Article 14 declares that 'the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India'. Thus Article 14 uses two expressions "equality before the law" and "equal protection of the law". The phrase "equality before the law" finds a place in almost all written Constitutions that guarantees fundamental rights. Both these expressions have, however, been used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first expression "equality before law" is of English origin and the second expression has been taken from the American Constitution. Both these expressions aim at establishing what is called "equality of status" in the Preamble of the Constitution. While "equality before the law" is a somewhat negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege in favour of individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law. "Equal protection of the law" is a more positive concept implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances. However, one dominant idea common to both the expressions is that of equal justice. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, Patanjali Sastri, C.J., rightly held - the second expression is corollary of the first and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the violation of the equal protection of laws will not be violation of the equality before law. Thus, in substance the two expressions mean one and the same thing.
Equality before law and Rule of Law - The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of what Dicey calls the rule of law in England. It means that no man is above the law and that every person, whatever be his rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
Professor Dicey gave three meanings of the Rule of Law thus -
1. Absence of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy of the law - It means the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to the arbitrary power of the Government.
2. Equality before law - 'No one is above law with the sole exception of the monarch who can do no wrong'.
3. The Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land - It means that the source of the right of individuals is not the written Constitution but the rules as defined and enforced by the courts.
The first and the second aspects apply to Indian system but the third aspect of the Dicey's rule of law does not apply to Indian system as the source of rights of individuals is the Constitution of India. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and all laws passed by the legislature must be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
Equal protection of the Laws - The concept of equal protection of laws, as found in the 14th Amendment of the American Constitution, ensures that everyone facing similar circumstances should be treated similarly under the law. This means that people in the same situation should receive the same legal privileges and responsibilities without discrimination. The key principle is treating similar situations alike, rather than treating dissimilar situations in the same way. In essence, the rule is to treat like cases alike, promoting fairness and preventing unjust distinctions.
The rule of law imposes a duty upon the State to take special measure to prevent and punish brutality by police methodology. The Rule of Law embodied in article 14 is the "basic feature" of the Indian Constitution and hence it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution.
The words "any person" in article 14 of the Constitution denote that the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is available to any person which includes any company or association or body of individuals. The protection of Article 14 extends to both citizens and non-citizens and to natural persons as well as legal persons. The equality before the law is guaranteed to all without regard to race, colour or nationality. Corporations being juristic persons are also entitled to the benefit of Article 14.
Exception to the Rule of Law - The above rule of equality is, however, not an absolute rule and there are number of exceptions to it: First 'equality before the law' does not mean that the "powers of the private citizens are the same as the powers of the public officials". Thus, a police officer has the power to arrest while, as a general rule, no private person has this power. This is not the violation of the rule of law. But the rule of law does require that these powers should be clearly defined by law and that abuse of authority by public officers must be punished by ordinary courts in the same manner as illegal acts committed by private persons.
Secondly, the rule of law does not prevent certain classes of persons being subject to special rules. Thus, members of the armed forces are controlled by military laws. Similarly, medical practitioners are subject to the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, a statutory body, and are immune from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. Article 361 of the Indian Constitution affords an immunity to the President of India and the State Governors. Article 361 provides that the President or the Governors of State shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. No criminal proceeding shall be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor of a State in any Court during his term of office.
Thirdly, ministers and other executive bodies are given very wide discretionary powers by the statutes. Today, a large number of legislation is passed in the form of delegated legislation, i.e., rules, orders or statutory instruments made by ministers and other bodies and not directly by Parliament. These rules did not exist in Dicey's time.
Fourthly, certain members of society are governed by special rules in their professions, i.e., lawyers, doctors, nurses, members of armed forces and police. Such classes of people are treated differently from ordinary citizens.
The Constitution itself contains provisions which, under certain circumstances, limit the effectiveness of Art. 14.
1. The scope of right to equality under Article 14 has been considerably restricted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The new Article 31-C added by the Amendment Act provides that laws made by the State for implementing the Directive Principles contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 cannot be challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14, Such laws will, thus, be an exception to Article 14 of the Constitution. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., The Supreme Court has held that "where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out"
2. Article 359(1) provides that where a proclamation of emergency is in operation the President may, by order, declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such rights conferred by Part III(except Arts. 20 and 21) shall remain suspended. Thus, if the President of India issues an order where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, enforcement of Article 14 may be suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force.
3. Under Article 361, the President and the Governors are exempted from any criminal proceeding during the tenure of their office.
4. Under International law, foreign sovereign and ambassadors enjoy full immunity from any judicial process. This is also available to enemy aliens for acts of war.
0 Comments