Article 14: Equality before law

Leading cases

• Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970)The majority struck down the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, which nationalised 14 banks, for hostile discrimination, unreasonable restriction on business and failure to provide compensation under Article 31(2) on relevant principles.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure, as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)The State may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) on a rational principle supported by data on inadequate representation; E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh was overruled.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)Procedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; a hearing is implied in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, which was held valid.
• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)By a majority of 6:1, the Court held Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 void under Article 14, at least so far as it let the State Government send particular cases to a Special Court.
• Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (2024)Equal treatment under Section 18 applies to the appointment of arbitrators; unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator, or compelling the other party to choose from a panel curated by one party, is invalid; the ruling for three-member tribunals is prospective.
• Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)The Court unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples; by majority it declined to recognise civil unions or joint adoption by unmarried couples.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)The Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC, which made adultery an offence, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21, held Section 198 CrPC invalid in relation to adultery, and overruled Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 and is read down; Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation is overruled.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)By a majority of 3:2 the Supreme Court set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq), the majority judges resting on different grounds: manifest arbitrariness under Article 14, and inconsistency with the Quran and Shariat.
• Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)Article 15(5) and Article 21A do not violate the basic structure and are valid; the Right to Education Act, 2009 is valid against private unaided schools but cannot apply to minority schools, aided or unaided.
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, which split the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes into four groups with separate quotas, was beyond State legislative competence and violated Article 14.

Showing 12 of 51 judgments in the library on this provision, larger Benches first. Search the judgments

Questions on this article

92 questions in 97 of our papers cite Article 14. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. A State Legislature passes a law declared to give effect to the principle in Article 39(b). The Bill was not reserved for the consideration of the President; the Governor gave his assent. The law is challenged as violating Article 14. Can the State claim the protection of Article 31C?

   A.No, because Article 31C protects only laws made by Parliament and never a State lawB.Yes, because Article 31C protects every law giving effect to Article 39(b), whichever legislature makes itC.No, because a State law is protected only if it is reserved for and assented to by the PresidentD.Yes, because the Governor's assent is sufficient for a law made by a State Legislature
   Show answer

2. 2. What was the Supreme Court's decision in the Navtej Singh Johar case about Section 377 of the IPC?

   A.Decriminalized consensual homosexual relationsB.Upheld the criminalization of homosexual relationsC.Partially decriminalized Section 377D.Ruling deferred to a later date
   Show answer

3. 3. In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, by majority, considered the rule now in the proviso to Section 23 of the BSA (Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and held that:

   A.the rule is void under Article 14, as it discriminates between accused persons in and out of custodyB.the rule is valid, as the distinction between persons in custody and persons not in custody is a real oneC.the rule is valid, but it applies only to information that does not amount to a confessionD.the rule is void under Article 20(3), as information given by an accused in custody is always compelled
   Show answer