Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, enshrines a comprehensive framework for equality and social justice. Among its most significant provisions are Article 14 and Article 16, which together form the cornerstone of the right to equality. These articles ensure that every individual is treated fairly by the State and has equal opportunities in matters of public employment. They collectively reflect the commitment of the Indian Constitution to establish a just and egalitarian society.

Article 14: Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws

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. This article is applicable to both citizens and non-citizens, making it a universal guarantee of equality.
The phrase “equality before law” is derived from the British concept of the rule of law, signifying that no person, regardless of rank or position, is above the law. The principle ensures the absence of arbitrary power and promotes fairness in governance. In contrast, “equal protection of the laws” is borrowed from the American Constitution and implies that similar individuals should be treated alike under similar circumstances.
This dual aspect of Article 14 ensures both formal equality (equality before the law) and substantive equality (equal protection of the laws), thereby combining procedural fairness with substantive justice.
Key Judicial Interpretations of Article 14:

• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): The Supreme Court emphasised that equality before the law does not mean identical treatment but fairness in classification.
• Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (1955): The Court held that reasonable classification is permissible if it is based on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974): The Court broadened the scope of Article 14, holding that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.

Through these interpretations, Article 14 has evolved into a dynamic constitutional tool against arbitrary State action, ensuring that equality remains a living principle rather than a static rule.

Reasonable Classification and Non-Arbitrariness

The doctrine of reasonable classification allows the State to make laws that distinguish between different groups, provided such distinctions are justifiable. For instance, laws that provide special protection for women, children, or backward classes are not considered discriminatory because they serve the constitutional goal of achieving substantive equality.
Two conditions must be satisfied for valid classification:

1. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes one group from another.
2. The differentia must have a rational nexus with the objective of the law.

Additionally, the doctrine of non-arbitrariness, developed through judicial interpretation, mandates that all State actions must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. This principle was famously articulated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), linking Article 14 with Articles 19 and 21 to ensure that all laws and administrative actions meet standards of fairness and justice.

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Article 16 is a specific application of the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14, confined to matters of public employment. It ensures that all citizens have equal opportunities to serve the State without discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.
The main provisions of Article 16 are as follows:

• Clause (1): Guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in employment or appointment to any office under the State.
• Clause (2): Prohibits discrimination on specific grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
• Clause (3): Permits Parliament to prescribe residence requirements for certain State services if necessary.
• Clause (4): Authorises the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• Clause (4A) and (4B): Added by the 77th and 85th Constitutional Amendments, these clauses extend reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), and allow for the carrying forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.

Thus, Article 16 embodies the balance between formal equality and affirmative action, enabling the State to provide positive measures to uplift historically disadvantaged groups.

Reservation Policy and Judicial Scrutiny

The policy of reservation in public employment under Article 16(4) has been a subject of extensive judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in defining its scope and limits.

• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963): The Court held that reservation should be reasonable and not excessive.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Known as the Mandal Commission case, the Court upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but fixed a ceiling of 50% on total reservations, except in extraordinary circumstances.
• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018): The Court reaffirmed that reservation in promotions must be based on quantifiable data demonstrating backwardness and inadequate representation.

These rulings underscore the principle that while affirmative action is constitutionally valid, it must not erode the overarching ideal of equality.

Relationship Between Articles 14 and 16

Articles 14 and 16 are interrelated and complementary. While Article 14 provides the general guarantee of equality before law, Article 16 operationalises this principle in the specific domain of public employment. Both articles aim to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary State action, but Article 16 goes a step further by allowing positive discrimination to achieve substantive equality.
For example:

• Article 14 ensures equality in the making and application of laws.
• Article 16 ensures equality in recruitment, promotion, and employment within State services.

Together, they embody the broader constitutional philosophy of justice—social, economic, and political, as proclaimed in the Preamble.

Significance and Contemporary Relevance

The principles embodied in Articles 14 and 16 continue to shape India’s democratic and administrative framework. They serve as powerful checks on arbitrary governance, guaranteeing fairness in both legislative and executive actions. Moreover, they provide a constitutional foundation for policies aimed at social inclusion, such as reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.