Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Right to Equality is a cornerstone of both the American and Indian Constitutions, reflecting a commitment to fairness and non-discrimination. However, the conceptualization and implementation of this right differ significantly due to historical contexts, societal structures, and constitutional philosophies. While the US Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), guarantees ‘equal protection of the laws’, the Indian Constitution, through Articles 14-18, provides a more elaborate and nuanced framework encompassing not only equality before the law but also prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This answer will analyze the distinguishing features of these two approaches, highlighting their similarities and divergences.
Scope and Provisions
The US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment, is relatively concise. It mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that similarly situated individuals should be treated alike. The Indian Constitution, on the other hand, dedicates a whole section (Articles 14-18) to equality. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, and Article 18 abolishes titles.
Permissible Classifications
Both constitutions allow for ‘reasonable classifications’. However, the standards for determining ‘reasonableness’ differ. In the US, the Supreme Court employs three levels of scrutiny: strict scrutiny (for suspect classifications like race and national origin), intermediate scrutiny (for gender and illegitimacy), and rational basis review (for other classifications). Strict scrutiny requires the law to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. India also allows for reasonable classifications, but the test is less rigid. The classification must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The Indian courts have generally been more deferential to legislative classifications than their US counterparts.
Affirmative Action
This is a major distinguishing feature. The US has a complex history with affirmative action, with the Supreme Court repeatedly striking down or limiting affirmative action programs designed to remedy past discrimination. Landmark cases like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) demonstrate this. The recent Harvard case effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. In contrast, India has a robust system of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in education, employment, and political representation. These reservations, upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), are considered a means of achieving substantive equality and addressing historical injustices. The 50% ceiling on reservations, established in the same case, is a key limitation.
Judicial Review
Both countries have a strong tradition of judicial review. However, the extent of judicial intervention differs. The US Supreme Court has historically played a more active role in shaping the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, often striking down laws deemed unconstitutional. The Indian judiciary, while also powerful, has generally adopted a more balanced approach, often upholding legislative enactments unless they violate fundamental rights in a clear and demonstrable manner. The concept of ‘basic structure’ doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), further limits the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including provisions related to equality.
Table: Comparative Analysis
| Feature | USA | India |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Provision | Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) | Articles 14-18 (Right to Equality) |
| Level of Scrutiny | Strict, Intermediate, Rational Basis | Intelligible Differentia & Rational Nexus |
| Affirmative Action | Highly restricted; largely prohibited post-2023 | Extensive reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs |
| Judicial Review | More assertive; frequent striking down of laws | Balanced approach; upholds legislative enactments unless clearly violating fundamental rights |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both the US and Indian Constitutions enshrine the Right to Equality, their approaches differ significantly. The US emphasizes formal equality and employs a rigorous system of judicial scrutiny, with a recent trend towards limiting affirmative action. India, on the other hand, prioritizes substantive equality and utilizes reservations to address historical disadvantages, with a more deferential approach to legislative classifications. These differences reflect the unique historical, social, and political contexts of each nation, shaping their respective interpretations of this fundamental right. The ongoing evolution of judicial interpretations in both countries continues to refine the scope and application of the Right to Equality.
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.