Equality and Social JusticeArticles-14-18 Equality and Social Justice Equality before law and Equal Protection of Laws Classification of Differential Treatments : Constitutional Validity Gender Justice Justice to Weaker Sections of Society Article 14 The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India . Concept of Equality Equality before Law Equal Protection of Laws . Equality before Law Does not mean absolute Equality Like should be treated alike . to prosecute and be prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all citizens of full age and understanding without distinctions of race. Jennings on Equality “ Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered. that like should be treated alike.Dr. The right to sue and be sued .” . wealth . social status or political influence. religion. Punishment only for breach of law and nothing else. Constitution is the result of ordinary law of the land: .Rule of Law Absence of Arbitrary Power : Absolute supremacy of law. Equality Before Law : All classes subject to same ordinary law administered by ordinary courts. Equal Protection of Laws All persons under similar circumstances shall be treated alike . foreign sovereign and ambassadors enjoy full immunity from any judicial process. Immunity also available to enemy claims for acts of war. Article 36 lays down that the President and the governors are exempted from any criminal proceeding during the tenure of their office. .Exclusion of Article 14 Under International Law. . by order. declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such rights conferred by Part III (except Arts. 359 (1) lays down that where a proclamation of emergency is in operation the President may. Art.20 and 21) shall remain suspended. New Concept of Equality E.P. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555) Justice Krishna Iyer: New Concept of Equality: Protection against arbitrariness . Royappa V. ” . cabined and confined‟ within traditional and doctrinal limits.Justice Krishna Iyer on Equality “ Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be „ cribbed. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies. From a positivist point of view. Where an act is arbitrary. equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. one belong to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and therefore violative of Article 14. Nargesh Mirza (AIR 1981 SCC 663) (to be referred for Gender Justice) .Abbas V. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 481) E. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555) Ajay Hasia V.P.A. Khalid Mujib (AIR 191 SC 487) Air India V. Royappa V.Case Laws K. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732 BALCO Employees Union (Regd ) V. UOI AIR 2002 SC 350 .Case Law Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice V. .Test of Reasonable Classification Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Rajput (1996) 6 SCC 744 Sunil Jaitley v State of Haryana (1984) 4 SCC 296 Mithu V.K.A. Ghosh V. UOI AIR 1971 AC 481 .Classification of Differential Treatments : Constitutional Validity Cases – wherein classification madeConstitutional validity –challenged R.G. J.Abbas V. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 473 K. Shethna.R.argued his case-obtained stay Mr. 1993.G. B. Respondent served with another charge sheet .L.K.L. B. J. Rajput Facts: Respondent .appointed judge of High Court of Gujarat. Ghosh V.Shethna. and employee of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporationchallenged his suspension Mr. Appellant Municipal Corporation be punished for Contempt of Court Two earlier orders be restored. . Contention: Said CS be stayed. Charge sheet not connected with earlier dispute Petition filed. Despite this – HC.R. Petition –was to be heard by.L. Mehta & B.A.Justice Shethna –earlier had appeared as an advocate of Respondent in 1988.passed an order SC. Shethna Appellant (AMC).Held: Action of Judge.Quashed order of HC .violates Rule of Law.objected. Contention. 303 of IPC: Challenged S.302: states.Validity of S. if a person commits murder he may be awarded either sentence of death or sentence of life imprisonment. 303: states that if a person under a sentence of life imprisonment in jail commit murder he must be awarded sentence of death. S. . ( Case 2) Distinction made for awarding death sentence Sentence of Death –mandatory in case 1 Discretionary.Mithu V.in Case 2 . State of Punjab Facts: Different treatment – persons who commit murders whilst in under sentence (Case 1)and by persons while they are not under sentence. Validity of S. Judicial Discretion Available under S.302 But unavailable to a life convict u/S 303 . 303 of IPC: Challenged Contention : which sentence be granted : Discretion of the Courts. 303 as unconstitutional Ground: Classification between persons – not based on rational principal.Validity of S. . 303 of IPC: Challenged SC: Struck down S. Validity of Cinematograph Act. Abbas V. UOI Fact: Cinematograph Act. 1952 Challenged Films classified into categories U: Unrestricted Exhibition A: Exhibition only for Adults . 1952 Challenged K.A. Grounds of Challenge Motion picture-form of expression Therefore . different treatment to filmsamounts to invalid classification . entitled to equal treatment with other forms of expression Other forms –not subjected to prior restraint Therefore. SC on Validity of Cinematograph Act Upheld Different treatment necessary Reasons: Motion picture.raises instant emotions Stirs up emotions more deeply than other product of art . Sunil Jaitley V.State of Haryana Facts : 25 seats reserved for admission to MBBS and BDS students coming from rural areas Those who studied from 1-8 in rural areas . Classification. similarly placed. equipment and grants. Hence.Unconstitutional.including qualification of staff imparting education Hence . .SC Held: violative of Art.14 Reasons: Arbitrary and irrational No rational to the object achieved Same Government Same Education course prescribed.