Assignment [Costitution]

Long ans.

Q. 1. Explain Article 16 with special reference to reservation in General and In promotion with the help of leading
case law

Q.2. Define the terms citizenship provided under constitution with relevant provision under article 5 to 11

Short Note

1. Explained the doctrine of basic structure and also define the controversy of whether law can be called as
constitutional amendment Act.

2. Define the terms state and also enumerate the list of the bodies included in the ambit of state under article-12

Q 3 Explain Equality before law and its exception with reference to article- 14
Explain Article 16 with special reference to reservation in General and In promotion with
the help of leading case law
What is the main aim of Article 16?
Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in
matters related to employment in the public sector. Article 16(1) states that there
shall be equal opportunity for the citizens in the matter of employment or
appointment to any office under the State

Article 16 in The Constitution Of India 1949

16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any
employment or office under the State
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in
regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government
of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to
residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the
incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational
institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a
particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination

Is Article 16 applicable to private companies?

Article 16(1):

Yes, if the private company follows equality due to its moral duty, it is a very good thing for
the country. If they do not comply, then the person cannot demand its fundamental right
against it. Only the citizen will get equity in the appointment and employment, no foreigner
or refugee will get it

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution

May 3, 2018
A. ARTICLE 16 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Article 16 of the Constitution of India, talks about the right of equal opportunity
in the matters of public employment. It states that:
1. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State,
2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in
respect of, any employment or office under the State.
3. Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law
prescribing, in egard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an
office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or
Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union
territory prior to such employment or appointment.
4. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of
citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the
services under the State.
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision
for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any
class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of State are not
adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled
vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in
accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause
(4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or
years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the
vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the
ceiling of fifty per cent, reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.
5. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that
the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or
denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall
be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular
denomination.
B. OBJECT:
The Article guarantees equality of opportunity when it comes to public employment.
The first two clauses of the Article elucidate the fact that no citizens of India shall
face discrimination in respect of employment. These two clauses lay the foundation
for equal employment opportunity and eliminate compartmentalization in the name of
religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any other.
As one of the important constitutional provisions for deprived sections, Article 16
gives Parliament the power to make any law prescribing the requirements “for a
class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Central
Government or any local authority.” Clause 4 of the Article acts as a guideline for the
government for making any provision for the reservation of appointments in favour of
any backward class of citizens who are “not adequately represented in the services
under the State”.
Like Article 14, 15 and 17, this article and its provisions indicate the government’s
commitment to protect the interests of the SCs and STs.
C. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS:
The 77th and 81st amendments are considered as technical amendments to protect
reservation to SC/ST employees in promotions and in filling backlog of vacancies.”
It was through the 85th amendment of the Constitution that Article 16 (4A) was
inserted and amended to give state the power “to provide quota in promotions with
consequential seniority.” The clause 4A was inserted after the Supreme Court
observed that the reservation of appointments/posts under Article 16(4) is restricted
to initial appointment and it cannot extend to reservation in the matter of promotion.
While upholding the insertion of clause 4A, the Supreme Court imposed a condition
– every time a government wants to exercise its power under Article 16(4A), “it must
take up a specific exercise to demonstrate that the SCs/STs were not adequately
represented.”
As the Supreme Court verdict in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India made it compulsory for
the government to demonstrate the backwardness of SC/ST beneficiaries every time
reservations were provided for promotion, it took another stand, which was heavily
criticized for lacking constitutional merit. In its judgment, the apex court had
observed that individuals “in the ‘creamy layer’ of OBCs” don’t have the right to be
the beneficiaries of the reservation policy. However, the court held that no such
exclusion would be applicable for SCs/STs.
The 117th Constitution Amendment Bill was passed to clarify that all SCs/STs are
deemed to be backward.
 Landmark Judgments on Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment under
Article 16
Many believe that civil rights need that privileged positions be subject to open
competition. The Constitution of India provides varied basic rights partially III
underneath that article sixteen provides equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment. It’s provided to all citizens of India.
The Constitution of India has given a good interpretation of this text. Equal
Employment chance (EEO) principles apply to:

 Access to jobs
 Conditions of employment
 Relationships in the workplace
 The evaluation of performance and
 The opportunity for training and career development.[1]

What does Article 16 truly deal with?

“Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. –

1. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to

employment or appointment to any office under the state.”

Article 16(1) states that there shall be civil rights for the voters within the matter of
employment or appointment to any workplace underneath the State. The staff for the
govt. services.
The government also can decide associated opt for candidates for the aim of
employment as long because the candidates are given civil rights to use for the govt.
service.

1. “No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect
of, any employment or office under the State.”

Article 16(2) lays down the grounds on that the voters must not be discriminated
against for the aim of employment or appointment to any workplace underneath the
State. The prohibited grounds of discrimination underneath Article 16(2) area unit
faith, race, caste, sex, descent, birthplace, residence, or any of them.
The words ‘any employment or workplace underneath the state’ mentioned in clause
two of Article sixteen implies that the same provision refers solely to public
employment and to the utilization within the non-public sector.
Article 16(1) and (2) lay down provisions for civil rights of employment within the
public sector. However, it’s declared in clause three of Article sixteen that nothing
during this article shall stop Parliament from creating any law that prescribes to the
 voters United Nations agency area unit appointed to any workplace underneath the
State in relevance any necessities on residence inside that State or Union territory
before employment or appointment to any workplace underneath the State.

1. “Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in
regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office [under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory] prior to such
employment or appointment.
2. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens
which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services
under the State.”

Article 16(4) of the Indian constitution provides for the reservation of services
underneath the State in favour of the backward category of voters. The State shall
decide whether or not a specific category of voters is backward or not.
Therefore, the State shall lay down acceptable criteria so as to determine whether or
not a specific category of voters may be a backward category or not.
“(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
reservation [in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class, or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of the State are not adequately
represented in the services under the State.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled
vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance
with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4-A) as a
separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such
class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in
which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation
on total number of vacancies of that year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the
incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or
denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a
person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections
of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing
reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.”

Landmark Judgments
 State of J & K. Vs K.V.N.T. Kholo[2] –

Meaning of Article 16 clarified

Article 16 provides equality of opportunity in the appointment of public officials.
According to the Supreme Court in this case, equality of opportunity means that
every citizen is entitled for employment or appointment to any office under the state
based on his qualities and capabilities.
As a result, Article 16 does not preclude the state from prescribing the requisite
credentials and screening tests for government service recruitment.

 N. M. Thomas Vs State of Kerala[3] –

Understanding the phrase “Matters relating to employment and appointment”

All matters relating to employment, both previous to and subsequent to the
employment, which are incidental to the employment and constitute part of the terms
and conditions of such employment must be included in the expression “Matters
relating to employment and appointment.”
As a result, the guarantee in clause (1) will include:

 Initial appointments,
 Promotions,
 Termination of employment,
 Salary, periodic increments, leave, gratuity, pension, and age of superannuation,
among other things.

Article 16(1) also addresses the principle of equal pay for equal work.
In the case, Justice V.R Krishna Iyer correctly observed that the benefits of
reservation were, by and large, snatched up by the top creamy layer of the backward
classes or classes, thus keeping the weakest among the weak always weak and
leaving the fortunate layers to consume the entire cake.
Measures of greater education and more career prospects have been significantly
lessened by the passage of time.

 K.C. Vasanth Kumar Vs State of Karnataka[4] –

Reservation under this article should be made after a mean test

The Supreme Court stated in this case that reservations in favour of backward
classes must be based on the mean test.
It has also been suggested that the reservation policy be reassessed every five
years or so, and if a class has progressed to the point where it no longer requires
reservations. The name of this backward class should be removed from the list.
 Devadasan Vs Union of India[5] –

Scope of Article 16(4)

In, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of Article 16(4). In this case, the
government’s “carry forward rule” was used to regulate the appointment of people
from lower socioeconomic groups to government positions.
The “carry forward rule” was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the
grounds that the government’s power cannot be used to deny reasonable equality of
opportunity in areas of public employment to members of classes other than
backward classes.
Due to the “carry forward rule,” the reserve of postings for members of the backward
classes had surpassed 50% and had risen to 68% in this case.
The Supreme Court ruled that each year of recruiting must be assessed separately,
and that the reserve for each year should not be exorbitant so as to create a
monopoly or unfairly interfere with the rest of society’s legitimate claims.
As a result, the court decided that reservations should be less than 50%, but how
much less than 50% should depend on the circumstances.

 Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India[6] –

Reservation in promotion for 5 years

Held
Article 16(4) does not grant reservation in promotion, according to a nine-judge
bench, because it only applies to reservations in appointments. All reservations in
promotion provided to SCs/STs in government employment are now in jeopardy as a
result of the ruling.
This was taken into consideration by the Court. After the 16th of November 1992, the
court’s decision permitted reservation in promotion to continue for another five years.
By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench issued the following
guidelines:

 In Article 16(4), the backward class of citizens can be designated not only on the
basis of economics, but also on the basis of caste.
 Article 16(4) is not an exception to the general rule (1). This is an example of
classification. Article 16 allows for reservations (1).
 Backward classes in Article 16(4) were not the same as those in Article 15 who
were socially and educationally backward (4).
 The backward classes must not include the creamy layer.
 Backward classes can be classified into backward and more backward classes
under Article 16(4).
 A backward class of citizens cannot be established solely on the basis of economic
factors.
 Reservations are limited to 50% of total capacity.
 The ‘EXECUTIVE ORDER’ can be used to make a reservation.
 In the promotion, there are no reservations.
 Over-inclusion and under-inclusion complaints are investigated by a permanent
statutory body.
 The majority felt there was no need to voice a view on the Mandal Commission’s
exercise’s validity or adequacy.
 Only the Supreme Court can resolve disagreements about new criteria.

All the above cases were overruled by the judgement in Indira Sawney Case.
Thammu Panduranga Rao & Anr. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh[7] –
Appointment of District Judges
Held
It is not open to the Government to choose a candidate for appointment as a District
Judge from the Bar unless and until the High Court recommends this person for
appointment. Suggest as a rut for employment, says the phrase “recommend.”
The Government was not obligated to adopt all of the High Court’s
recommendations, but it might explain to the High Court why it did not accept
specific suggestions. If the High Court agreed with the arguments in a specific case,
the recommendation in that case was withdrawn, and there was no chance of him
being appointed.
But it was clearly improper and inept of the government to write to the High Court
and request that it produce a list of those it thought had a credible claim to the
position.
‘The High Court’s reply was by no means a recommendation by the High Court that
all of the candidates interviewed had reasonable claims or, in other words, that the
High Court had no further remarks to offer.

 M. Nagaraj & Others Vs Union of India & Others[8]

Held
The petitioners in Nagaraj took the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments to the
Supreme Court. In the end, the Court decided that the Amendments were
constitutionally invalid. It did, however, impose some limiting requirements, making it
more difficult to grant reservations in promotion cases. Reservation in Promotion to
SCs/STs was upheld by a five-judge panel as constitutionally sound.
 It supported the Article 16(4A) Consequential Seniority Rule, the Article 16(4B) Carry
Forward Rule, and the Article 335 Proviso.
The Court did observe, however, that Articles 164A and 4B are enabling laws, and
that SC/STs do not have an automatic right to reservation in promotion.
The Court decided that the State must meet three compelling factors in order for
reservation in promotion to be valid:

 Demonstrate the SC/backwardness. ST’s

 Demonstrate that the SC/ST is underrepresented in important government
positions.
 Maintain the administration’s overall efficiency.
 M. R. Balaji and Others Vs. State of Mysore[9] –

Put a limit of 50% in reservations

Held:
The Hon’ble Court has put 50% limit on reservations in this ruling. Almost all states
did not exceed 50% limit but State of Rajastan (68% quota including 14% for forward
castes, post gujjar violence 2008) and State of Tamil Nadu, in 1980, (69%, Under 9th
schedule) exceeded the limit.
Despite the State of Andhra Pradesh tried to exceed the limit in 2005, it was stopped
running by the High Court. In 1992, The Supreme court of India in Indira Sawhney &
Ors Vs Union of India, upheld Implementation of separate reservation for ”Other
Backward Classes” as to central government jobs are concerned. This ruling was
implemented.

 Randhir Singh Vs Union of India & Ors[10] –

Put forward the principle of ‘Equal pay for Equal Work’

Held
The Supreme Court observed that although the principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’ did not find an explicit place in the fundamental rights, it certainly constitutes a
constitutional goal, therefore, it is capable of being enforced through constitutional
remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Conclusion
The slogan “equality of opportunity” has widespread support among citizens of
modern cultures. When examined closely, equality of opportunity is divided into
various different principles, some of which are diametrically opposed.
It’s debatable which, if any, of these values are morally acceptable, and which, if
any, should be enforced through coercion. The concept of a society in which people
are not discriminated against because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual
orientation is commonly considered as desirable in and of itself.
For many people, the ideal is more powerful than any argument made in defence of
it as a matter of justice.
Q. 2 Define the terms citizenship provided under constitution with relevant provision
under article 5 to 11
A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is gained by
meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government. A nation grants
certain rights and privileges to its citizens. In return, citizens are expected to obey their
country's laws and defend it against its enemies.
citizenship is meant by in Indian constitution: (a) who was born in the territory of India; or.
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory. of India; or. (c) who has been
ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding
such commencement, shall be a citizen of India.
Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under law as being a legal member of a
sovereign state or belonging to a nation. In India, Articles 5 – 11 of the Constitution deals
with the concept of citizenship. The term citizenship entails the enjoyment of full
membership of any State in which a citizen has civil and political rights.
This is a very important concept to be understood and read for the IAS exam polity and
governance segments. With the recent Citizenship Amendment Bill in the news, the topic of
citizenship assumes all the more importance.
First, we discuss all the articles in the Indian Constitution pertaining to citizenship.
Article 5 speaks about the citizenship of India at the commencement of the Constitution
(Nov 26, 1949). Article 11 gave powers to the Parliament of India to regulate the right of
citizenship by law. This provision resulted in the enactment of Citizenship Act 1955 by the
Indian Parliament.
ARTICLE 5 : CITIZENSHIP AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the
territory of India and –
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years
immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India.
ARTICLE 6: RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO HAVE MIGRATED TO INDIA
FROM PAKISTAN
Notwithstanding anything in article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India
from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at
the commencement of this Constitution if –
(a) he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in
the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
(b) (i) in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July,
1948, he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his
migration, or
(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of
July, 1948, he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that
behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him
therefor to such officer before the commencement of this Constitution in the form
and manner prescribed by that Government:
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the
territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his
application.

ARTICLE 7: RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN MIGRANTS TO PAKISTAN

Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March
1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not
be deemed to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to
the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit
for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every
such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of Article 6 be deemed to have migrated to
the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948.
ARTICLE 8: RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN PERSONS OF INDIAN ORIGIN RESIDING
OUTSIDE INDIA
Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of
whose grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as
originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined
shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the
diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being
residing on an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic or consular
representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form
and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of
India.
ARTICLE 9: PERSONS VOLUNTARILY ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP OF A FOREIGN STATE NOT TO
BE CITIZENS
No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5 or be deemed to be a citizen of
India by virtue of article 6 or article 8 if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any
foreign State.
ARTICLE 10: CONTINUANCE OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP
Any person who is considered a citizen of India under any of the provisions of this Part shall
continue to be citizens and will also be subject to any law made by the Parliament.
Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing
provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by
Parliament, continue to be such citizen.
ARTICLE 11: PARLIAMENT TO REGULATE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BY LAW
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament
to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all
other matters relating to citizenship.
Info-bits related to Citizenship of India

1. The conferment of a person, as a citizen of India, is governed by Articles 5 to 11

(Part II) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Apart from the above Articles of the Indian Constitution, citizenship is also deeply
connected with the Citizenship Act, which is passed by the Indian Parliament in
1955.
3. Citizenship Act 1955 speaks about the citizenship of India after the
commencement of the Constitution. It is an act to provide for the acquisition
and termination of Indian citizenship.
4. The legislation related to this matter is the Citizenship Act 1955, which has been
amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986, the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act 1992, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003, the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2005, and the Citizenship (Amendment Act, 2019).
5. Acquisition of Indian Citizenship as per Citizenship Act 1955: Indian
Citizenship can be acquired under the following ways : (1) Citizenship at the
commencement of the constitution of India (2) Citizenship by birth: NB – This
provision has different clauses for different periods (3) Citizenship by descent (4)
Citizenship by registration (5) Citizenship by naturalization.
6. Termination of Indian Citizenship as per Citizenship Act 1955: One can lose
citizenship of India in three ways – Renunciation, Termination and Deprivation
7. Persons domiciled in the territory of India as on 26 November 1949 automatically
became Indian citizens by virtue of the operation of the relevant provisions of the
Indian Constitution coming into force. (Citizenship at the commencement of the
constitution of India.)
8. Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1950, but prior to the
commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987, is a citizen of India by
birth. [Citizenship by birth]
9. A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 is a citizen of India if either parent
was a citizen of India at the time of the birth. [Citizenship by birth]
10. Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India
only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India
and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth. [Citizenship by
birth].
11. Indian nationality law largely follows the jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of
blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory).
12. Article 9 of Indian Constitution says that a person who voluntarily acquires
citizenship of any other country is no longer an Indian citizen. Also, according to
The Passports Act, a person has to surrender his Indian passport if he acquire
citizenship of another country, it is a punishable offense under the act if he fails to
surrender the passport.
13. Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) Card: A PIO card applicant has to be a person of
Indian origin who is a citizen of any country, other than Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, Afghanistan, China and Nepal; or a person who has held an
Indian passport at any time or is the spouse of an Indian citizen or a person of
Indian origin;
14. Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card: OCI Card is for foreign nationals who
were eligible to become a citizen of India on 26.01.1950 or was a citizen of India
on or after that date. Applications from citizens of Bangladesh and Pakistan are
not allowed.
15. Overseas Indian Card: A new Bill is pending in Parliament [The Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill], which seeks to do away with the existing overseas citizen of
India (OCI) card and the person of Indian origin (PIO) card, and replace them with
a new overseas Indian card.
16. While PIO cardholders do not require a separate visa and can enter India with
multiple entry facility for 15 years; the OCI card is multiple entries, multi-purpose
lifelong visa for visiting India. OCI card-holders have parity with non-resident
Indians in respect of economic, financial and educational matters except in
acquiring agricultural land.
17. A PIO cardholder is required to register with local Police authorities for any stay
exceeding 180 days in India on any single visit.
18. OCI is not dual citizenship. There are no voting rights for an OCI cardholder.
19. The President of India is termed the first Citizen of India.
1. Explained the doctrine of basic structure and also define the controversy of whether
law can be called as constitutional amendment Act.

What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

Indian Constitution is a dynamic document that can be amended according to the needs
of society whenever required. Constitution under Article 368 grants power to the
Parliament to amend whenever there is a necessity. The Article also lays down the
procedure for amendment in detail.

The doctrine of basic structure is nothing but a judicial innovation to ensure that the
power of amendment is not misused by Parliament. The idea is that the basic features
of the Constitution of India should not be altered to an extent that the identity of the
Constitution is lost in the process.

Indian Constitution upholds certain principles which are the governing rules for the
Parliament, any amendment cannot change these principles and this is what the
doctrine of basic structure upholds. The doctrine as we have today was not present
always but over the years it has been propounded and upheld by the judicial officers of
this country.

In this article, we would dwell in detail on the evolution of the doctrine of basic structure
and what are the features of the Constitution of India that have been regarded as part of
the basic structure by the hon’ble courts.

Doctrine of Basic Structure' was propounded by the Indian Judiciary on 24th April
1973 in Keshavananda Bharati case to put a limitation on the amending powers of
the Parliament so that the 'basic structure of the basic law of the land' cannot be
amended in exercise of its 'constituent power' under the Constitution

The basic structure doctrine is one of the fundamental judicial principles

connected with the Indian Constitution.

The doctrine of the basic structure holds that there is a basic structure to the Indian
Constitution, and the Parliament of India cannot amend the basic features.

Timeline for Evolution of Basic Structure

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging Article(s) 31A and 31B on
the ground that they abridge or take away rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution which is against the spirit of Article 13(2) and hence should be declared
void. In this case, Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the power to amend the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights
is conferred under Article 368, and the word ‘Law’ as mentioned under Article 13(2)
does not include an amendment of the Constitution. There is a distinction between
Parliament’s law-making power, that is, the legislative power and Parliament’s power to
amend or constituent powers.

After this, several amendments were brought to the Constitution and once again the
scope of amendments was challenged in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The
five-judge bench in Sajjan Singh dealt with the validity of the 17th Constitutional
Amendment which had added around 44 statutes to the 9th Schedule. Though all of the
judges agreed with the decision of Shankari Prasad but for the first time in the
concurring opinion by Hidyatullah and Mudholkar JJ doubts were raised on the
unfettered power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and curtail the fundamental
rights of the citizens.

Pre – Golak Nath Era

The Constitution of India was amended as early as 1951, which introduced the much-
debated Article(s) 31A and 31B to it. Article 31B created the 9th Schedule which stated
that any law provided under it could not be challenged for the violation of Fundamental
Rights as per Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Article 13(2) states that the Parliament
shall not draft any law which abridges the rights conferred under Part III and to that
extent it shall be void.

Golak Nath v. the State of Punjab

In this case, three writ petitions were clubbed together. The first one was by children of
Golak Nath, against the inclusion of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 in
the Ninth Schedule. The other two petitions had challenged the inclusion of the Mysore
Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule. It is an 11 judge bench decision, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a majority of 6:5 held that the fundamental rights were
outside the purview of the amendment of the Constitution, based on the following
reasoning:

 The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution does not subside in Article 368
but it is derived from Article 245, read with Entry 97 of List I of the Constitution. It
was very clearly stated that Article 368 only provided for the Procedure of
Amendment and nothing more.
 The Court also clarified that the word ‘law’ under Article 13(2) includes within its
meaning an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore any amendment against the
Fundamental Rights was void.
 The argument that the power to amend the Constitution is a sovereign power,
which is over and above the legislative power and hence outside the scope of
judicial review was rejected.

However, the 1st, 4th, and 17th Amendments were not declared invalid by the Court as the
ruling was given a prospective effect. This meant that no further amendments could be
brought into the Constitution violating the fundamental rights. But the cases of Shankari
Prasad and Sajjan Singh were declared bad in law by the Court to the extent that Article
13(2) does not include a Constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Constitution 24th Amendment

The Golak Nath case left the Parliament devoid of its powers to amend the Constitution
freely, therefore to restore the earlier position; the 24th Constitutional Amendment was
brought forth. The Amendment Act not only restored the earlier position but extended
the powers of Parliament. The following changes were made through the amendment:

 A new clause (4) was added to Article 13 which stated that ‘nothing in this Article
shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368’.
 The marginal heading of Article 368 was changed to ‘Power of Parliament to
amend the Constitution and Procedure, therefore’ from ‘Procedure for amendment
of the Constitution.
 Article 368 was provided with a new sub-clause (1) which read ‘notwithstanding
anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, in the exercise of its Constituent
Power amend by way of addition, variation, or repeal any provision of this
Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article.
 President was put under an obligation to give assent to any Bill amending the
Constitution by changing words from ‘it shall be presented to the President who
shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon’ to ‘it shall be presented to the
President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill’.
 A reassuring clause (3) was also added to Article 368, which again clarified that
‘nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this Article.

Kesvananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala

This case was initially filed to challenge the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,
1963. But the 29th Amendment of the Constitution placed it under the Ninth Schedule.
The petitioner was permitted to not only challenge the 29th Amendment but also the
validity of the 24th and 25th Amendments.

The historic judgment was delivered by a 13 judge bench and with the majority of 7:6;
they overruled the Golak Nath case. It was held that the power of Parliament to amend
the Constitution is far and wide and extends to all the Articles but it is not unlimited to an
extent that it destroys certain basic features or framework of the Constitution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, held that the 24th Amendment was valid as it only
states what was present before implicitly. It does not enlarge the powers of Parliament;
Article 368 always included the power and procedure to amend the Constitution.

The judges did not provide what constitutes the basic structure but provided an
illustrative list of what may constitute the basic structure. As per Sikri, C.J., the basic
structure constitutes the following elements:
  The supremacy of the Constitution
 Republican and Democratic forms of Government
 Secular character of the Constitution
 Separation of Powers between the legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary
 Federal Character of the Constitution

Shelat and Grover, JJ., added the following to the above list:

 The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State
Policy
 Maintenance of the unity and integrity of India
 The sovereignty of the country

Hegde and Mukherjee, JJ., had their list of the elements of the basic structure, which
included:

 The sovereignty of India

 The democratic character of the polity
 The unity of the country
 Essential features of individual freedom
 The mandate to build a welfare state

Whereas Jaganmohan Redd, J., believed that it was the Preamble that laid down the
basic features of the Constitution, which are:

 A sovereign democratic republic

 The provision of social, economic, and political justice
 Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship
 Equality of status and opportunity

After this judgment, the general opinion was that the judiciary is trying to create an
overhaul over the Parliament, but soon an opportunity was laid down before the Court to
examine the doctrine.

Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine

Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain was the case in which the faith in the doctrine was
affirmed and established. In this case, the appellant had filed an appeal against the
decision of Allahabad High Court invalidating her election as the Prime Minister. While
the appeal was still pending at the Supreme Court, the 39th Amendment was enacted
and enforced which stated that no court has jurisdiction over the election disputes of the
Prime Minister.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision of Kesavananda Bharati stated that
democracy was an essential feature of the Constitution and forms part of the basic
structure. The bench added certain other features to the list of the basic structure, which
was: Rule of Law and the power of Judicial Review.

The basic structure then came up in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,
wherein the Supreme Court provided clarity to the doctrine and laid down that the power
of amendment under Article 368 is limited and exercise of such power cannot be
absolute. A limited amending power was very well part of the basic structure doctrine of
the Constitution. Further, the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and
directive principles are also part of the basic structure, and anything that destroys the
balance is an ipso facto violation of the doctrine.

The case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India again stated that the power of judicial
review under Article 32 of the Supreme Court and Article 226 of the High Court is part of
the basic structure doctrine and these powers cannot be diluted by transferring them to
administrative tribunals.
2. Define the terms state and also enumerate the list of the bodies included in
the ambit of state under article-12
Government and Parliament of India i.e the Executive and Legislature of the Union.
Government and Legislature of each State i.e the Executive and Legislature of the
various States of India. All local or other authorities within the territory of India.

Part III of the Indian Constitution & Article 12

Aspirants should know what comes under Part III of the Constitution to clearly
understand Article 12.
Part III of the Indian Constitution deals with Fundamental Rights. Since Fundamental
Rights provide for the security of citizens’ sets of rights in relation with speech,
expression, religion, against exploitation, education, language, culture, and
constitutional remedies; the term ‘State’ has been used in a wider context to include
all such agencies, actions of whose can challenged in the Supreme Court if they
violate the any of these fundamental rights. And that definition is given in Article 12
of the Indian Constitution.

Definition of ‘State’ under Article 12

Article 12 defines ‘State’ as:

1. Legislative and Executive Organs of the Union Government:

1. Indian Government
2. Indian Parliament – Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha
2. Legislative and Executive organs of the State Government:
1. State Governments
2. State Legislature – Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council of State
3. All local authorities
1. Municipalities – Municipal Corporations, Nagar Palika, Nagar Panchayats
2. Panchayats – Zila Panchayats, Mandal Panchayats, Gram Panchayats
3. District Boards
4. Improvement Trusts, etc.
4. Statutory and Non-Statutory Authorities
1. Statutory Authorities Examples:
1. National Human Rights Commission
2. National Commission for Women
3. National Law Commission
4. National Green Tribunal
5. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
6. Armed Forces Tribunal
2. Non Statutory Authorities Examples
1. Central Bureau of Investigation
2. Central Vigilance Commission
3. Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution & ‘Other Authorities’
The ‘Other Authorities’ mentioned under Article 12 means all such authorities that lie
within the territory of India and are controlled by the government of India through its
acts and amendments.

1. Ujjain Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) – Supreme Court observed that
Article 12 winds up the list of authorities falling within the definition by referring
to “other authorities” within the territory of India which cannot be read as ‘of or
as the same kind’ with either the Government or the Legislature or Local
authorities
2. R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India – Five points were mentioned by
Justice P.N. Bhagwati to understand if the ‘body’ in news is instrumental to be
called as the ‘State’ under Article 12 or not:
 The ‘Body’ can be called as ‘State’ if its entire shared capital is held by
the Government of India
 Such other authorities have a governmental functional character

 The absolute control of such authorities lie with the government

 Such authorities which have an element of command or authority
 The authorities discharging public service

Issues in News Related with Article 12 of the Indian Constitution

1. The debate whether BCCI should be included under the ambit of Article 12 of
the Indian Constitution and shall be termed as the ‘State.’
 In its 275th report, the Law Commission of India (Advisory Body to the
Ministry of Law and Justice) has asked the Government to treat BCCI as
an agency of the state under Article 12.
2. In a recent petition to the Supreme Court demanding an introduction of a
uniform financial assistance policy for the lawyers in the emergencies, names
of agencies like the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils came to
surface. Aspirants should know that these agencies are the creation of the
statute and fall under the categories of “other authorities” within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of India & Others case – The case dealt with the
issue of the immunity enjoyed by United Nations Organizations (UNO) under
the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. Delhi High Court, in
May 2019, declared that UNO is not a ‘State’ defined under Article 12 of the
Indian Constitution.
Quick Facts about Article 12
There are some recurring doubts that aspirants might have while preparing for UPSC
2022 and we are answering them in the table below:

Facts about Article 12 for UPSC

What does Article It means to define the term, ‘State’ which is used in Part-III of the
12 of the Constitution while mentioning the applications of the provisions
Constitution mean? of Fundamental Rights of the Indian Citizen

Is Article 12 a Article 12 in itself is not a fundamental right technically, but it

fundamental right? defines the term ‘State’ for the Fundamental Rights that are
entailed in the Article 14-35.

Is Judiciary a State There is no explicit mention of Judiciary (Supreme Courts, High

under Article 12? Court, or State/District Courts) as a ‘State’ in Article 12.
However, the organs of the judiciary cannot make rules that are
in itself violative of the Fundamental Rights.

 Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra Case – SC reaffirmed

that Fundamental Rights cannot be violated by any judicial
proceedings and also that Superior Courts of Justice do not
fall under the ambit of Article 12.
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution mentions, State to not make
any law that violates the provisions under Part III
Q 3 Explain Equality before law and its exception with reference to article- 14

Article 14 declares that ' the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Thus Article 14 uses two
Exceptions " Equality before the law " and " Equal Protection of the law "

Introduction
A fair and just system of judiciary is a characteristic of every modern democratic state. In
such a state, the law of the land must be enforced in a manner that puts all citizens on the
same footing. If the law favours any citizen on any unreasonable ground such as class,
status, gender, etc., the law is unfair and fails to perform its purpose, which is to uphold
justice. Every subject of a state must be considered an equal before law and no subject must
be treated with some special consideration on an unreasonable ground such as gender,
race, class, religion, etc. This concept can be summed up in the phrases “equality before
law” and “equal protection of law”. This idea forms a core part of the concept of rule of law
according to A.V. Dicey. The phrases ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ can
be found in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures every citizen that they shall
not be discriminated against in any application or enforcement of law on any unreasonable
ground. It is also provided in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Rule of Law
The expression rule of law derives its origin from the French phrase ‘la principe de
legalite’ which means the principle of legality. It was first propounded by Sir Edward Coke.
This principle implies a government that is run by the principles of law and not by the
arbitrariness of men who rule. The concept was further expanded by A.V. Dicey in his book
‘The Constitution of England’. According to him, the concept of rule of law consists of three
principles, which are the following:

1. Supremacy of law
2. Equality before law
3. The predominance of legal spirit
According to Dicey, equality before law and equal subjection of all people to the ordinary
jurisdiction is necessary to fulfil the concept of rule of law. As per A.V. Dicey, no class of
persons must be subject to a separate or special jurisdiction. He criticised the French legal
system of Droit Administrative which established separate tribunals for deciding disputes
between public officials and citizens.
The rule of law forms the basis of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution is
regarded as supreme and no one can go against it.
This concept can also be found in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of
which India was a signatory. This provision states that “All are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any
incitement to such discrimination”.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that no person shall be denied the right to
equality before law or the equal protection of law in the territory of India. This is a right
that can be claimed by any person, whether a citizen or a non-citizen, on Indian soil.
Here, we can find that Article 14 comprises two expressions, which are ‘equality before
law’ and ‘equal protection of law’. The first expression ‘equality before law’ is borrowed
from the English common law. The expression ‘equal protection of law’ is borrowed from
the Constitution of the United States of America. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the
American Constitution states that no person shall be denied the equal protection of law by
any state within its jurisdiction. Additionally, the concept of equality of law forms a part of
the concept of equality of status as laid down in the preamble of the Indian Constitution.
As quoted by Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi v. the Union of India (1978), equality is
a dynamic concept that cannot be limited to our traditional understanding and knowledge.
Article 14 curbs the arbitrariness of state actions and ensures that there is justice and
equality in the treatment of all subjects.

Meaning of ‘equality before law’

According to Dr. Jennings, the concept of equality before law simply means that law must
be enforced and administered equally among those who are equals. The right to sue and
to be sued for the same action must be the same for all subjects of the age of majority
and maturity without any distinction on the grounds of race, religion, caste, social status,
wealth, influence, etc. Article 14 guarantees similarity of treatment and not identical
treatment through the phrase ‘equality of law’. It simply means that there is an absence
of special privilege on the basis of birth or class or any such grounds that favours any
subject. It also implies that everyone shall be subjected to the same jurisdiction.

Exceptions to equality before law

However, this concept is not absolute as it has several exceptions.

 Some of these exceptions are laid out in Article 361 of the Indian Constitution,
which are the following:

1. The President or a Governor of any state is not answerable to any Court for the
exercise of their duties or powers.
2. The President or a Governor of a state shall be immune from having any criminal
proceedings instituted against them.
3. No Court shall issue a process for arrest or imprisonment to the President or the
Governor of a state during their term.
4. No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed can be initiated against the
President or the Governor of a state during their term without giving a prior
notice of 2 months.

 Additionally, as per Article 361 A, no member of Parliament or State Legislature

is obliged to appear before the Court in any case of criminal or civil while the
session is ongoing.
 As per Articles 105 and 194, no member of Parliament or State Legislature is
answerable to any court for the speeches, opinions or votes given in the House.
 Additionally, foreign sovereigns, diplomates, and ambassadors cannot have any
civil or criminal proceedings instituted against them. This is something that is
accepted on a global level.
Meaning of ‘equal protection of law’
The expression ‘equal protection of law’ is a positive one unlike ‘equality before law’. It
simply means that all persons in similar circumstances shall be given the same rights and
liabilities. It essentially means that equals are to be treated equally and there must be no
discrimination amongst them. Equals and unequals cannot be put in the same footing and
be treated without discrimination.

Distinction between equality before law and

equal protection of law
The following are the differences between the expressions ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal
protection of law’:

1. The expression ‘equality before law’ is a negative concept as it implies an

absence of special privileges that favour any individual. However, the expression
‘equal protection of law’ on the other hand, is a positive concept as it simply
means that there should be equality of treatment of individuals in similar
circumstances.
2. The expression ‘equality before law’ stems from the English Common Law and
the expression ‘equal protection of law’ stems from the American Constitution.
3. The concept of ‘equality before law’ lays more emphasis on subjecting all persons
to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts. It implies
that no person is above the law. However, the concept of ‘equal protection of
laws’ implies that all persons who are in similar circumstances must be subjected
to a similar application of the law.The emphasis is more on treating the like
people alike.
Additionally, this distinction was also elucidated in a few cases. In the case of Sri
Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1992), it was held that the expressions
‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ do not carry the same meaning though
there is a lot in common between them. The word ‘law’ in the first expression was more
general in sense and in the second expression it was more specific. It was also observed
that ‘equality before the law’ is a dynamic concept having multiple facets. And, one of the
facets denotes the absence of any privileged class or person who was above the law and
the other denotes the obligation of the state to make the society more equal as envisaged
in the Preamble and Part IV of the Indian Constitution. In the case of State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), it was held that the concept of equal protection of law
is simply a part of the concept of equality before law. When the ‘equal protection of law’ is
violated, it is difficult to imagine the ‘equality before law’ being maintained in such a
situation.
Reasonable classification – an exception to
Article 14
The word ‘class’ means a homogenous group of people who are grouped together because
they share some characteristics. Though Article 14 does not allow any legislation that
provides for a classification, sometimes it is permissible for reasonable objects. The
following are the criteria laid down in the cases of Budhan Chaudhary v. the State of
Bihar (1955) and Vajravellu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land
Acquisition (1965) for class legislation to be considered reasonable or rational:

1. The classification must not be arbitrary. There has to be some rational or

substantial reasoning behind the distinction drawn between the people who fall
into the class and the people who do not.
2. There has to be some rational object behind the classification that the legislation
seeks to achieve. The classification can be on the basis of various factors like
geography, age, or occupation. It is only required for the object of the legislation
to match with the classification.

Grounds of reasonable classification

The following are some of the grounds that are deemed to be reasonable in many class
legislations:

Geography
Sometimes geographical or territorial boundaries can be found to be the basis of
classification in many reasonable class legislations. In the case of Clarence Pais v. the
Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court held that “historical reasons may justify
differential treatment of separate geographical regions provided it bears a reason and just
relation to the matter in respect of which differential treatment is accorded. Uniformity in
law has to be achieved, but that is a long drawn process”.

In the Arms Act, 1878, it is necessary to seek the permission of the Central Government
to try an offence under the Act. However, this is not a requirement for trying an offence
committed in the North of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers. This differentiation is a result of
the political situation existing in 1857. But in the case of Jia Lal v. Delhi
Administration (1962), it was held that such differentiation is not sustainable in the
present scenario.

Age
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 for instance, does not permit individuals below the age of
eighteen to enter into contracts. This is to protect minors from being bound by contractual
obligations which they may not have the capacity to understand.
In the case of Gautam Kapoor v. the State of Rajasthan (1987), the Court held that the
criteria that a candidate must be at least 17 years old to get entry into medical colleges
are reasonable as a certain amount of maturity is necessary.

Sex
The State is allowed to make provisions that discriminate between men and women for
reasonable purposes. For instance, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
criminalises adultery and only men were punished for it and not women. In the case
of Yusuf v. the State of Bombay (1954), the constitutional validity of this section was
challenged. The provision was held to be valid as it was based on a valid classification.
However, the provision of adultery was later decriminalised in the case of Joseph Shine v.
the Union of India (2018) on the reasoning that it assumes the husband to be in control of
his wife’s sexuality. The Court further stated that women have their own identities and
stand on the same footing as men. As a result, it was held that the classification made by
this provision is arbitrary and unreasonable and hence violates Article 14.

Single body or individual

In the case of P.V. Sastri v. the Union of India (1974), it was held that the position of the
Prime Minister is a class in itself. Hence, it was observed that permitting the Prime
Minister to use the aircraft of the Indian Air Force for non-official purposes as well such as
elections is not violative of Article 14.

Nature of occupation
Sometimes the government can enact laws that put some restriction on certain
businesses or occupations for rational causes. This also includes laws that confer the
government with the monopoly of some businesses. In the case of Amarchandra v. Excise
Collection (1972), the law that imposed some restrictions on liquor business was held to
be valid.

Tax laws
The legislature can classify people for the purpose of taxing and not taxing, prescribing
incentives, benefits, etc. Thus, they can exempt some properties from being taxed, or
impose special taxes on certain properties, etc. In the case of Western India Theatres v.
Cantonment Board (1959), it was held that imposing higher taxes on bigger cinema halls
in well-off localities is a valid classification and not violative of Article 14.

Other grounds
Apart from the grounds mentioned above, there are some other reasonable classifications
as well such as citizens and non-citizens, juvenile offenders and other offenders, ordinary
suits and suits on negotiable instruments, etc.
Conclusion
The expressions ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ are found in Article 14
of the Indian Constitution. The concepts of equality before law and equal protection of law
are slightly different. However, the latter forms a part of the former. Wherever there is no
equal protection of law, there is no equality before law. It is also noteworthy that this
concept is not absolute as we can only apply it among those who are equal and not
among the unequals. The Constitution also permits the State to enact laws that apply to
only certain classes of people for achieving certain reasonable objects.

References
 https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Fundamental-right-Right-
to-Equality-%E2%80%93-Comparison-and-Contrast-Between-the-Constitutions-
of-the-United-States-of-America-and-India.pdf
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-
14/#:~:text=Article%2014%20basically%20states%20that,the%20same%20to
%20our%20citizens.
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-equality-a-fundamental-right/