Mod 3

RIGHT TO EQUALITY - Art 14 - state shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal
protection of law.

Introduction

“Equality before law” means no one is above law and all are equal before law while “equal protection
of law means that law treats everyone equally without discrimination

Article 14 does not talk about absolute equality rather it guarantees similarity of treatment in similar
situation. Equality before law is a negative concept which denies any special privilege in favour on
individuals and equal subjection of all before law. Equal protection of laws is a positive concept
which allows the state to give special treatment to those in different situations in order to achieve
equality amongst law. To sum article 14 reflects the idea that equals should be treated equally must
and un-equals unequally.

To achieve the goal of social justice, equality is the first step towards it. Equality means levelling
those social existence which are crucial for human well being. Equality exist in three forms:

1. Formal equality – Equality before law

2. Equality of opportunity – Art 16(1) (employment & Appointment)
3. Equality of outcomes – Rousseau proposed that no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another
and none so person as to be force to sell himself.

Article 14 read into Article 15 and 16

We can find the essence of article 14 in article 15 and 16.

Article 15(1) prohibits any sort of discrimination by state on the grounds of only religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them. However, 15(4) of the article allows the state to make any special
provisions for socially and educationally backward classes as well as to SC and ST for their
advancement. Clause 15(1) reflects the equality before law and clause 15(4) reflects the equal
protection of law.

Similarly, article 16(1) provides equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and 16(2)
prevents the state from discriminating citizens in the matters of public employment on the grounds of
only religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, descent, resident or any of them. However, 16(4) does
not prevent the state from making special provisions providing reservations to backward classes
which are not adequately represented. Clause 16(2) reflects the equality before law and clause 16(4)
reflects the equal protection of law.
It is based on two key points that opportunity must be availed by law (equality before law) and one
must be capable to avail these opportunity (equal protection of law)

Reasonable Classification test

Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification i.e. the equal protection of law
allows for positive discrimination however, it must be reasonable. In the case of, State of W.B. vs.
Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), Kathi Raning Rawat Vs State of Saurashtra (1952) supreme court laid
down the test of reasonable classification by specifying two conditions:

1. The classification must be based on intelligible differentia which differentiates the persons
grouped together from the persons left out of the group.
2. The differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

Thereafter in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958) which further clarified
the scope of permissible classification. These are as follows:

1. A law may be constitutional even if it relates to single individual if on account of special

circumstances justifies treating such individual as a class in itself.
2. There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of a statute. However, such
presumption is rebuttable by showing that there is no classification at all.
3. It must be presumed that, while making a classification, legislature understands and correctly
appreciates the needs of its people and that its lawful discriminations are based on adequate
grounds.
4. Legislative is free to recognize degree of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases
where the need is deemed to be the clearest.
5. The classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. Mathematical
nicety and perfect equality are not required. Similarity, and not identity of treatment, is
enough.
6. If a law gives officials the power to apply it selectively to certain groups, and this follows a
clear and fair policy, the law isn't considered unfair or discriminatory.
7. Substantive and procedural laws are both subject to mandate of article 14. Thus classification
should be reasonable both from Substantive and procedural stand points.

Later in the case of E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), a new concept of equality was
developed by the Supreme Court where it was held that equality is antithesis of arbitrariness in fact
they are sworn enemies of each other. Justice Bhagwati – Equality is dynamic concept (various
aspects), it cannot be cabined or confined with traditional limits.
In Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI (1978, the case applied royappa doctrine test, SC held that

 equality and arbitrariness are antithesis of each other

 Where there is equality there is no arbitarines and vice versa
 Art 14 includes Principle of natural justice and rule of law

Navtej Singh Johar vs UOI, 5 judges bench – in this case SC writ down sec 377 of IPC and held that
consensual sex between two adults is not an offence. To the extent sec 377 criminalized consensual
between two adults is unconstitutional it violates Art 14, 19 and 21.

Social Justice

Reservation in educational institutions

Social justice can be achieved by two affirmative actions i.e. preferential treatment and reservation.
The constitution provides for making special provisions for the upliftment of socially and
educationally backward classes including SC and ST. For this state has enacted laws which provides
reservations to these classes in the matters of public employment and education.

During 1950, state of madras passed a communal government order which reserved seats in
educational institutions on the basis of the caste and communities. The order was challenged in the
case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, of being violative of article 29(2) which stated
that no Indian citizen could be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by
government only on the basis of caste. Court held that the order is violative of Article 29(2) and hence
is unconstitutional. Court observed that 16(4) provides government to make reservation for backward
classes in the matters of public employment. however, there is no such provision for reservation in
educational institutions. This decision was criticized by Dr. Ambedkar for being decided in an utterly
unsatisfactory manner.

In order to dilute the effect of this judgement of Supreme Court, First amendment to constitution was
made in 1951 which introduced clause 4 in article 15 which said that government has power to make
any provision for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or for scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes.

Kaka Kalelkar and Nagan Gowda Committee on Backwardenss

However, now the issue was who all can be considered as socially and educationally backward
classes. Article 340 gave president powers to appoint commissions to investigate the conditions of
socially and educationally backward classes. In 1953, Kaka Kalelkar commission was appointed to
identify who all can be considered as Other Backward Classes. However, the report of the
commission was incredibly broad and imprecise such that even fortune tellers and people believing in
superstition were considered as backward.

Later in 1960, State of Mysore appointed Dr. Nagan Gowda committee for formulating a criteria to
determine who all can be considered as socially and educationally backward classes. In its report the
committee said that the social backwardness is determined on the basis of the caste and community
having low status in society. Based on the committees report, State of Mysore through an order
reserved 50% of seats for OBCs and above that 18% for SCs and STs i.e. total of 68% was reservation
was given.

The above policy was challenged in the case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, where court held that
the status of caste or community can be one of the criteria to determine social backwardness but it
cannot be the sole criteria. Justice Gajendragadkar went on to held that the reservation must be
reasonable, lower than 50% of total seats and it should not be excessive. He held that Reservation of
68% is a fraud on constitution.

In 1960, Carry forward rule was introduced by the government which allowed the state to carry
forward the unfilled reserved seats to subsequent year. Due to this in the subsequent year the
percentage of reserved seats went to 65% of total seats. The rule was challenged in the case of T
Devadasan v. UOI (1961) wherein court relying on M.R. Balaji invalidated the carry forward rule as
it exceeded the cap of 50%. Later in the case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1965) a service rule
was challenged which gave SC and ST employees longer time to pass a test after promotion. This rule
was held valid by stating that article 16(4) is not an exception of 16(1) and the rule of 50% is not a
hard and fast but flexible rule. On the point of excessive reservation, in 1980 Supreme Court in the
case of State of MP vs. Nivedita Jain (1981), the qualifying marks for SC and ST candidates were
relaxed in order to take admission in medical colleges. Here, court held that there is nothing wrong in
giving excessive reservation as the benefit of reservation was only available till the student is admitted
into the college, afterwards the curriculum will remain same for all and hence the point of reservation
lowering the standards of profession does not arise. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. state of Karnataka
(1985)- Justice Chinnappa Reddy questioned the definition of Merit. He said that the definition of
merit does not necessarily mean how well a person performs in an exam, there are certain other
factors which determine what merit is like other than the score in exam how well a person is able to
communicate and manage the administration are also a part of merit. Also there will be differences in
availability of the resources to study based on the background of the family, a person with no
coaching and proper education securing 70% is also a merit compared to a person having good
economical background and good education securing 90%,

Mandal Commission and Indra Sawhney Judgement

 After 20 years of Kaka Kalelkar Committee’s failure to determine objective criteria for identifying the
OBCs, a new committee was formed which known as Mandal Commission to formulate a criteria to
determine the OBCs. Learning from the mistakes of Kaka Kalelkar Committee Mandal commission
took into consideration three criterias i.e. social, educational and economical backwardness to
determine who all comes under OBC. Of these three, least importance was given to the economical
backwardness and focus was on social and educational backwardness. Keeping in mind the cap of
50%, Mandal commission suggested 27% of reservation for OBCs such that the total reservation
including SC and ST does not go beyond 50%.

Later in 1990 through an office memorandum 27% reservation was given in offices of central govt,
this was challenged in the landmark case of Indra Sawheny v. Union of India (1992). In this case
court accepted the suggestions of Mandal Commission. Court herein held that

In this case, SC held that,

1. 27% reservation declared in favour of OB.C. is valid / constitutional.

2. SC laid down the concept of creamy layer and non-creamy layer.
3. To declare reservation law is not necessary It can be declared by mere Government order
also.
4. Reservation shall be given at the stage of appointment and not the promotion
5. SC and ST are deemed backward.
6. Permanent Commission shall be established for socially and educationally backward classes
7. As a general rule reservation shall be not exceed more than 50%. In case of extraordinary
circumstances reservation may exceed 50% Extra ordinary/ Exceptional circumstames:
→50% ceiling limit may be exceeded to give reservation to people or to uplift the people
who are living in far flung remote area due to which they are outside of mainstream of
national life.

Series of amendments after Indra Sawhney judgement

1. 76th Amendment 1994 (diluted 50% rule) –

Tamil Nadu State reservation Act was put in 9 th schedule to keep it away from judicial
scrutiny. The act gave total of 69% reservation to OBCs and SCs and STs doing away with the 50%
rule.

Amendments w.r.t reservation to SCs and STs in promotion

2. 77th amendment 1995- added Article 16(4A) (Indra Sawhney v. UOI)

 clause 4A allowed giving reservation to SCs and STs in the matters of promotion as long as
state thinks they are not adequately represented. This diluted the Indra Sawhney judgement where the
bench disagreed with reservation in promotion.

3. 82nd amendment 2000 (S. Vinod Kumar v.UOI) added proviso to article 335

an office memorandum relaxed the standards for SC and ST candidates in a qualifying exam
for identifying fit candidates for promotion. Challenged under S. Vinod Kumar v. UOI which held it
as violative of article 335 which requires govt to maintain the efficiency of the services. The
amendment added proviso to article 365 allowing the govt to relax the standards.

4. 85th amendment 2001- (UOI v. Virpal Singh and Ajit Januja v. State of Punjab)
held that the SC and ST candidates promoted though acceleration does not have consequential
seniority. Through this amendment the catch-up rule was done away with by amending 16(4).

The 77th, 82nd and 85th amendments were challenged in the case of M. Nagraj v. UOI, wherein
court upheld the validity by stating that these amendments does not violate the basic structure of the
constitution and are mere enabling provisions in order to eliminate inequality.

5. 93rd amendment 2006 also referred as Mandal II- (P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra) added
Article 15(5)

In P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, court held that the govt cannot enforce reservation
in unaided pvt educational institutions. This amendment added clause 5 to Article 15 which allowed
govt to reserve 27% of seats for OBCs in all central educational institutions.

Ashok Kumar Thakur vs UOI (2008) – In this case SC held that art 15(5), is constitutionally
valid. If reservation is above 50% then it is reverse discrimination i.e negative discrimination.
Quantifiable data for adequate reservation is necessary.

6. 103rd Amendment 2019- gave 10% reservation to EWS

Diluted the judgement of Indra Sawhney which said economic criteria cannot be the sole
basis for reservation. Validity was upheld in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI

Mod 5

Rights of Accused

 Presumption of innocence
 Right to Fair Trial
 Art 20 – Protection in respect of conviction for offences.
  Art 20(1) - No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force
at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty
greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offence. - Ex post facto law, Criminal law should not be given
retrospective effect.

In Kedar Nath v. State of Bengal SC stated that applying laws retrospectively, as cautioned
by the Court, would run counter to the safeguards enshrined in Article 20 (1) of the Indian
Constitution.

In Maru Ram etc v. Union of India, The Court’s discerning observation pertained to the
encompassing scope of Article 20 (1), elucidating that it encompasses a pivotal tenet preventing the
imposition of penalties more severe than those in force at the commencement of an offence.

 Art 20 (2) - No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
– Double Jeopardy

Grounds for applicability of the doctrine of double jeopardy:

In legal terms, jeopardy refers to the danger that defendants in criminal cases suffer, such as
jail time or penalties. In three situations, double jeopardy has been stated as a valid defence:

1. the individual must be charged with a crime.

2. Before a court or a judicial tribunal, the investigation or proceeding must have occurred.
3. the person must have been arrested and punished.
4. The offence must be the same as the one for which he was previously convicted and sentenced.
Conditions where the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply:

The double jeopardy clause's protection may not always be applicable. The courts have evolved some
principles for determining the application of double jeopardy as a valid defence, mostly through legal
interpretations over history.

1. Civil lawsuit: Double jeopardy is a defence that can only be used in criminal court and cannot
be used in civil court. The defendant cannot defend himself against punishment in civil court
for the same crime committed in criminal court. For example, if 'A' killed 'B' in a drunk and
drive case, 'B's family can sue in both civil and criminal courts. They can sue in civil court to
recover the 'B's financial damages. In a civil proceeding, 'A' cannot defend himself with double
jeopardy to protect him from punishment for his crime. However, he could use double jeopardy
to defend himself in criminal court.
 2. Jeopardy must begin: The executive authorities must first put the defendant in jeopardy
before applying the double jeopardy doctrine. This requires that defendants must be tried first
before claiming double jeopardy doctrine as a defence.
3. Jeopardy must end: Jeopardy must begin and conclude in the same way.

In Kalawati vs state of HP (1953) – SC held that appeal against the aquital judgement would not be
subject to Art 20(2) as there was no penalty in the earlier trial.
In Ratanlal vs state of Punjab (1965) – Art 20 (2) was invoked clarifying double jeopardy concerns.

 Art 20(3) - No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. – Self incrimination.
In the case of M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra (1954) Art 20(3) gives protect against testimonial
compulsion Because of the word 'person’ word in each clause, the Art must be regarded as applicable
to a corporation which is accused, prosecuted, convicted or punished for an offence.

In state of Bombay vs kathi kalu Oghad – Furnishing evidence as per section 27 of Indian Evidence
Act is necessary.

In Selvi vs State of Karnataka SC held that, Modern Scientific Techniques like brain mapping, narco
test, polygraphy test are Violative of Art- 20 (3). It is intrusion Into Mental Privacy. Also violation of
Art 21, Court give guidelines - Except on the basis of consent on behalf of accused Recorded by JM
Independent agency-Hospital In presence of advocate.

 Art 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law.
1. Right to life
2. Right to personal liberty

In A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950) The Supreme Court ruled that personal liberty in
Article 21 only covered physical liberty, not the freedoms in Article 19. This interpretation was later
expanded in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964).

Right to Life - In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964) the court adopted a wider meaning of
personal liberty and said that it will include all the rights which are given under Article 19(1).
Right to live with Dignity - In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the supreme court addressed
the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court held that the right to a safe and secure
working environment is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. It laid down guidelines to
prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces until appropriate legislation was enacted.

Right to Personal Liberty/ travel - In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Supreme Court
held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence
but includes the right to live with dignity.

In PUCL vs UOI (2000) SC stated that Right to life include right to food – Food and Security Act

Natural Justice - In Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar
Right to Pollution free environment – MC Mehta vs UOI
Right to Reputation - Ravikant Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Right to Privacy – KS Puttaswamy vs UOI
Right to Health – Parmanand Katara vs UOI
Right to Education upto 14 yrs – Unni Krishnan vs state of AP
Right to Socialize – Francis Coralie vs Delhi Administration (1989)