4)
• Acquisition of the status of SC etc. by voluntary mobility into
these categories would play fraud on the Constitution and
would frustrate the constitutional policy u/Art. 15 (4) and
Art. 16 (4).
• Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors., 1996
- Held, that the persons who are recognized by the backward
communities as a member despite belonging to a forward
class may not be entitled to claim benefits of the backward
class for the very reason that they have not lived a life with
disadvantages and disabilities as the former and granting
them with such benefits would only lead to transgression of
the fundamental principles that our Constitution stands for.
 Art. 15 (4)
• A.S. Sailja v. kurnool medical college AIR 1986
AP 196
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp.
(3) SCC 217 [2]
- The policy of the reservation has to be
operated year wise and there cannot be any
such policy in perpetuity.
 Art. 15 (4)
• Quantum of Reservation
- The interests of the weaker sections of the
society need to be adjusted with the interests
of the society as a whole.
- Overall limit of 50% reservation is only for the
categories mentioned in Art. 15 (4), there
could be additional reservation for other
classes.
 Article 16
• The Constitution of India has given a wide
interpretation of 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. 
 Article 16
• Art. 16 (1): There shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating
to employment or appointment to any office
under the State.
• Art. 16 (2): 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 or, any
employment or office under the State.
 Article 16
• In K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR
1985 S.C. 1495, the Supreme Court has suggested
that:
- The reservations in favor of backward classes must
be based on the mean test.
- The policy of reservations should be reviewed every
five years or so and if a class has reached up to that
level where it does not need the reservation, its
name should be deleted from the list of backward
classes.
 Article 16
• Art. 16 (3): Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from
making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of
employment or appointment to an office under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State
or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that
State or Union territory prior to such employment or
appointment.
• Art. 16 (4): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for the reservation of appointments or
posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the
services under the State.
 Article 16
• Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC
477)
- Upheld Implementation of separate reservation for
other backward classes in central government jobs.
- Ordered to exclude Creamy layer of other backward
classes from enjoying reservation facilities.
- Ordered to restrict reservations within the 50% limit.
- Declared separate reservations for economically poor
among forward castes as invalid.
 Article 16
• The 124th constitution amendment providing a 10% quota for
“economically weaker sections” from the general category of the
population – primarily upper caste Hindus, but also religious
minorities – has already been challenged in the Supreme Court.
• The Government’s decision would appear to face two
insurmountable obstacles laid down by the Supreme Court itself
in its landmark 1993 judgment in Indra Sawhney vs Union of
India. These are:
- that the total number of reserved  seats/places/positions cannot
exceed 50% of what is available, and
- that under the constitutional scheme of reservation, economic
backwardness alone could not be a criterion.
 Article 16
• The power conferred by Clause (4) of Article
16 should also be exercised in a fair manner
and within reasonably limits – and what is
more reasonable than to say that reservation
under Clause (4) shall not exceed 50% of the
appointments or posts, barring certain extra-
ordinary situations as explained hereinafter.
 Article 16
• Devadasan v. Union of India, AIR 1964 S.C. 179
- In this case “carry forward rule” made by the
Government to regulate the appointment of persons of
backward classes in government services was involved.
- The Supreme Court struck down the “carry forward
rule” as unconstitutional on the ground that the power
vested in the government cannot be so exercised so as
to deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters
of public employment for the members of classes
other than backward classes.
 Article 16
- In this case, the reservation of posts to the members
of backward classes had exceeded 50% and had gone
up to 68% due to “carry forward rule.”
- Held that each year of recruitment must be
considered by itself and the reservation for each year
should not be excessive so as to create monopoly or
interfere unduly with the legitimate claims of the
rest of the society. So the court held that reservation
should be less than 50%, but how much less than
50% should depend upon the prevailing situations.
 Article 16
• Art. 16 (4A): Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from making Provision for
reservation in matters of promotion, with
consequential seniority, to any class or classes
of posts in the services under the State in
favor of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the
State, are not adequately represented in the
services under the State.
 Article 16
• Creamy Layer
- In the Mandal Case, the Supreme Court has
laid down that the socially advanced members
of a backward class- the creamy layer has to
be excluded from the backward class and the
benefits u/Art. 16 (4) can be given to the class
which remains after the exclusion of the
‘creamy layer’.
 Article 16
• Ashok Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, AIR
1996 SC 75
- Held that the criteria laid down by the States
of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for identifying the
creamy layer on the face of it is arbitrary and
has to be rejected.
 Article 16
• Art. 16 (4): A Transitory Provision
- Preferential Treatment
- Departure from the principle of equality of
opportunity
• Reservation in Judicial Services
- State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, AIR 2000 SC
1296
 Article 16
• Art. 16 (4 B)
- Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are
reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with
any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or
clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up
in any succeeding year or years and such class of
vacancies shall not be considered together with the
vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for
determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on
total number of vacancies of that year.
 Article 16
• The Constitution (81st Amendment) Act, 2000
• Carried forward vacancies are to be treated as
distinct and separate from the current
vacancies during the year.
• 50 % rule to be applied on the backlog
vacancies and not to the posts of backlog of
reserved vacancies.
 Article 17
• Abolishes untouchabillity.
• Make it as an offence punishable under law.
• Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955
• 1976- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
• Not clear whether Art. 17 would prohibit
outsting of a person of a Higher caste from his
caste.
 Article 17
• The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- To prevent the commission of atrocities
against the members of SCs and STs;
- To provide for setting up of special courts for
the trial of offences under the Act; and
- To provide relief and rehabilitation of victims
of such offences.
 Article 17
• Art. 15 (2) and eradication of untouchability
• DPSPs : Art. 38 to 46 obligate the state to
render socio- economic and political justice to
dalits and improve their quality of life.
 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.
THANK YOU