Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws Under Article 14

Article 14 of the Constitution of India says 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. The Supreme Court reads it in two ways: the State may classify people only on a reasonable basis (the twin test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus), and State action that is arbitrary is itself a denial of equality. Both tests are applied by courts today, and a good exam answer explains both with the leading cases.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for constitutional law papers, and for any reader who wants to know what the right to equality actually protects. Article 14 is the provision you will cite most often in practice, from a service dispute to a challenge against a tender, so it repays careful study.

What does the text of Article 14 say?

The full text, under the heading "Equality before law", reads: "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." It sits in Part III of the Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights.

Three words in that sentence carry most of the weight:

• "The State": the duty is placed on the State, so the right is enforced against government action and laws.
• "Any person": the protection is not limited to citizens. In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court relied on this wording to hold that transgender persons are within the protection of Article 14.
• "Within the territory of India": the guarantee applies to everyone within India's territory.

A point of history that students often find useful: in the Draft Constitution of 1948, the equality clause was part of Draft Article 15, which dealt with life and liberty. The Drafting Committee, in a letter dated 3 November 1949, split the provision and placed the equality part in a new Article 14.

What is the difference between equality before law and equal protection of laws?

Teachers usually frame the two phrases like this. Equality before the law is the negative idea: no person is above the law, and the State cannot give anyone special privilege in how the law applies. Equal protection of the laws is the positive idea: persons in similar situations must be treated alike, but persons in different situations may be treated differently. That second idea is why the State is allowed to classify.

Take a simple example. A scheme giving fee concessions to first generation graduates treats a student in Nagercoil whose parents did not attend college differently from a classmate whose parents are graduates. That is not a violation, as long as the classification passes the test explained below.

What is the test of reasonable classification?

Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification. The classic statement comes from Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, decided on 2 December 1954 (AIR 1955 SC 191). The Court said two conditions must be met:

1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group.
2. That differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

The test was restated in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (AIR 1958 SC 538), which is the case most examiners expect you to cite alongside Budhan Choudhry.

The earlier case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, decided on 11 January 1952, shows the test in action. Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 let the State Government send any case to a Special Court without laying down any criteria. The majority held the provision void to that extent, because it allowed unequal treatment with no guiding policy.

In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1982), the Court struck down a pension classification based on an arbitrary cut off date, because the date had no rational link to the purpose of the pension scheme.

How did arbitrariness become part of Article 14?

The second line of cases began with E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 23 November 1973 and reported as AIR 1974 SC 555. Mr Royappa, an IAS officer who had been acting Chief Secretary, challenged his transfer to other posts. He lost on the facts, but Justice Bhagwati's opinion stated that equality is "antithetic to arbitrariness". An arbitrary act is therefore unequal and violates Article 14, even if no classification is involved.

The idea was developed in a series of cases:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): decided on 25 January 1978, it read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together and held that a procedure restricting personal liberty must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1980): allotting a very large share of admission marks (33 and one third per cent) to the viva voce was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): decided on 22 August 2017 by a five judge bench with a 3:2 majority, it set aside instant triple talaq (talaq e biddat). The opinion of Justice Nariman, joined by Justice Lalit, held the practice "manifestly arbitrary" and said legislation itself can be struck down on that ground, that is, when it is made capriciously, irrationally or without an adequate determining principle, or is excessive and disproportionate. Justice Kurian Joseph agreed with the result for different reasons, so read the opinions separately before you call the test "the majority view".
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): a five judge bench struck down Section 497 of the IPC (adultery), relying on Articles 14, 15 and 21. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the IPC from 1 July 2024, does not carry an adultery offence.

Where does the law stand in 2026?

Both tests are good law and courts apply them side by side. A challenge under Article 14 today will usually argue that a law or order fails the classification test, or that it is manifestly arbitrary, or both. The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness has been applied to legislation after Shayara Bano. In the electoral bonds case, Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, decided in February 2024, the Supreme Court described the 2017 amendment to Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 (which removed the limit on corporate political contributions) as "manifestly arbitrary". Students should read the full judgment for the precise constitutional basis before citing it in detail.

If you are reading this later, check recent Supreme Court judgments for any refinement of the tests, since Article 14 is litigated constantly.

How should you write about Article 14 in an exam?

1. Quote the text in the first two lines and name the two limbs.
2. Explain the two concepts: equality before law (no special privilege) and equal protection (like treated alike).
3. State the twin test with Budhan Choudhry and Ram Krishna Dalmia, and illustrate it with Anwar Ali Sarkar.
4. Move to arbitrariness: Royappa, Maneka Gandhi, Ajay Hasia, then Shayara Bano for manifest arbitrariness against legislation.
5. Apply to the problem: in a problem question, test the facts against both doctrines separately.
6. Close with the current position: both tests operate together.

Write case names with the year. Examiners notice when a student writes "Royappa (1973, reported 1974)" rather than only a name. If you are planning your study, our programmes page lists where constitutional law sits in the course.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Article 14: text of the article and its drafting history.
• Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (1954): judgment text with the twin test of classification.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973): judgment text with facts and bench.
• Supreme Court Observer: Triple Talaq case: date, bench and outcome of Shayara Bano.
• CaseMine: Article 14 and the doctrine of arbitrariness: summary of the arbitrariness cases with citations.
• LiveLaw: electoral bonds and Section 182 of the Companies Act: report of the February 2024 ruling.