Articles 14–18
Free study material · concepts, shortcuts & solved questions
Article 14 — Equality before law and equal protection of laws. This single sentence borrows two distinct ideas: "equality before law" (a negative British concept — no one is above the law) and "equal protection of the laws" (a positive American concept — likes must be treated alike, and the State has an affirmative duty to secure equality). Article 14 does not mean identical treatment for everyone regardless of circumstance; it permits reasonable classification, subject to a two-part test laid down early and repeated in nearly every Article 14 judgment since:
- The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others left out; and
- The differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the law.
So a law reserving seats for women, or taxing sugar differently from salt, survives Article 14 as long as this two-step test is met — the classification cannot be arbitrary or without purpose. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) and later Maneka Gandhi (1978), the Court added a further gloss: Article 14 strikes not just unequal treatment but arbitrariness itself — "equality is antithetic to arbitrariness"; an arbitrary State action, even without a comparator class, can violate Article 14. Article 14 also underlies the rule of law and applies to legislative, executive and even (in limited ways) judicial action.
Article 15 — Prohibition of discrimination. Clause (1) bars the State from discriminating against any citizen only on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Clause (2) extends this horizontally to bar such discrimination even by private parties in access to shops, public restaurants, wells, roads and places of public resort. Clauses (3)–(6) are the enabling provisions for affirmative action: 15(3) lets the State make special provisions for women and children; 15(4) (inserted after Champakam Dorairajan, discussed below) lets the State make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs; 15(5) extends this to admissions in private educational institutions; and 15(6), added by the 103rd Amendment (2019), permits reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) up to 10%, upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).
Article 16 — Equality of opportunity in public employment. Guarantees equal opportunity for citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State, and bars discrimination on the same grounds as Article 15 plus "descent" and "residence". Clause (4) permits reservation for backward classes not adequately represented in State services; 16(4A) and 16(4B) (inserted by later amendments) permit reservation in promotion for SCs/STs and allow unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried forward without counting against the general 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — the "Mandal Commission case", which capped total reservations at 50% (subject to exceptions) and introduced the "creamy layer" exclusion for OBC reservations.
Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability. Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden; enforcing any disability arising from it is a punishable offence. Parliament gave this teeth through the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (renamed from the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955) and later the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Article 17 is one of the few Fundamental Rights enforceable directly against private individuals, not merely the State.
Article 18 — Abolition of Titles. The State cannot confer titles other than military or academic distinctions; no citizen may accept a title from a foreign State. This is why national awards like the Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are officially described as not being "titles" within the meaning of Article 18 — a position affirmed in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996), which held the awards constitutional so long as they aren't used as prefixes/suffixes to the awardee's name.