Introduction

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It frames

fundamental political principles, procedures, practices, rights, powers, and
duties of the government. It imparts constitutional supremacy and not
parliamentary supremacy, as it is not created by the Parliament but, by a
constituent assembly, and adopted by its people, with a declaration in its
preamble. Parliament cannot override it.

The world’s longest constitution is the Indian’s constitution. At its

commencement, it had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules. It consists
of approximately 145,000 words, making it the second largest active
constitution in the world. Currently, it has a preamble, 25 parts with 12
schedules, 5 appendices, 448 articles, and 101 amendments.
History
The constitution of India was adopted on the 26th of November, in the
year 1949. However, it came to effect on the 26th of January, 1950. 26th
of January is celebrated as the Republic Day of India.

It was adopted by the Constitution Assembly. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the

chairman of the Drafting Committee, is widely considered to be the
architect of the Constitution of India. After, the adoption of the
constitution, The Union of India became the contemporary and modern
Republic of India

Fundamental Rights
The Constitution of India provides its citizens with six fundamental rights.
These rights are the Right to Freedom, Right to Equality, Cultural and
Educational Rights, Right to Constitutional Remedies, Right against
Exploitation, Right against Exploitation. Recently, the Right to Privacy
has also been added to fundamental rights.
Article 14

Article 14 reads as, ‘the State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India’.
This Article is the embodiment the principle of Rule of Law. Situations
not expressly or impliedly covered under Articles 15 to 18 are examined
in the light of Article 14. There are two expressions used in Article 14-

 equality before the law, and

 equal protection of the laws.

Both these expressions sound similar but have different connotations.

The expression ‘equality before law’ has its origin in the English
Common Law. It means that amongst equals law shall be equal and shall
be equally administered. The expression ‘equal protection of laws’ has
its source in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Equality before the law is a negative concept and equal protection of the
laws is a positive concept.[1] The doctrine of ‘equality before the law‘ is
equally operative against the legislature itself. If the legislature dares to
enact an enactment inconsistent with any provisions of fundamental
rights, the courts are competent enough to pronounce it
unconstitutional.[2] The principle of equality before the law owes its
origin to the doctrine of Rule of Law propounded by Prof. Dicey in his
book The Law of the Constitution (1885). Prof. Dicey gave three
implications of the doctrine of Rule of Law-

 Supremacy of Law/Absence of Arbitrary Power – it means

that no man should be punished except for the breach of the
law.
  Equality Before The Law – it implies equal subjugation of all
citizens to the ordinary law of the land administered by the
ordinary courts of law.
 Primacy of The Rights of The Individual – constitution is the
result of the rights of the individuals rather than being the
source of them.

Equal protection of the laws means the right to equal treatment in similar
circumstances, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. The
second expression is the corollary of the first and it is difficult to
imagine a situation in which the violation of equal protection of laws
will not be the violation of the equality before law.[3] Both the rule of
procedure and the substantive law come under the purview of Article 14.
Equal protection requires affirmative action by the State towards
unequals by providing them facilities and opportunities. Article 14
applies to ‘any person’ including any company, association, citizen, non-
citizens, natural persons as well as legal persons.

Exception to The Rule of Law

The rule does not prevent certain classes of persons from being subject
to special rules. For example, Article 361 is an exception to the rule of
law. It provides that the President or the Governors or the Rajpramukhs
shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of
the powers and duties of office. This is because of the reason that Article
14 does not imply that the same laws should apply to all persons or that
every law must have universal application because all persons are not,
by nature, attainment or circumstances, in the same position. This article
prohibits class legislation which makes improper discrimination by
conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily
selected but it permits reasonable classification for the purpose of
achieving specific ends. For classification to be reasonable, two
conditions must be fulfilled:

 The classification must be based on intelligible differentia

which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together
from others left out of the group.
 The differentia must have rational relation with the object
sought to be achieved by the act.

It means that there must be some nexus between the differentia and the
object so that the classification does not appear arbitrary or
discriminatory.[4] What Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any
action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.
The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not a
paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective or end of that Article. It is
merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or
executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constitutional
denial of equality. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State
action whether it be of legislature or of the executive or of the authority
under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes
down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-
arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden
thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the
Constitution.[5] In Maneka Gandhi’s case [6], the court had opined that
Article 14 was not to be equated with the principle of classification. It
was primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness in State action and the
doctrine of classification was evolved only as a subsidiary rule for
testing or determining whether a particular State action was arbitrary or
not.
Article 15
Article 15 prohibits the State from discriminating against citizens on the
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. On the other hand,
it empowers the State to make special provision for women and children
and for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens
(hereinafter referred to as SEBCs), Scheduled Classes (SCs) or
Scheduled Tribes (STs). Originally the Article had only three clauses.
Later on, clauses (4) and (5) were added by way of the First
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 and the Ninety Third
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005 respectively.

Article 15(4) empowered the State to make special provision for the
advancement of any SEBCs or for the SCs or the STs. It was added as a
proviso or exception to Article 15(1) and Article 29 to override the
effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v
Smt. Champakam Dorairajan[7]. In that case the government of
Madras was acting on the impugned Communal G.O. (passed before the
coming into force of the Constitution) even after coming into force of
the Constitution, reserving seats in Engineering and Medical Colleges of
the State based on caste. The impugned order was declared by the court
as violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 29 and therefore void
under Article 13. The word ‘class’ used in the Article is not used in
reference to any caste. The provision does not lay down the criteria to
designate the backward classes, it leaves it to the State to lay down the
criteria. However, the court can go into the question as to whether the
criteria are relevant or not.

After the insertion of clause (4) in Article 15, a number of orders were
passed by the Mysore government under Article 15(4) reserving seats
for admission to State Medical and Engineering Colleges for the
‘backward classes’ and the ‘more backward classes’ in addition to the
seats reserved for the SCs and STs. The government had designated the
backward classes in these orders on the basis of caste and communities.
One such order was challenged before the Supreme Court as being
irrational and a fraud on Article 15(4) in the case of M. R. Balaji v State
of Mysore [8]. The Supreme court while quashing the impugned order
observed-

 Article 15(4) is a proviso or exception to clause (2) of Article

15 and to clause (2) of Article 29.

 Further categorisation of backward classes into backward and

more backward classes is not envisaged by Article 15(4).

 For the purpose of Article 15 (4), backwardness must be both

social and educational and caste cannot be made the sole or
dominant test for determining the backwardness of a class of
citizens.

 And order under Article 15(4) need not be in the form of a

legislation, it can also be in the form of an executive order.

 Speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision

should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must depend
upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.

 The court further commented that the interests of weaker

sections of society, which are a first charge on the State and the
Centre, have to be adjusted with the interests of the community
as a whole. Regarding Article 15 (4) the court observed that it is
 only an enabling provision and does not impose any obligation
on the State to take any special action under it.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. V. Pradeep

Tandon [9] while upholding the reservations in favour of persons from
hills and Uttarakhand areas on the ground that these areas were instances
of socially and educationally backward class citizens, held that the place
of habitation and its environment could be a determining factor in
judging the social and educational backwardness.

In Dr Preeti Srivastav & Anr v State of MP & Ors [10], the Supreme
Court opined that there should be some minimum qualifying marks for
the Reserved Category candidates, if not the same as prescribed by for
the General Category candidates.

Clause (5) was added in Article 15 in order to make the private

educational institutions share the burden of government educational
institutions in providing the citizens with greater access to education. It
enabled the State to make provisions for the advancement of the SCs,
STs or SEBCs of citizens in relation to admission in educational
institutions including private aided/unaided educational institutions. The
clause, however, was inserted in order to override the effect of the
judgment in T. M. A. Pai Foundation v State of
Karnataka [11] wherein the court upheld the right of private unaided
educational institutions to choose students of their choice. Minority
educational institutions referred to in Article 30(1) are exempted from
the purview of Article 15(5). In the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur v
Union of India [12] the validity of Clause (5) of Article 15 was
challenged before the Supreme Court inter alia on following grounds –
  Whether Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 15 are contradictory to
each other?
 Whether Article 15(5) violates the basic structure of the
Constitution?
 Whether exclusion of minority educational institutions from the
purview of Article 15(5) is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution?

The court, in relation to first mentioned issue observed that Clauses (4)
and (5) of Article 15 are not mutually contradictory. The second issue
was answered by the court in negative so far as it related to the State-
maintained and aided educational institutions. In relation to the third
issue the court opined that minority educational institutions, by
themselves, are a separate class and their rights are protected by other
provisions of the Constitution.

Article 16
Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in the matter of public
employment. It mandates the State to provide every citizen with equal
opportunity in the matters of employment or appointment to any office
under it. However, this does not prevent the State from laying down the
requisite qualifications for recruitment in the government services. It
also prohibits discrimination by the State in relation to employment or
appointment to any office under the State on the grounds only of
religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of
them. Clause (4) of Article 16 allows the State to reserve seats in favour
of backward classes of citizens which according to State are not
adequately represented in the services under the State.
In the case of N M Thomas v State of Kerala Article [13], the
Supreme Court held that the preferential treatment of under-represented
backward classes so far as such treatment was reasonable and had a
rational nexus with the object in view was valid.

In the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v Union of India [14] also

known as the Mandal Commission Case, the Supreme Court dealt with
various aspects of the complex issue of reservation and gave out a very
thoughtful judgment. Some of the key aspects of the judgment are-

 Creamy layer must be excluded from Backward Classes.

 Article 16(4) is not exception to Article 16(1), but an
independent clause. Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the subject of
reservation in favour of backward classes, though it may not be
exhaustive of the very concept of reservation. Reservation for
other classes can be made under Article 16(1).
 Reservation shall not exceed the 50 percent limit. Carry forward
rule is valid provided it should not result in the breach of the 50
percent rule.(upheld the judgment in Balaji Case and
overruled N M Thomas Case in this respect).
 Reservation in appointments under Article 16(4) confined to
initial appointments only. There shall be no reservation in
promotion.
 Backward classes referred to in Article 16(4) not same as the
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes referred to under
Article 15(5).
 Article 16(4) permits classification of Backward Classes into
backward and more backward classes (overruled Balaji
Case and upheld N M Thomas Case in this respect).
In the aftermath of the Mandal Commission Judgment, Clause (4A) was
added in Article 16 by way of Seventy Seventh Amendment Act,
1995 providing for reservation in the matters of promotion. This was
further amended by Eighty Fifth Amendment Act, 2001 adding the
words ‘in the matters of promotion with consequential seniority’
retrospectively from 17-06-1995 in order to nullify the judgment in Ajit
Singh and Ors v State of Punjab [15]which discarded the concept of
consequential seniority. The amendment allowed the reservations to be
made in favour of SCs and STs with consequential seniority. Another
Clause (4B) was inserted in Article 16 through Eighty First Amendment
Act, 2000 to overcome the 50 percent limitation on the ‘carry forward
rule’ to fill the backlog of unfilled vacancies reserved in favour of SCs
and STs.

The amendments made in Article 16 by inserting Clauses (4A) and (4B)

were challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of M Nagraj and
Ors v Union of India [16] on the ground that these amendments were
made to reverse the judgments in the above mentioned cases and that the
Parliament has arrogated to itself the judicial powers thus violating the
basic structure of the Constitution. The court upholding the
Constitutional validity of these amendment acts held that Clause (4A) of
Article 16 is an enabling provision and it will be governed by two
compelling reasons, ‘backwardness’ and ‘inadequacy of representation’
as mentioned Article 16(4). If the State wished to exercise its discretion
and make a provision for reservation in promotion for SCs and STs, it
has to collect quantifiable data to show backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in
addition to compliance of Article 355.
Article 17
Article 17 exhibits the progressive and reformative vision of the
Constitution makers. It abolishes untouchability and makes the practice
of untouchability a penal offence. It can be termed as one of the earliest
efforts made in the direction of social reforms. Since the Article
contemplates the practice of untouchability to be a punishable offence,
the legislature enacted the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, 1955
previously known as the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 to
prescribe punishment for untouchability and other practices connected
with it. The word untouchability has not been defined either under
Article 17 or the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, 1955. The term has
not been used in the Article in a literal or grammatical sense. It actually
refers to the social disabilities historically imposed on certain classes of
people by reason of their birth in certain castes and would not include an
instigation of social boycott by reason of the conduct of certain persons.
The word “Harijan ” prime facie refers to an untouchable.
Untouchability is an integral part of caste system and is not based on
mens rea.[17]

Article 18
Article 18 abolishes titles. Clause (2) prohibits a citizen from accepting
any title from a foreign State with the exception of academic and
military distinctions. Conferring of titles by the State on the citizens
without merit violates the principle of equality creating a divide in the
society. Under the British rule there was a practice of conferring titles on
the well wishers and supporters of the British regime. This resulted in
creating a class of nobility which was loyal to the foreign rulers.
Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar while explaining the import of Article 18 in the
Constituent Assembly said that the Article does not provide a right,
instead it confers a duty on a citizen not to accept any titles not only
from the Indian State but also from any foreign State. The prohibition
extends to the acceptance of any presents, emoluments from a foreign
State while holding any office of profit or trust under the Indian State
Conclusion
The principle of equality embodied in the Constitution forms the
bedrock of our democratic setup. In an incredibly diverse society like
India, the values like social justice, equality, liberty and fraternity
cherished by the Constitution act as the binding force. The Indian
judiciary has been and continues to uphold these core values for the
collective advancement of the society and ensuring justice for every
individual. Our visionary forefathers effortlessly gave us what other
societies in the world had to fight and shed blood for. For example, the
Indian Constitution gives us the right to vote equally regardless of
gender unlike many progressive western countries where women had to
fight to get this right. They made sure that the new India is free from the
dark shadows of past.