← The hardest concepts in Indian law
In one breath
Article 14 forbids the State from denying any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws, and it allows a law to treat groups differently only if the classification is reasonable. Since the 1970s the Supreme Court has also held that arbitrary State action offends Article 14, even where no group is singled out.
The picture
The sorting table
A post office sorts letters into bags by district. Nobody objects that letters for different districts are treated differently, because the sorting follows the address, which has an obvious connection with delivery. If a clerk instead put letters in bags according to the colour of the stamp, or tossed some into a bin on a whim, the senders would have a complaint.
Article 14 asks the same two questions of the State. The old test of reasonable classification asks whether the difference between the groups is intelligible and has a rational connection with the purpose of the law. The newer test, begun in E P Royappa and developed in Maneka Gandhi, asks whether the action is arbitrary, because arbitrariness is the opposite of equality: it belongs to the rule of law of a different kind, one of will, not of reason.
Where the picture stops working
The post office has one clear purpose, delivery, whereas a statute often has several, and the Court must choose which to measure the sorting against. The metaphor also suggests that the two tests are separate. In practice they overlap, and a classification with no rational connection is often called arbitrary as well. Whether arbitrariness may be used to strike down a law, not only an executive act, has been argued in later decisions.
How it really works
- 1Identify who is treated differently and by whom. Article 14 binds the State, and it applies to any person, citizen or not.
- 2Ask whether the law or order creates a classification based on an intelligible differentia that separates those included from those left out.
- 3Ask whether that differentia has a rational relation to the object the law seeks to achieve (State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar; Ram Krishna Dalmia).
- 4Even without a classification, ask whether the action is arbitrary, unreasoned or capricious. If so, it breaches Article 14.
- 5If the State shows a reasonable classification, or a reasoned decision, the challenge fails, and the Court does not substitute its view on how well the law is drafted.
Why people get it wrong
- Reading equality as identical treatment. The Article permits different treatment of people who are differently situated.
- Treating the two tests as unrelated. The same facts can be argued under both, and the claim of arbitrariness is often the stronger one.
- Forgetting that the guarantee applies to persons, not only citizens. Article 15 and Article 16 are the provisions that are limited to citizens.
- Assuming a law is valid because the classification exists. The classification must also be linked to the object of the law.
A worked example
The facts are invented
A State government announces that scholarships will be given only to students whose family name begins with the letters A to M, because the budget is limited. A student whose name begins with P challenges the scheme.
The Court first asks about classification. Name initial is a clear dividing line, but it has no rational link with the object of a scholarship scheme, which is presumably to help students who need help or deserve it. The scheme therefore fails the test of reasonable classification. It also fails as arbitrary, since nothing in the object explains why the alphabet should decide. If the same scheme limited the scholarships to students from families below an income level, the classification would be related to the object and would stand.
Try it
A government order cancels a licence without giving any reason, while other licences in the same position are left alone. What is the strongest argument under Article 14?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
- Ram Krishna Dalmia v Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
- E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3
- Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
Where to go next
Courses
Dictionary
More hard concepts in India law
- The basic structure doctrine (Constitutional law)
- The golden triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21 (Constitutional law)
- Pith and substance and the three lists (Constitutional law)
- Eclipse, severability and Article 13 (Constitutional law)
- Reasonable restrictions on free speech (Constitutional law)
- Public interest litigation and standing (Constitutional law)
- Essential religious practices under Articles 25 and 26 (Constitutional law)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. India has a written Constitution, central and State legislation, and a unified court system under the Supreme Court. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions, with the citations as they are usually given in the Supreme Court Cases and All India Reporter series. The criminal codes and the law of evidence were replaced by new statutes, so the pages on criminal law state the doctrine and the decisions and mostly leave out section numbers; check the current text of any statute you rely on. Personal laws differ by community. This is a study aid, not legal advice, and an Indian advocate should check anything you need to rely on.