Right To Equality

The Constitution of India is not just a legal document, it is the moral compass and structural backbone of the nation. Adopted on 26th November 1949 and enforced from 26th January 1950, it provides a foundation of a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. The Preamble of the Constitution promises Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity to every citizen, ensuring dignity and inclusion across all sections of society. It defines the powers and responsibilities of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, while establishing a federal structure that balances authority between the Centre and the States. As the supreme law of the land, it safeguards the rights of all citizens, especially the marginalised, through protective and affirmative measures. With over 395 Articles and global influences, it remains the longest and one of the most detailed constitutions in the world. Its enduring relevance lies in its ability to evolve while staying committed to its core values. In a nation as diverse and layered as India, Fundamental Rights are not merely aspirational; they are essential. They empower citizens to challenge inequality, foster social justice, and ensure that the rule of law applies equally to all. The Right to Equality (Articles 14–18) protects against discrimination and promotes fairness. Even in times of national emergency, this right remains untouched, reinforcing its supreme value in our constitutional framework.

What this blog covers:

• The constitutional scope of Articles 14 to 18
• Importance of the Right to Equality in a democracy
• Types of equality: legal, social, economic, and political
• Key challenges and the social impact of inequality

Right To Equality In The Indian Constitution

The Right to Equality is one of the six Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Indian and is enshrined in Articles 14 to 18 under Part III. It lays the groundwork for a just and equal society by ensuring that every individual, irrespective of caste, religion, gender, race, or place of birth, is treated equally before the law and by the State. This right is legally enforceable. Any person whose right to equality is violated can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32. Over the years, the judiciary has played a vital role in interpreting and expanding the scope of this right to suit evolving social needs, often linking it with other rights like the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Articles 14 to 18 form a constitutional shield against inequality, ensuring that no one is above the law and that every citizen has the same legal standing, opportunity, and dignity.

Article 14 – Equality Before Law

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Meaning and Scope: Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the foundation of the Right to Equality. It guarantees two related but distinct concepts:

• Equality before the law: This means that no individual is above the law, irrespective of position, wealth, or status. It is a negative concept, derived from the British legal tradition, signifying the absence of any special privilege.
• Equal protection of the law: This is a positive concept, inspired by the U.S. Constitution, requiring that all individuals in similar situations be treated equally under the law. However, it allows reasonable classification, distinctions are permissible if they are:
• 1. Based on intelligible differentia, and
  2. Have a rational connection to the objective of the law.

Reasonable Classification: Laws offering reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women, or persons with disabilities are valid, provided they are not arbitrary and are intended to promote substantive equality.

Case Law

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

Name of Parties: E.P. Royappa (Petitioner) v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (Respondents)

Facts:

• E.P. Royappa, a senior IAS officer, was appointed Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu.
• He was later transferred and appointed as Officer on Special Duty, a post he claimed was of lower status and created arbitrarily.
• Royappa challenged his transfer, alleging it was arbitrary, mala fide, and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Does arbitrary action by the State go against the guarantee of equality under Article 14?
2. Is the idea of equality under Article 14 fixed, or does it evolve with changing times and situations?

Judgment: In the landmark case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that any action by the State that is arbitrary (unfair or done without reason) goes against the idea of equality guaranteed under Article 14. The Court explained that equality is not a fixed or rigid concept. It’s a living and flexible idea that includes not just equal treatment but also fairness and the absence of bias in the actions of the government. The Court found that Royappa’s transfer was neither dishonest nor unfair, so his petition was dismissed.

Impact: This case changed the way Article 14 was understood. It made it clear that any unfair or unreasonable government action can be challenged as a violation of the Right to Equality. The idea of non-arbitrariness became a key part of constitutional law and has been followed in many important judgments since then.

Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination

"The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them."

Meaning: Article 15 of the Indian Constitution protects citizens from discrimination by the State based solely on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It plays a key role in ensuring that every individual is treated with equal dignity in public spaces and by the government.

This means the government cannot treat people unfairly based on who they are or where they come from.

Key Features:

• Clause (1): Stops the government from discriminating against citizens purely on the listed grounds.
• Clause (2): Prohibits restrictions on using public spaces like shops, wells, restaurants, or roads.
• Clause (3): Allows the government to make special provisions for women and children, for example, reserved seats for women in public transport or educational schemes.
• Clause (4): Permits affirmative action (positive discrimination) for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other socially and economically backward classes.

Reservations and Equality:

While Article 15 forbids discrimination, it allows the State to take steps to uplift disadvantaged groups to ensure true or substantive equality. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, while placing a general cap of 50% on total reservations, unless exceptional situations demand otherwise.

Case Name: Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc.. on 16 November, 1992

Name of Parties: Indra Sawhney & Others (Petitioners) v. Union of India & Others (Respondents)

Facts:

• The Indian government decided to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which suggested 27% reservation in central government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
• This decision led to widespread protests and was challenged in the Supreme Court, mainly on the grounds that it violated the right to equality.

Issues:

1. Is the reservation for OBCs in government jobs valid under the Constitution?
2. Can caste be used as a criterion for identifying backwards classes?
3. Is there a limit to how many reservations can be allowed?

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs, stating that caste can be considered to identify backwards classes. The Court introduced the concept of the "creamy layer," excluding the more advanced members of OBCs from reservation benefits.

It set a general limit, stating that total reservations should not exceed 50%, except in exceptional cases. The Court also held that reservations in promotions should not be allowed, except for a limited period.

Impact: This case is a landmark in Indian law on reservations, balancing the need for social justice with the principle of equality. It established the 50% cap on reservations and introduced the exclusion of the creamy layer, shaping affirmative action policies in India.

Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

"(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State."

Meaning: Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment. It ensures that government jobs and public offices are accessible to everyone, without discrimination. This means that in government jobs, everyone must be given a fair chance based on their merit, without being judged on personal characteristics like caste or gender.

Key Features:

• The State cannot discriminate in public employment based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
• However, it can reserve jobs for:
• • Socially and educationally backward classes,
  • Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs),
  • Other disadvantaged groups like women, persons with disabilities, and ex-servicemen are represented through horizontal reservations.

This balance allows the government to address deep-rooted social and historical inequalities.

Case law

Case Name: M. Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006

Name of Parties: M. Nagaraj & Others (Petitioners) v. Union of India & Others (Respondents)

Facts:

• The Indian government made constitutional changes to allow reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government jobs.
• These changes were challenged in the Supreme Court, with the argument that they violated the principle of equality and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Are reservations in promotions for SCs and STs valid under the Constitution?
2. What safeguards must the State follow when granting such reservations?

Judgment: The Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India & Others upheld the validity of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. However, the Court said that before granting such reservations, the State must show:

• The group is still backward,
• The group is not adequately represented,
• Giving a reservation will not harm administrative efficiency.

The State must collect and present clear data to prove these points.

Impact: The judgment allowed reservations in promotions for SCs and STs but added important conditions to prevent misuse. It balanced the need for affirmative action with the principle of administrative efficiency and equality.

Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability

"Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

Meaning: Article 17 of the Indian Constitution declares that untouchability is not just socially unacceptable but legally prohibited in India. It abolishes the practice in all forms and mandates punishment for anyone enforcing untouchability-related discrimination. It forms a core part of India's constitutional commitment to social equality and human dignity.

Legal Enforcement: To ensure that this constitutional promise is upheld, Parliament enacted specific laws:

• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, penalises the denial of access to public places, services, or religious sites on the grounds of untouchability. It was the first legal step to enforce Article 17.
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is a stronger and more comprehensive law that criminalises various forms of violence, humiliation, and discrimination against SCs and STs, including offences rooted in untouchability.

These laws empower authorities to act against discrimination and support the constitutional goal of an egalitarian society. In the case of Devarajiah vs B. Padmanna on 10 September 1957,

Name of Parties: Devarajiah (Petitioner/Complainant) v. B. Padmanna (Respondent/Accused)

Facts:

• The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that the respondent had issued a pamphlet stating the complainant should not be allowed to enter Jain temples or participate in religious services.
• The petitioner claimed this act promoted untouchability and violated Sections 3, 7, and 10 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which was enacted to enforce Article 17 of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Does preventing entry into a temple based on religious grounds amount to “untouchability” under Article 17 and the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955?
2. What is the scope and meaning of “untouchability” as abolished by Article 17?

Judgment: The Karnataka High Court in the case of Devarajiah vs B. Padmanna held that the term “untouchability” in Article 17 refers specifically to caste-based discrimination as it historically developed in India, not to every form of social or religious exclusion.

The Court found that the pamphlet, though exclusionary, did not amount to caste-based untouchability as prohibited by Article 17. The accused’s actions were not punishable under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, since the exclusion was not on the basis of caste.

Impact: This case clarified that Article 17 targets only caste-based untouchability and not all types of social or religious exclusions. It set an important precedent for interpreting the scope of untouchability under Indian law.

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.”

Meaning: Article 18 abolishes all titles that could create artificial social hierarchies in a democratic society. Its four clauses collectively aim to:

• Prohibit the State from creating a titled nobility (except military or academic honours).
• Prevent Indian citizens from accepting titles from foreign governments.
• Restrict foreign nationals and public servants from accepting foreign titles or gifts without prior Presidential approval.

This article strengthens the constitutional ideal of equality and discourages the formation of elite classes based on hereditary or honorary titles.

Purpose:

• To prevent the revival of feudal titles such as "Raja", "Maharaja", or "Sir" that promote artificial social hierarchies.
• To promote a classless democratic society, where public recognition does not translate into a permanent elite status

In the case of Balaji Raghavan/S.P. Anand vs Union Of India on 15 December 1995

Name of Parties: Balaji Raghavan & Others (Petitioners) v. Union of India (Respondent)

Facts:

• The petitioners challenged the practice of conferring national awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri by the Government of India.
• They argued that these awards violated Article 18(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the State from conferring titles, and also went against the principle of equality under Article 14.
• The petitioners claimed these awards created a privileged class, similar to titles of nobility, which the Constitution sought to abolish.

Issues:

1. Do national awards like Bharat Ratna and Padma awards violate Article 18(1) of the Constitution by amounting to prohibited titles?
2. Are these awards inconsistent with the principle of equality under Article 14?

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of national awards, ruling that they do not violate Article 18(1) because they are not titles of nobility and do not confer any hereditary privileges or legal status.

The Court clarified that these awards are honorary recognitions for excellence and do not create a separate class of citizens. However, the Court emphasised that recipients should not use these awards as prefixes or suffixes to their names, to prevent the creation of a new elite or privileged class.

Impact: The judgment clarified that national awards are constitutional as long as they are not used as titles. It reinforced the principle of equality and ensured that civilian honours remain recognitions of merit, not sources of privilege or social hierarchy.

National Awards and Titles:

Awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, etc., are not considered "titles" because:

• They do not carry hereditary or honorific privileges.
• The Supreme Court has clarified that they must not be used as prefixes or suffixes to names.

Why Is The Right To Equality Important?

The Right to Equality is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and essential for building a just and inclusive society. Its importance goes beyond mere legal formality, it touches every aspect of governance, citizenship, and human dignity.

1. Foundation of Democracy: Ensures that every individual receives fair and equal treatment, enabling free and meaningful participation in democratic processes.
2. Social Justice: Acts as a shield for marginalised and disadvantaged groups, offering protection against discrimination and enabling their upliftment through affirmative action.
3. Rule of Law: Reinforces the idea that no one is above the law, not even government authorities, making the legal system impartial and predictable.
4. Human Dignity: By eliminating social and legal discrimination, it affirms the inherent worth and respect every individual deserves.
5. Strengthens Democratic Participation: Upholds the principle that every citizen has an equal voice and right in shaping the nation.
6. Fosters National Unity: Reduces societal divisions based on caste, religion, gender, or class, encouraging a shared national identity.

Types Of Equality

Equality is multi-dimensional and essential for creating a just and inclusive society. It extends across the legal, social, economic, and political spheres, each reinforcing the others.

Legal Equality

Definition: Everyone is equal before the law, and no one is above it, regardless of their social or economic status.

Essence:

• Guarantees uniform justice for all.
• Protects the right to a fair trial and equal legal representation.
• Eliminates legal privileges based on class, caste, or position.

Social Equality

Definition: Ensures equal respect, dignity, and status for every individual in society, irrespective of caste, religion, gender, or background.

Essence:

• Seeks to eliminate social hierarchies and prejudices.
• Promotes inclusiveness in public spaces, relationships, and institutions.
• Aims to create a society where everyone can participate fully without discrimination.

Economic Equality

Definition: Not about equal income, but about fair access to opportunities and basic resources like education, employment, and healthcare.

Essence:

• Reduces wealth disparities and tackles poverty.
• Advocates for fair wages, social welfare, and economic justice.
• Often supported by affirmative action and redistribution policies.

Political Equality

Definition: Guarantees every citizen an equal role in political life and decision-making processes.

Essence:

• Upholds the right to vote, contest elections, and engage in governance.
• Prevents political exclusion based on social or economic status.
• Strengthens democracy by ensuring all voices are heard equally.

Challenges And Social Impact Of The Right To Equality

While the Right to Equality is a constitutional cornerstone, its implementation faces deep-rooted social and systemic barriers. These challenges affect how effectively the right is experienced by different communities across India.

Key Challenges

1. Caste-Based Discrimination: Despite constitutional protections, casteism remains entrenched, especially in rural India, affecting access to education, jobs, and housing. Practices like untouchability and social exclusion still occur, often going unreported or unpunished.
2. Gender Inequality: Women continue to face wage gaps, limited leadership roles, and gender-based violence. Cultural norms and systemic bias often limit their access to equal opportunities and justice.
3. Economic Disparities: Widening income gaps and unequal access to resources have undermined economic justice. While some benefit from liberalisation, large sections still lack basic amenities like education, healthcare, and employment security.
4. Implementation Gaps: Laws alone aren’t enough. Weak enforcement, bureaucratic indifference, and social resistance often render equality rights ineffective at the grassroots level.
5. Regional Inequality: Backward and rural regions, especially in central, eastern, and northeastern India, suffer from poor infrastructure, low state investment, and limited access to legal remedies, deepening inequality.
6. Debates over Affirmative Action: Reservation policies (based on caste or economic status) are often contested in courts and public discourse. While they aim to level the playing field, critics argue they sometimes perpetuate new inequalities or political divisions.

Social Impact

1. Empowerment: The Right to Equality has uplifted many marginalised groups by giving them legal standing and access to opportunities.
2. Social Reform: It has spurred significant legal and policy reforms, from anti-discrimination laws to affirmative action measures.
3. Public Awareness: Citizens are now more aware of their rights, leading to increased activism and demands for accountability.
4. Ongoing Struggles: However, persistent structural inequalities continue to limit the full realisation of this right, particularly for women, Dalits, Adivasis, and economically weaker sections.

Conclusion

The Right to Equality is not merely a constitutional safeguard; it is the affirmation of justice. It guarantees that every individual is equal before the law and protected from discrimination on the grounds of religion, caste, gender, or birth. While the legal framework is clear and comprehensive, the lived reality often demands persistent social reform and administrative vigilance to translate these constitutional promises into everyday experiences.

Framed against the backdrop of a deeply divided pre-independence society, this right was designed to disassemble centuries-old hierarchies, especially those based on caste, and to uphold the dignity of every citizen in a democratic republic. It is not merely symbolic; it is a binding legal assurance that state actions must be fair, non-arbitrary, and inclusive. While it guarantees equal treatment and protection under the law, its true impact depends on effective enforcement, civic awareness, and a collective commitment to social justice.

Frequently Asked Questions

To help you better understand the legal and practical dimensions of the Right to Equality, here are answers to some frequently asked questions.

Q1. Which articles of the Constitution deal with the Right to Equality?

The Right to Equality is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Indian Constitution.

Q2. What is the doctrine of reasonable classification under Article 14, and how is it applied in practice?

Doctrine of Reasonable Classification under Article 14:

• Article 14 allows the State to treat different groups differently, but only if:
• • Intelligible Differentia: There is a clear and reasonable basis for grouping people.
  • Rational Nexus: This basis is directly connected to the law’s objective.
• This ensures laws address real differences and serve legitimate purposes, such as:
• • Maternity benefits for pregnant women
  • Banning child labour for those under 14
• Courts strike down any classification that is arbitrary or unrelated to the law’s goal, ensuring fairness and true equality.

Q3. How do the Right to Equality (Article 14) and the Right to Life & Personal Liberty (Article 21) interact?

• The Supreme Court interprets Articles 14 and 21 together, ensuring laws and State actions are not arbitrary or discriminatory.
• Equality is considered a key part of dignity and personal liberty.
• Any law or action that is arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory can be challenged as violating both equality and the right to life and personal liberty.

Q4. What is the difference between 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of the law' under Article 14?

Q5. What does Article 15 prohibit?

• Article 15 prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, but allows special provisions for women, children, and socially or educationally backward classes to promote substantive equality.

Q6. How are reservations in promotions under Article 16 justified, and what safeguards does the Supreme Court require?

• Reservations in promotions for SCs and STs are allowed under Article 16(4A), but only if:
• • The group is still backward.
  • There is inadequate representation in public jobs.
  • Administrative efficiency is not compromised.
• The State must collect and present quantifiable data to prove these points.
• These safeguards ensure reservations in promotions remain fair, targeted, and do not undermine merit or efficiency.

Q7. What is the ‘creamy layer’ concept in reservations (Articles 15 & 16)?

• The "creamy layer" refers to the wealthier and more advanced members within the OBC category.
• Those with an annual family income above ₹8 lakh (excluding salary and agricultural income) or holding high-ranking posts are excluded from reservation benefits.
• This ensures that reservation benefits reach only the genuinely disadvantaged, making affirmative actions fairer.

Q8. What are the exceptions to the Right to Equality?

The Constitution allows:

• Reasonable classification for legitimate objectives.
• Special provisions for women, children, SCs, STs, and OBCs.
• Diplomatic immunity and protective discrimination (reservations) to address historical injustices.

Q9. What are the main challenges in enforcing the Right to Equality in India?

• Social prejudices: Deep-rooted caste, gender, and religious biases persist despite strong legal protection.
• Institutional barriers: Implementation gaps, bureaucratic delays, and lack of legal awareness hinder effective enforcement.
• Merit vs. affirmative action: Balancing reservations with meritocracy remains a contentious and debated issue.
• Judicial backlog: Delays in the legal system discourage individuals from seeking remedies.
• Evolving discrimination: New forms of exclusion and disadvantage continue to emerge, requiring constant legal and policy updates.

Q10. Can the Right to Equality be restricted or suspended?

No, the Right to Equality (Articles 14–18) cannot be suspended even during a national emergency, highlighting its fundamental importance in the constitutional framework

Disclaimer: The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For personalised legal guidance, please consult with a civil lawyer.