LLM Notes: Doctrine of Human Rights: Equality and the Rights of Minorities in Indian Constitutional Law

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j-wM5MT-dSN4bplTJR_cF2aDQF34Dwtr/view?usp=sharing

Link for infographic on this topic

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tIxVXiTEwW_bfbE19bRqH4IxMg-mvEll/view?usp=sharing

Link for mind map on this topic

Introduction: The Foundational Principle

The doctrine of human rights fundamentally rests upon the principle of equality, which extends protection not merely to the majority but crucially to minorities as well. This doctrine recognizes that true democracy cannot function without safeguarding minority rights, as these constitute the ultimate protection against majoritarian oppression. In the words of the Supreme Court, "Equality is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and any treatment of equals unequally or unequals as equals will be violation of basic structure of the Constitution". The Indian Constitution embodies this principle through multiple provisions that create an intricate framework protecting minorities while maintaining secular democratic values.

Part 1: The Concept of Equality as a Human Right

Formal vs. Substantive Equality

Print Page

LLM Notes: Right to Equality Under Article 14: Implications for Public Utility Services in India with Special Focus on the Air India v. Nargesh Meerza Case

 The right to equality stands as one of the most fundamental pillars of Indian democracy, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution as a cornerstone of justice and fairness . This principle has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation, transforming from a narrow doctrine of reasonable classification to a comprehensive framework that prohibits arbitrary state action and ensures non-discriminatory treatment across all spheres of public life . The implications of this constitutional guarantee extend particularly to public utility services, where the state's role as a service provider intersects with its obligation to uphold fundamental rights, creating complex legal and administrative challenges that continue to shape India's constitutional jurisprudence .

Constitutional Framework of Article 14

Print Page

Right to equality, privatization and its impact on affirmative action with reference to Indian constitutional law

 The concept of the Right to Equality, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental principle that ensures all individuals are treated equally before the law. This right is articulated through Articles 14 to 18, which collectively prohibit discrimination and promote equal opportunities across various sectors of society. However, the advent of privatization in India has raised significant questions regarding its impact on affirmative action, particularly for marginalized communities.

 Right to Equality in the Indian Constitution

The Right to Equality is a cornerstone of Indian democracy and is crucial for ensuring justice and fairness in society. The key provisions include:

Print Page

Whether government can refuse to grant disability pension to employee if he has waived his right to claim disability pension?

 As held by this Court, a Right to Equality guaranteed

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would also apply

to a man who has no choice or rather no meaningful choice,

but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted

line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of

rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable

and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules

may be. We find that the said observations rightly apply to

the facts of the present case. Can it be said that the mighty

Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for

the country and retired from Regular Army, seeking reemployment

in the Territorial Army, have an equal

bargaining power. We are therefore of the considered view

that the reliance placed on the said document would also be

of no assistance to the case of the respondents.

25. The respondents herein are directed to grant disability

pension to the appellant in accordance with the rules and

regulations as are applicable to the Members of the

Territorial Army with effect from 1st January 2012. The

respondents are directed to clear arrears from 1st January

2012 within a period of three months from the date of this

judgment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. {Para 23}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2019

PANI RAM  Vs  UNION OF INDIA 

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Dated: DECEMBER 17, 2021.

Print Page

Whether non communication of entries in Annual Confidential Report of a public servant violates his right to equality?

Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of “good” should have been communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the above referred decision [Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725] relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries "good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him.”

6. The aforesaid position of law has again been affirmed by this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566, wherein another three-Judge Division Bench of this Court, has concluded as under:-

“8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR – poor, fair, average, good or very good – must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.”

Supreme Court of India

Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors on 23 July, 2015

Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Adarsh Kumar Goel

Citation; AIR 2015 SC 3057

Print Page

Whether concept of equality is applicable in case of illegality?

The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. NDMC & Ors. [1996 (2) SCC 459] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court The Court observed:

"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution

conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and

perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."

"The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced

without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf.

Supreme Court of India

Ekta Shakti Foundation vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 July, 2006

Print Page