Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, enshrined in Article 14, guarantees to its citizens the equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. This principle stands as a cornerstone of our democratic structure, designed to prevent discriminatory practices and ensure fairness. However, the concept of equality is often juxtaposed with the notion of arbitrariness, which refers to actions that are unpredictable, capricious, and without reasonable justification. The assertion that "Equality is antithesis of arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies" highlights a critical relationship within the constitutional framework. This answer will critically examine this view, exploring how equality functions as a vital safeguard against arbitrary state action, while also acknowledging the complexities and limitations of this relationship.
Understanding the Core Concepts
Before delving into the relationship, a clear understanding of the terms is crucial.
- Equality (Article 14): The principle of equality encompasses both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It prohibits the state from denying to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. This doesn't mean identical treatment in all cases but rather a fair and just application of the law.
- Arbitrariness: In constitutional law, arbitrariness signifies action that is not guided by reason or law. The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), defined arbitrariness as a decision that is reached without any rational principle, is whimsical, and is taken for an ulterior purpose. It's essentially a lack of due process.
Equality as a Check on Arbitrariness
The core of the statement – that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies – holds significant truth. Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 32 (remedy for constitutional violations), provides a powerful framework to challenge arbitrary state actions.
- Reasoned Decision-Making: The principle of equality mandates that state actions must be based on reasonable classification and have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. This inherently restricts the state's ability to act arbitrarily.
- Judicial Review: The judiciary plays a crucial role in scrutinizing state actions to ensure they adhere to the principle of equality and do not suffer from arbitrariness. The doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness, adopted by Indian courts, allows judicial intervention when a decision is so outrageous that no reasonable authority could have taken it.
- Right to Equality as a Fundamental Right: The guarantee of equality is a fundamental right, enforceable through Article 32, allowing individuals to approach the courts directly against arbitrary actions violating this right.
Complexities and Limitations
While equality serves as a powerful constraint on arbitrariness, the relationship isn't always straightforward. There are nuances and limitations to consider.
- Reasonable Classification: The state can make reasonable classifications based on intelligible differentia, but these classifications must not be arbitrary or discriminatory. Determining what constitutes a 'reasonable' classification is often a subject of judicial interpretation.
- Doctrine of Proportionality: The principle of proportionality, increasingly applied by Indian courts, further refines the relationship. It requires that any restriction on a fundamental right, including equality, must be proportionate to the objective being achieved. This adds another layer of scrutiny to state actions.
- Emergency Powers: During emergencies, the state may be granted certain powers that could potentially appear arbitrary under normal circumstances. However, these powers are subject to judicial review even during emergencies.
Case Studies Illustrating the Relationship
| Case Name | Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) | Challenge to passport confiscation based on arbitrary executive action. | The Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 21 and emphasized the importance of due process, effectively limiting arbitrary power. |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case) | Validity of reservations based on caste. | The Supreme Court upheld reservations but imposed a 50% limit and introduced the concept of the "creamy layer" to prevent the perpetuation of inequality. This demonstrated the court's commitment to balancing equality with social justice. |
Contemporary Challenges
The relationship between equality and arbitrariness continues to be tested in the face of new challenges.
- Use of Technology: The increasing reliance on algorithms and artificial intelligence in decision-making raises concerns about potential biases and arbitrariness. Ensuring fairness and transparency in these systems is crucial.
- Administrative Overreach: The scope of administrative power has expanded significantly, increasing the risk of arbitrary action by government officials. Robust mechanisms for accountability and redressal are essential.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the assertion that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies is fundamentally accurate within the Indian constitutional framework. Equality acts as a vital check on arbitrary state action, necessitating reasoned decision-making, judicial review, and adherence to the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. While complexities and limitations exist, the ongoing judicial interpretation and evolving understanding of constitutional principles continue to refine this crucial relationship. Moving forward, it is imperative that citizens remain vigilant in upholding the principles of equality and challenging actions that demonstrate arbitrariness to safeguard the foundations of a just and equitable society.
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.