Introduction Significance of Right to Equality

The Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental right ensuring equal treatment and protection under the law for all citizens. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Article 15) and guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16). Untouchability is abolished (Article 17), and the state is empowered to eliminate titles that promote inequality (Article 18). This right upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and inclusivity, forming the cornerstone of India’s democratic framework and ensuring dignity and equal status for all individuals.

Right to Equality under Indian Constitution: Equality before law (Article 14) 

• • The state shall not deny any person equality before the law and equal protection of the law within the territory of India. 
  • Equality before the law is borrowed from the British constitution and negative in connotation, implying the absence of any special privilege in favor of the individual, whereas equal protection of the law is borrowed from the US but positive in connotation.
  • It means that everyone must get equal treatment in similar circumstances. 

Prohibition of discrimination on certain grounds (Article 15) 

The state shall not discriminate against a citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. 

• • Article 15-clause(1): The state prohibits discriminating between citizens on grounds only of religion, race, caste, place of birth, or any of them. 
  • Article 16-clause(2): It prohibits discrimination by the state and the citizen about access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of birth, public entertainment, or the use of Wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of public resorts maintained wholly or partly out of state funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. 
  • Article 15-clause (3): It recognizes the need for special protection, and it offers special protection for women and children. 
  • Article 15-clause (4): It provides reservations for socially and economically backward classes of the citizens or the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. 

Equality of opportunity in a matter of public employment (Article 16)

• • It creates the right to equality of opportunity in public employment, which explains that no citizen shall be discriminated against or be ineligible for any employment or office under the state on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, descent, or residence. 
  • The constitution prohibits discrimination in employment in any government office. However, the government can allow reservations for any backward class of citizens if they are not adequately represented in the service under the state. Article 16 has been amended to permit the government to reserve up to 10% of all posts for the economically weaker section of citizens. 

Abolition of untouchability (article 17) 

• • Our constitution abolishes untouchability and Forbes in practice and any form. It has been renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1995. 
  • Further, to strengthen the legislation, the government enacted the Schedule caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 and Schedule caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Rules in 1995. 

Abolition of titles (Article 18) 

• • The state has abolished all the titles to create equality among the citizens in a free and independent India.
  • Military and academy distinctions are, however, exempted from the provisions, for they are an incentive to further efforts for the perfection of the military power of the state. 

Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution

• Fairness and Justice – It ensures that all individuals are treated equally under the law, regardless of their background, race, religion, caste, gender, or economic status. This promotes a sense of fairness and justice in society. 
• Non-Discrimination – This right forbids discrimination in all areas of life, such as employment, education, housing, and public services. It guarantees equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of their differences. 
• Inclusivity – This right emphasizes inclusivity by recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of each person. It fosters respect for diversity and encourages the active participation of all members in civic and political affairs. 
• Social Cohesion – This right helps build social unity by addressing social inequalities and tensions. When people feel they are treated equally and have access to the same opportunities, it promotes a sense of belonging and solidarity within society. 
• Human Rights – This right is a core human right enshrined in international and national legal frameworks. Safeguarding this right is crucial for maintaining the broader principles of human dignity and fundamental freedoms. 

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)

Background of the case 

The case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) revolved around the impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport by the Indian government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967. Maneka Gandhi challenged this action, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India ruled in her favor, emphasizing that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad and that any law depriving a person of this right must be just, fair, and reasonable. This landmark judgment expanded the interpretation of Article 21 and reinforced the importance of due process.

Facts of the case 

The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, was issued a passport on June 1, 1976, under the Passport Act of 1977. However, on July 2, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer of New Delhi, citing Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, ordered the petitioner to surrender her passport through a letter. In response, the petitioner requested a copy of the reasons for the decision, but the Ministry of External Affairs refused to provide any reasons, citing concerns for public interest. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, claiming violations of Articles 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty). 

Issues

1. Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates constitutional rights.
2. Whether there is scope of due process of law in Indian jurisprudence.
3. Whether the right to travel abroad falls under Article 21. 

Argument

1. Petitioner 

The right to travel abroad is an extension of personal liberty, and no citizen can be deprived of this right. Moreover, the Passport Act of 1967 does not outline any specific procedure for confiscating, revoking, or impounding a passport. Therefore, such actions are deemed unreasonable and arbitrary. Furthermore, the central government violated Article 21 of the Constitution by failing to allow the petitioner to be heard. As a result, a clear interpretation of Article 21, along with its nature and protection, needs to be established. Any law or procedure must avoid arbitrariness and adhere to the principles of natural justice. To reflect the intention of the Constituent Assembly and honor the spirit of our Constitution, fundamental rights should be read in harmony with one another, and in this case, Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be interpreted together. Fundamental rights are granted to every citizen, irrespective of gender, and are protected from exploitation by the state. These rights are comprehensive, ensuring maximum protection. For a well-ordered and civilized society, the freedoms granted to citizens must be regulated, and the Constituent Assembly introduced reasonable restrictions in clauses (2)of (6) of Article 19. However, these restrictions do not apply in this case. Article 22 protects individuals against arrest and detention in specific situations. In this case, the government’s act of confiscating the petitioner’s passport without providing reasons has effectively detained her within the country, making it an unlawful restriction of her liberty. 

2. Respondent 

The respondent explained that the petitioner’s passport was surrendered because the petitioner was required to attend a government committee hearing. The respondent further argued that, according to Article 21, the term “law” should be understood in line with the principles of national justice, citing the A K Gopalan case as a key reference. The respondent asserted that Article 21’s reference to “procedure established by law” does not imply the procedure must be reasonable, nor should it be subject to scrutiny under Articles 14 and 19. A lengthy debate took place among the framers of the Constitution regarding the American concept of “due process of law” versus the British “procedure established by law.” The absence of the American “due process of law” in the Indian Constitution’s provisions reflected the intentions of the Constitution-makers. 

Judgement 

It was held that before the enactment of the Passport Act of 1967, there was no law regulating passports, and the issuance of passports was entirely at the discretion of the executive, without guidelines. Clause 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act allows the government to seize a passport for reasons related to national security, foreign relations, or public interest. The government is required to record the reasons in writing and provide a copy to the passport holder on request. The petitioner argued that the reason for passport confiscation was not disclosed, but it was clarified that the grounds were not arbitrary. The Court ruled that Section 10(3)(c) does not violate any fundamental rights, including Article 14, as it provides clear guidelines. The Court also stated that fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, are not confined to India’s borders, even if the state’s actions are territorial. While the right to go abroad is not part of the Right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), it may still be protected by fundamental rights in some cases. The Court overruled the earlier A.K. Gopalan case, which had held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 were mutually exclusive. The Court now concluded that these provisions are interdependent and must be tested together.