{"id":161,"date":"2020-03-28T14:50:38","date_gmt":"2020-03-28T14:50:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/?p=161"},"modified":"2020-03-28T14:50:38","modified_gmt":"2020-03-28T14:50:38","slug":"constitution-of-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/2020\/03\/28\/constitution-of-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitution of India"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Fundamental Rights<\/strong>
Right to Equality<\/strong>
(Article 14) <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 14 declares that \u201cthe State shall not\ndeny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws\nwithin the territory of India\u201d. The phrase \u201cequality before the law\u201d occurs in\nalmost all written constitutions that guarantee fundamental rights. Equality\nbefore the law is an expression of English Common Law while \u201cequal protection\nof the laws\u201d owes its origin to the American Constitution. Both the phrases aim\nto establish what is called the \u201cequality of status and of opportunity\u201d as\nembodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. While equality before the law is\na somewhat negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege in\nfavour of any individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the\nordinary law, equal protection of law is a more positive concept implying\nequality of treatment under equal circumstances. Thus, Article 14 stands for\nthe establishment of a situation under which there is a complete absence of any\narbitrary discrimination by the laws themselves or in their administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interpreting the scope of the Article, the\nSupreme Court of India has held that : (a) equal protection means equal\nprotection under equal circumstances; (b) the State can make reasonable\nclassification for purposes of legislation; (c) presumption of reason\u00adableness\nis in favour of the legislation; and (d) the burden of proof is on those who\nchallenge the legislation. Explaining the scope of reasonable classification,\nthe Court held that \u201ceven one corporation or a group of persons can be taken to\nbe a class by itself for the purpose of legislation, provided there is\nsufficient basis or reason for it. The onus of proving that there were also\nother companies similarly situated and this company alone has been\ndiscriminated against, was on the petitioner\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its struggle for social and political\nfreedom, mankind has always tried to move towards the ideal of equality for\nall. The urge for equality and liberty has been the motive of many revolutions.\nThe Charter of the United Nations records the determination of the member\nnations to reaffirm their faith in the equal rights of men and women. Indeed,\nreal and effective democracy cannot be achieved unless equality in all spheres\nis realised in full measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, complete equality among men and women\nin all spheres of life is a distant ideal to be realised only by the march of\nhumanity along the long and difficult path of economic, social and political\nprogress. The constitution and the laws of country can at best assure to its\ncitizens only a limited measure of equality. The framers of the Indian\nConstitution were fully conscious of this. That is why while they gave\npolitical and legal equality the status of a fundamental right, economic and social\nequality was largely left within the scope of Directive Principles of State\nPolicy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Right to Equality affords protection not\nonly against discriminatory laws passed by legislatures but also prevents\narbitrary discretion being vested in the executive. In the modern state, the\nexecutive is armed with vast powers, in the matter of enforcing the laws, rules\nand regulations as well as in the performance of a number of other functions.\nThe equality clause prevents such power from being exercised in the\ndiscriminatory manner. For example, the issue of licences regulating various\ntraders and business activities cannot be left to the unqualified discretion of\nthe licensing authority. The law regulating such activities should lay down the\nprinciples under which the licensing authority has to act in the grant of these\nlicences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prohibition\nof
\nDiscrimination on Certain Grounds (Article 15)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not content with a mere general declaration of\nthe right to equality and fully conscious of the types of discrimination\nprevalent in the country, the framers of the Constitution went a step further\nin Article 15, which is more illustrative in character than introducing\nanything substantially new. Yet, there is one striking feature in it which\nbrings within its scope, although in a limited way, the actions of private\nindividuals. According to the Article, \u201cThe State shall not discriminate\nagainst any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or\nany of them. Further, on the basis of any of these grounds, a citizen cannot be\ndenied \u201caccess to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public\nentertainment or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of\npublic resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to\nthe use of general public.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interpreting the scope of the Article, the\nSupreme Court has held out that \u201cit is plain that the fundamental right conferred\nby Article 15(1) is conferred on a citizen as an individual and is a guarantee\nagainst his being subjected to discrimination in the matter of rights,\nprivileges and immunities pertaining to him as a citizen generally\u201d. In another\ndecision, the Court rejected the plea that residence in the State was\nequivalent to place of birth and held that these are two distinct conceptions\nwith different connotations both in law and in fact, and when Article 15(1)\nprohibits discrimination based on the place of birth, it cannot be read as\nprohibiting discrimination based on residence. Residence as a qualification for\ncertain purposes such as employment may not be classed with discrimination\nbased on caste and place of birth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significance of the Article\nis that it is a guarantee against every form of discrimination by the State on\nthe basis of religion, race, caste or sex. It also strikes at the root of\nprovincialism by prohibiting discrimination based upon one\u2019s place of birth. It\nalso goes well with the ideal of a single citizenship which the Constitution\nestablishes for the entire country. By including within its scope certain\ndiscriminatory actions of private individuals, the Article anticipates Article\n17 which abolishes untouchability and facilitates the removal of discriminatory\npractices indulged in by the higher castes against the lower castes and helps\nin a substantial measure the progress of social equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 15 has, however, two notable exceptions\nin its application. The first of these permits the State to make special\nprovision for the benefit of women and children. The second allows the State
\nto make any special provision for the \nadvancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of\ncitizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The special\ntreatment meted out to women and children is in the larger and the long-range\ninterest of the community itself. It also recognises the social customs and\nbackground of the country as a whole. The second exception was not in the\noriginal Constitution but was later on added to it as a result of the First\nAmendment of the Constitution in 1951.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equality\nof Opportunity
\nin Matters of Public Employment (Article 16) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 16 guarantees equality\nof opportunity in matters of public employment. In the first part of the\nArticle, the general rule is laid down that there shall be equal opportunity\nfor all citizens, wherever they are living, in matters of employment under the\nState, thereby the universality of Indian citizenship is emphasised. In the\nnext section, the general principle is explained in detail. According to this,\nthe State is prohibited from showing any discrimination against any citizen on\ngrounds of religion, caste, race, sex, descent, place of birth or residence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next clauses are in the nature of\nexceptions. According to the first, residence qualifications may be made\nnecessary in the case of appointments under the State for particular positions.\nBut instead of leaving it to individual States to make any rules they like in\nthis regard, the power is vested in Parliament to prescribe the requirements as\nto residence within the State. This is intended to make the qualifying test uniform\nthroughout India. The second exception is in favour of reservation of positions\nin public employment for any backward class of citizens. This is meant to help\nthose who have had very little share so far in public employment. The\ndetermination of a backward community is a matter that is left to each State\nGovernment. The third exception seeks to take out of the scope of the general\nprinciple the management of the affairs of any religious or denominational\ninstitution under any special law providing for the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Central Government has been\ntaking several measures to translate the ideal embodied in Article 16 into\npractice. It convenes, on a regular basis, a conference of State Ministers of\nBackward Classes with a view to assessing the measures already taken and\nsuggesting necessary modifications to existing practices in order to produce\nbetter results. It also advises the State Governments from time to time on\nspecific actions, such as the deletion of references to caste from official\nrecords and application forms for admission to educational institutions and\nissuing warning against the practice of untouchability to all government\nservants, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The States are also advised to\nadopt economic criteria for the determination of the backwardness of a particular\n
\nclass. But the Governments in the States which are really concerned with the\nimplementation of these proposals have yet to change their attitudes. Most of\nthem are still so much influenced by caste and communal considerations that it\nseems unrealistic to expect much from them in the near future. Rapid\nindustrialisation and the availability of plenty of new jobs along with\nsimultaneous expansion of educational opportunities for the backward sections\nof the community as well as a change in the outlook and attitude of those\nclasses and groups which held a traditional monopoly in public services, will\ngradually facilitate the realisation of the ultimate goal of equal opportunity\nin public services.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fundamental Rights Right to Equality (Article 14) Article 14 declares that \u201cthe State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India\u201d. The phrase \u201cequality before the law\u201d occurs in almost all written constitutions that guarantee fundamental rights. Equality before the law […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":162,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161\/revisions\/162"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}