Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (Article 14), forming the bedrock of a just society. However, the concept of equality is far from static; it's a “dynamic concept” as famously stated in the *Maneka Gandhi* case. Traditionally, equality was understood in a formal, legalistic sense – treating everyone identically. This “formal equality” often failed to address the deep-rooted social and economic disparities that prevented genuine equality of opportunity. Over the years, the judiciary has actively redefined equality, moving towards a “substantive equality” that considers societal realities and actively combats discrimination, as exemplified by the recent judgments on reservations and LGBTQ+ rights.
Understanding the Evolution of Equality
The initial understanding of Article 14 emphasized ‘equality before the law,’ which meant that laws should apply equally to all. However, this did not necessarily guarantee equal outcomes, especially given existing social hierarchies and systemic disadvantages. The judiciary’s interventions have shifted the focus to ensure not just equal treatment but also equal opportunity and access to resources, effectively widening the scope of equality.
Judicial Interpretations and Expansion of Equality
1. Social and Economic Equality – Affirmative Action & Reservations
Historically, caste-based discrimination has been a significant barrier to equality. The judiciary, while initially hesitant, has progressively upheld and expanded reservation policies.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): This landmark judgment validated the concept of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) while introducing the ‘creamy layer’ concept to ensure benefits reach the most deserving. The 50% cap on reservations was also established.
- Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2000): The Supreme Court held that reservations could be applied to economically weaker sections (EWS) within the OBC category, demonstrating a move towards economic considerations in achieving equality.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relationships, significantly advanced equality for LGBTQ+ individuals. This judgment underscored the principle that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Article 14.
2. Gender Equality – Beyond Formal Legal Parity
While laws often grant equal rights to men and women, societal biases and discriminatory practices persist. The judiciary has played a crucial role in addressing these inequalities.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This case laid down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment of women in the workplace, effectively creating a legal framework where none existed before. It demonstrated the judiciary’s power to legislate where the legislature had failed.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalization of adultery, which had disproportionately affected women, was a significant step towards gender equality. The court recognized that the law was archaic and discriminatory.
- Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): This case led to the SC issuing directions to prevent moral policing and protect the right to choose one's partner, reaffirming individual autonomy and freedom from societal interference, particularly for inter-caste and inter-religious couples.
3. Equality for Persons with Disabilities
The judiciary has also broadened the scope of equality to encompass the rights of persons with disabilities, recognizing their need for affirmative action and reasonable accommodation.
- Mersey Mathew v. Union of India (2000): This case highlighted the importance of providing disabled employees with reasonable accommodations in the workplace to ensure equal opportunity.
- National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India (2016): The Supreme Court directed the government to ensure accessibility for visually impaired persons in public spaces and transportation, recognizing their right to equal access and participation.
The Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
The judiciary has consistently applied the doctrine of reasonable classification to justify differential treatment under law. However, it has also emphasized that any classification must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This ensures that laws do not perpetuate arbitrary discrimination.
Limitations and Challenges
Despite these advancements, challenges remain. Implementation of court orders is often slow, and societal prejudices continue to influence outcomes. The concept of “equality” itself remains contested, with debates surrounding affirmative action and the balance between individual liberty and collective welfare.
| Case Name | Year | Key Issue/Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India | 1992 | Validation of OBC reservations, creamy layer concept, 50% cap. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Decriminalization of Section 377. |
Conclusion
The judiciary’s evolution in interpreting Article 14 demonstrates a commitment to a more inclusive and equitable society. By moving beyond formal equality to embrace substantive equality, the courts have actively addressed systemic discrimination and advanced the rights of marginalized groups. While challenges persist, the judiciary's proactive role in widening the scope of equality remains a vital safeguard for fundamental rights and a cornerstone of India’s democratic fabric. Future judicial interventions must continue to address emerging forms of inequality and ensure that the promise of equality remains a lived reality for all citizens.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.