Article 14 – Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws
Article 14 states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. This applies to all persons, citizens and foreigners alike, including legal persons such as companies and registered societies.
Equality before law is of British origin and is a negative concept, it means no special privileges exist for anyone, all persons are equally subject to the ordinary law, and no one, however powerful, is above the law.
Equal protection of laws is drawn from the American Constitution and is a positive concept, it means equal treatment under equal circumstances, and that people similarly situated must be treated alike.
Rule of Law and Article 14
“Equality before law” reflects the concept of Rule of Law, propounded by British jurist A.V. Dicey, which has three elements: absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and the primacy of individual rights (rights arising from court decisions rather than a written constitution).
Only the first two elements apply fully in India, since in India, the Constitution itself is the source of individual rights, not judicial decisions.
The Supreme Court has held that the Rule of Law is part of the Constitution’s “basic structure,” and therefore cannot be removed, even through an amendment.
Exceptions to Equality
- Article 361 grants immunity to the President and Governors, they are not answerable to any court for official acts, and face no criminal or arrest proceedings during their term of office; civil proceedings over personal acts require two months’ prior notice.
- Article 361-A protects the publication of a true report of parliamentary or state legislature proceedings from legal action.
- Articles 105 and 194 protect MPs and MLAs from legal action over anything said or any vote given inside Parliament or a state legislature.
- Article 31-C, added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, shields laws made to implement the Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged under Article 14, summed up in the Court’s own words: “where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out.”
