| Introduction | jurisprudence |
| Provisions | Article 14 |
| Case laws | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras |
| Conclusion | present problem |
What is doctrine of Reasonableness?
This means that the government must act in a fair, just and logical way. Laws, actions, and decisions made by the government should not be excessive, unfair or arbitrary. It is a judicially developed principle applied to evaluate the constitutionality and validity of laws and actions. The doctrine of reasonableness is a cornerstone in safeguarding individual rights while enabling the state to function effectively within the constitutional framework.
Example: If the government bans loudspeaker after 10 pm to avoid noise pollution, it can be reasonable. But if it all loudspeakers without considering the need for emergency announcements, it may not be reasonable.
Where it applies:
- Article 14 – ensures equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary classification.
- Article 19 – imposes “reasonable restrictions” on fundamental rights.
- Article 21 – requires that the “procedure established by law” for depriving someone of life or personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Test of Reasonableness
- Legitimate objective: the restriction or law must pursue a valid public or state interest.
- Proportionality: the means employed must not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objective.
- Non- Arbitrariness: laws and actions must not be arbitrary or oppressive.
- Fairness and Justness: actions should respect constitutional values and individual dignity.
What is Doctrine of Non- Arbitrariness?
The doctrine of arbitrariness means that the government or any authority cannot act on a whim or personal preference. Every decision or action they take must be fair, logical and based on valid reasons. It ensures that power is exercised responsibly and not used unfairly or unjustly.
Example: If a government job is given to someone without a proper selection process, it is arbitrary and violates this doctrine. If the job is given based on qualifications and merit, it is non-arbitrary and fair.
The doctrine of non-arbitrariness is considered a component of the reasonable classification test under Article 14. While applying this doctrine is viewed as an executive function, its scope remains unclear. Starting with the text of Article 14 itself offers a clear and logical approach. The article states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” The first part of this guarantee ensures no individual is above the law, a principle reinforced by the second part, which assures equal application of legislation.
Any exception to equality is only permissible if the State has reasonable grounds for different treatment of individuals. Therefore, the validity of state action relies on an assessment of the reasons for state action. This is an important connection in Article 14 between equality and rationality.
Article 14. Equality before Law
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Supreme Court has said about Article 14:
Article 14 means everyone should be treated equally by law, but it’s okay to treat some people differently if there’s a good, sensible reason for it. The law is usually seen as fair unless someone proves it’s clearly not. Courts will try to find reasons why a law might be fair, even looking at common knowledge. Laws don’t have to be perfect, just reasonable. Treating people differently based on things like location or job can be okay. Both the rules themselves and how they’re applied must be fair. It all comes down to common sense.
The content of Right under Article 14 has been embodied in two phrases,
a. Equality before law: It is a negative concept that implies the absence of any special privileges in favor of any individual or class and the equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts. In essence, no one, regardless of their rank or status, is above the law.
It emphasizes the universality of law and that everyone is subject to the same legal processes.
b. Equal protection of laws: It is a positive concept that implies the right to equal treatment in equal circumstances. It doesn’t mandate that the same laws should apply to all persons regardless of differences in their situation. Instead, it allows for reasonable classification, meaning that the state can treat different groups of people differently if there is a rational basis for doing so and the classification has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. It essentially means that “like should be treated alike.”
It emphasizes equal opportunity and fairness in the application of laws, recognizing that treating everyone identically might lead to inequality in certain situations.
Difference between Equality before law and Equal protection of law:
Prima facie, the expression “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” seem to be identical but in fact, they mean different things. “Equality before the law” is substantive part, and “equal protection of law” is procedural security. Substantive law cannot be arbitrary and discriminatory whereas Procedural law cannot go against natural justice and cannot be unfair, unjust and unreasonable.
In Sri Srinivasa vs Govt of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the two expressions “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” do not mean the same thing and suggest a more fundamental difference. He observed that the word “law” in the expression “equality before the law” meant law in general sense whereas the same word in the expression “equal protection of law” denoted specific laws. He further observed that “equality before the law” is a dynamic concept having many facets : one facet denoting the absence of any privileged class or person who was above the law and the other denoting the obligation of the state to bring about a more equal society as envisaged in the Preamble and Part IV of the constitution. It is difficult to imagine that equality before law can be maintained without maintaining the equal protection of law.
Case Laws
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, “in the interest of the general public.” When Ms The Passports Act did not explicitly provide for giving the passport holder an opportunity to be heard before impounding the passport. Ms. Gandhi filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the impounding of her passport as a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 (specifically the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to practice any profession), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Issue: Whether Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive or interconnected?
Whether the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21?
Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act was arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14, especially because it conferred broad and undefined power to the passport authority without requiring reasons to be recorded or a hearing to be given?
Judgement: The Court held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but are closely interconnected and form a “golden triangle.” Any law depriving a person of their “personal liberty” (as under Article 21) must also meet the requirements of Articles 14 and 19. This means the law must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary (Article 14), and must not violate the freedoms under Article 19 unless the restrictions are reasonable. This overruled the earlier narrow interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The Court explicitly recognized the right to travel abroad as a part of “personal liberty” under Article 21. Therefore, any restriction on this right must comply with a fair and reasonable procedure. The Court emphasized that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality. Since Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act conferred broad and unguided power to the passport authority without providing for reasons or a hearing, it was held to be arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14. The Court stated that a procedure which is arbitrary cannot be considered “reasonable, fair and just.”
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra
Facts: The appellant, Kathi Raning Rawat, was found guilty of multiple offenses, including murder, rape, and robbery. The Saurashtra Safety Measures Ordinance of 1948 was enacted by the legislature, granting the state government the authority to establish special courts to handle specific crimes. This ordinance implemented various rules, such as the elimination of jury trials, the absence of preliminary inquiries before sessions, no commitment proceedings, and no case transfers. The purpose of the ordinance is to address issues related to public safety and maintenance.
Issue: Whether Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution of 1949 declares the challenged law unconstitutional?
Whether or not the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance of 1948 and its third amendment in 1949, which gave the state government the authority to set up special courts for certain crimes, were in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which says that everyone is entitled to equal protection from the law and equality before the law?
Judgement: The court, referencing Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, decided the law wasn’t unconstitutional because it didn’t violate Article 14, which ensures everyone is equal under the law. The court explained that Article 14 allows for different classifications in laws as long as there’s a sensible reason for the difference and it relates to what the law is trying to accomplish. They found the law in question made a reasonable distinction between offenses and people, giving the state government some flexibility in deciding which offenses and accused individuals would be tried by special courts. These special courts were created to handle public order and safety issues in the state, requiring quick trials for certain serious and violent crimes. The court also clarified that these special courts were independent courts with sole authority over specific offenses, not lower courts. Finally, they concluded that the different procedures used by these special courts didn’t prevent fair trials for the accused, as the law provided them with sufficient protections and rights.
Court referred the case, State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali, and held that the law was temporary and could be changed by lawmakers or authorities. They added that other states and the national government had passed similar temporary laws to address sudden threats to public safety and order.
Court also rejected the plea of violation of Article 21 and 22 that deals with right to life and personal liberty and certain safeguards against arrest and detention. Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Special Court’s conviction and sentence.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
The case was filed partly due to concerns that constitutional amendments were infringing upon fundamental rights, including the right to property (which was then under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, but the challenge also touched upon the broader framework of fundamental rights, including the spirit of equality). The basic structure doctrine emerged from the need to protect these fundamental rights from being completely abrogated by Parliament.
Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the basic structure to include principles like the rule of law and the concept of non-arbitrariness. Since Article 14 is the cornerstone of the principle against arbitrary state action and for equality, the protection of the basic structure indirectly safeguards the essence of Article 14. Any amendment that seeks to introduce blatant arbitrariness or discrimination could be challenged as violating the basic structure.
The basic structure doctrine reinforces the power of judicial review. This power allows the courts to examine whether laws, including constitutional amendments, are consistent with the fundamental principles of the Constitution, including equality. If an amendment violates the basic structure, it can be struck down. This ensures that the principle of equality, as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, remains protected from potentially discriminatory amendments.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
Facts: A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his detention, arguing that the Act violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Issue: Whether the Act or certain sections of it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22?
Whether the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (freedoms like speech, movement, etc.) were related to the right to personal liberty under Article 21?
Judgement: The Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, except for Section 14, which prevented the detainee from disclosing the grounds of detention to the court. This section was struck down as violating Article 22(5), which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to make a representation against it. The Court adopted a literal interpretation of Article 21, stating that “procedure established by law” simply meant any procedure laid down by a law enacted by a competent legislature. It explicitly rejected the argument that it implied principles of natural justice or the “due process” standard prevalent in the US Constitution. The Court reasoned that the Constitution framers deliberately chose the phrase “procedure established by law” instead of “due process of law.” The Court held that Articles 19 and 21 operate in different fields and are not interdependent. Article 19 deals with the freedoms of a citizen while they are free, whereas Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty against deprivation by the State. Detention under a valid law was considered a deprivation of personal liberty under Article 21, and the freedoms under Article 19 were not applicable in such a situation.
PRESENT PROBLEM
3. Meytiri’s petition is likely to succeed if the law unreasonably curtails the accused’s rights, or lacks fair, just, and reasonable procedure. The prosecution under an unconstitutional law would be void. The legislation must meet constitutional standards of non-arbitrariness, equality, and fair trail – if it fails these tests, it is liable to be struck down.
