Article 14: Equality Before Law, Classification and Arbitrariness

Read this in Hindi: हिंदी में पढ़ें

Article 14 of the Constitution of India bars the State from denying to any person “equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Courts test State action under Article 14 in two ways: the reasonable classification test (intelligible differentia plus rational nexus) and the arbitrariness doctrine, which strikes down action or law that is arbitrary, and since Shayara Bano (2017) legislation that is manifestly arbitrary.

What Article 14 says

Article 14 opens the group of equality rights in Part III (Articles 14 to 18). It contains two phrases that are usually read together but have different roots:

• Equality before the law: drawn from the English idea of the rule of law associated with A.V. Dicey. It is a negative concept: no person is above the law, and no one enjoys special privileges before the ordinary courts.
• Equal protection of the laws: drawn from the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. It is a positive concept: people in similar circumstances must be treated alike, both in the privileges given and the liabilities imposed.

Like Article 21, Article 14 uses the word “person”. It therefore protects citizens and non-citizens, and natural persons as well as legal persons such as companies.

Equality does not mean identical treatment

Treating unequals equally can itself be unjust. A tax law that charged a daily wage earner and a large corporation at the same rate would be formally equal but unfair. So Article 14 forbids class legislation (picking out a person or group for favour or hostility without reason) but permits reasonable classification for legitimate purposes.

The reasonable classification test

The classic formulation comes from Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958). A classification is valid only if it satisfies two conditions:

1. Intelligible differentia: the classification must rest on a clear, understandable difference that separates the persons or things grouped together from those left out.
2. Rational nexus: that difference must have a reasonable connection with the object the law seeks to achieve.

A simple example: a law giving extra time in exams to candidates with visual disability separates them by a clear difference (visual disability), and the difference is directly linked to the object (a fair chance to write the paper). Both conditions are met.

Anwar Ali Sarkar: classification without guidance fails

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the West Bengal Special Courts Act allowed the State government to send any “cases” or “offences” to special courts with a procedure less favourable to the accused. The law laid down no policy or standard for choosing which cases would go there. The Supreme Court held this violated Article 14, because it left room for picking and choosing at the government’s pleasure.

The arbitrariness doctrine

The classification test looks at how a law groups people. But some State action is unfair even when no group is involved, for example an arbitrary transfer of one officer. To deal with this, the Supreme Court developed a second, broader test.

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

Justice P.N. Bhagwati, writing for himself and two other judges, described equality as a dynamic concept that cannot be confined within traditional limits. He reasoned that an arbitrary act is by its nature unequal, so arbitrariness itself violates Article 14. This became known as the “new doctrine” of equality.

Maneka Gandhi and later cases

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court linked Articles 14, 19 and 21 and held that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair and not arbitrary. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), the Court applied the arbitrariness test to State action by “authorities” under Article 12, holding that arbitrary action by any wing of the State negates equality.

Manifest arbitrariness and legislation

For a long time, it was debated whether a statute passed by a legislature could be struck down only because it was arbitrary. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court by a 3:2 majority set aside instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). Justice R.F. Nariman’s opinion held that the practice was manifestly arbitrary, and that manifest arbitrariness is a valid ground to test plenary legislation under Article 14, not only executive or subordinate action. In February 2024, a five-judge bench in the electoral bonds case (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India) reaffirmed that the doctrine can be used to strike down laws, while noting that plenary and subordinate legislation are tested differently.

Classification test vs arbitrariness doctrine

The two tests are not rivals. Courts frequently apply both in the same case.

Other landmark applications

• Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981): service rules ending an air hostess’s service on her first pregnancy were struck down as unreasonable and arbitrary.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Section 377 IPC was read down to exclude consensual sexual acts between adults, with equality among the grounds.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): Section 497 IPC (adultery) was struck down as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21.

Exam angle

• Origin questions: CLAT and UGC NET often ask which phrase comes from Britain (equality before the law) and which from the USA (equal protection of the laws).
• Twin test: Memorise intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Judiciary prelims may give you a fact pattern and ask which limb fails.
• Case-doctrine pairs: Dalmia with classification, Royappa with arbitrariness, Shayara Bano with manifest arbitrariness against legislation.
• “Person” vs “citizen”: Article 14 is available to foreigners and companies. AIBE uses this as a direct question.
• Mains writing: In answers, show how the “new doctrine” widened Article 14 from a formal equality rule into a guarantee against unfair State action.

Quick quiz

Practise more

Constitutional law carries the largest share of CLAT PG and judiciary papers. Try the free CLAT PG 2027 mock, read 30 important Supreme Court judgments of 2026, and register for the All India CLAT Open Mock on 15 November.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Articles 12, 14 to 16 and 361 (Legislative Department, Government of India)
• Supreme Court of India: Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958)
• Supreme Court of India: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3
• Supreme Court of India: Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
• Supreme Court of India: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113