100 Confusing facts and notes related to Article 14: Right to Equality

by

Here’s a list of 100 confusing facts and notes related to Article 14: Right to Equality that are often asked or can confuse students in the UPSC CSE Exam. These points are designed to test your conceptual clarity and application of the principle of equality in various contexts.

1-10: Basic Concepts of Article 14

  1. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
  2. Equality before the law is a negative concept (no one is above the law), while equal protection of the laws is a positive concept (state must ensure equality).
  3. Article 14 applies to all persons, not just citizens (includes foreigners, corporations, and legal entities).
  4. The rule of law is the foundation of Article 14, as propounded by A.V. Dicey.
  5. Article 14 permits reasonable classification but prohibits class legislation.
  6. Class legislation is arbitrary and unreasonable, while reasonable classification is based on intelligible differentia.
  7. Article 14 is not an absolute right; it is subject to reasonable restrictions.
  8. The Doctrine of Reasonable Classification was established in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952).
  9. Article 14 applies to both substantive and procedural laws.
  10. The Doctrine of Arbitrariness was introduced in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974).

11-20: Doctrine of Reasonable Classification

  1. Intelligible Differentia: The classification must be based on a clear and rational distinction.
  2. Rational Nexus: The classification must have a reasonable connection with the objective of the law.
  3. Test of Reasonable Classification is applied to determine if a law violates Article 14.
  4. Special Courts can be created under Article 14 if they meet the test of reasonable classification.
  5. Reservation policies are valid under Article 14 if they meet the criteria of reasonable classification.
  6. Gender-based classification (e.g., women-only policies) is valid under Article 14.
  7. Economic criteria can be a valid basis for classification (e.g., EWS reservation).
  8. Geographical classification is permissible (e.g., special laws for hill areas).
  9. Temporary laws can be valid under Article 14 if they meet the test of reasonable classification.
  10. Age-based classification (e.g., retirement age) is valid under Article 14.

21-30: Doctrine of Arbitrariness

  1. Arbitrariness violates Article 14, as established in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974).
  2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the scope of Article 14 to include fairness and non-arbitrariness.
  3. Administrative actions must also comply with Article 14 and cannot be arbitrary.
  4. Discretionary powers of the executive must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.
  5. Article 14 is violated if a law or action is manifestly arbitrary.
  6. Arbitrary laws are those that lack a rational basis or are discriminatory.
  7. Article 14 applies to judicial decisions as well; courts cannot act arbitrarily.
  8. Article 14 is a check on the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
  9. Article 14 is not violated if a law applies uniformly to a class of persons.
  10. Article 14 is violated if a law is discriminatory in its application.

31-40: Equality in Special Contexts

  1. Reservation is not a violation of Article 14 but an exception to it.
  2. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) allow for reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
  3. Creamy Layer exclusion is valid under Article 14 to ensure equality.
  4. Economic Reservation (103rd Amendment) is valid under Article 14.
  5. Private entities are not directly bound by Article 14, but state actions regulating them are.
  6. Article 14 applies to public sector undertakings (PSUs).
  7. Article 14 applies to statutory bodies and local authorities.
  8. Article 14 does not apply to private contracts unless state action is involved.
  9. Article 14 is violated if a law discriminates between similarly situated persons.
  10. Article 14 is not violated if a law discriminates between differently situated persons.

41-50: Landmark Judgments on Article 14

  1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974): Introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness.
  2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 14 to include fairness.
  3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs and introduced the Creamy Layer concept.
  4. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): Established the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification.
  5. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India (1950): Upheld the validity of laws applying to a single individual if reasonable.
  6. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979): Applied Article 14 to state actions in public functions.
  7. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981): Laid down the test for determining if a body is an instrumentality of the state.
  8. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Struck down Section 377 IPC, emphasizing equality and non-arbitrariness.
  9. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Declared triple talaq unconstitutional under Article 14.
  10. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): Allowed women entry into Sabarimala Temple, upholding equality.

51-60: Exceptions to Article 14

  1. Article 31C: Laws implementing DPSPs under Article 39(b) and (c) are immune from Article 14 challenges.
  2. Article 359: During a national emergency, Article 14 can be suspended.
  3. Article 361: The President and Governors enjoy immunity from legal proceedings.
  4. Diplomatic immunity is an exception to Article 14.
  5. Armed Forces have special laws that may not comply with Article 14.
  6. Article 142: The Supreme Court can pass any order to do complete justice, even if it violates Article 14.
  7. Article 105/194: Parliamentarians and legislators enjoy immunity for speeches and votes.
  8. Article 371: Special provisions for certain states may override Article 14.
  9. Article 14 does not apply to international treaties.
  10. Article 14 does not apply to private discrimination unless state action is involved.

61-70: Confusing Scenarios

  1. Can a law apply to only one person? Yes, if it meets the test of reasonable classification.
  2. Is positive discrimination (affirmative action) a violation of Article 14? No.
  3. Can a law discriminate based on caste? Yes, if it is for the benefit of backward classes.
  4. Can a law discriminate based on religion? Yes, if it is for social reform (e.g., banning triple talaq).
  5. Can a law discriminate based on gender? Yes, if it is for the benefit of women.
  6. Can a law discriminate based on economic status? Yes, if it is for the benefit of the poor.
  7. Can a law discriminate based on geography? Yes, if it is for the benefit of a specific region.
  8. Can a law discriminate based on age? Yes, if it is for the benefit of a specific age group.
  9. Can a law discriminate based on occupation? Yes, if it is for the benefit of a specific profession.
  10. Can a law discriminate based on education? Yes, if it is for the benefit of a specific group.

71-80: Application of Article 14

  1. Article 14 applies to taxation laws.
  2. Article 14 applies to criminal laws.
  3. Article 14 applies to civil laws.
  4. Article 14 applies to administrative laws.
  5. Article 14 applies to constitutional amendments.
  6. Article 14 applies to judicial appointments.
  7. Article 14 applies to election laws.
  8. Article 14 applies to labor laws.
  9. Article 14 applies to environmental laws.
  10. Article 14 applies to education laws.

81-90: Comparative Analysis

  1. Article 14 is similar to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
  2. Article 14 is broader than the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
  3. Article 14 is narrower than the Equality Clause of the South African Constitution.
  4. Article 14 is similar to the Equality Before the Law principle in the UK.
  5. Article 14 is influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  6. Article 14 is more expansive than the Equality Clause of the Canadian Charter.
  7. Article 14 is narrower than the Equality Clause of the German Basic Law.
  8. Article 14 is similar to the Equality Clause of the Australian Constitution.
  9. Article 14 is broader than the Equality Clause of the Japanese Constitution.
  10. Article 14 is narrower than the Equality Clause of the French Constitution.

91-100: Miscellaneous Confusing Facts

  1. Article 14 is not enforceable against private individuals.
  2. Article 14 is enforceable against state actions.
  3. Article 14 is a fundamental right.
  4. Article 14 is a justiciable right.
  5. Article 14 is a negative right.
  6. Article 14 is a positive right.
  7. Article 14 is a procedural right.
  8. Article 14 is a substantive right.
  9. Article 14 is a civil right.
  10. Article 14 is a political right.

These points cover the conceptual, judicial, and practical aspects of Article 14, which are crucial for the UPSC CSE Exam. Make sure to understand the landmark judgments and their implications, as they are frequently asked in both Prelims and Mains.

Leave a Comment