Comparative Equality Review Standards.
1. Core Concepts
(a) Equality
- Formal equality: Everyone treated the same before the law
- Substantive equality: Law may treat people differently to achieve actual equality (affirmative action)
(b) Review Standards
Courts use different “scrutiny” or review standards to decide if inequality is constitutional.
- Strict Scrutiny: Highest level; applies to fundamental rights or suspect classifications (race, religion, caste, gender in some contexts)
- Intermediate Scrutiny: Middle level; applies to quasi-suspect classifications (gender, legitimacy)
- Rational Basis / Reasonableness: Lowest level; any reasonable classification is upheld if it serves a legitimate purpose
2. Comparative Overview of Review Standards
| Jurisdiction | Standard | Scope | Typical Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Strict, Intermediate, Rational Basis | Federal & State laws | Race, gender, fundamental rights |
| India | Strict/Reasonableness via Articles 14, 15, 16 | Fundamental Rights, Reservation | Equality before law, positive discrimination |
| Europe (ECHR) | Proportionality, Reasonable Justification | Social & economic policies | Ensures non-discrimination under Article 14 ECHR |
3. Indian Case Law on Equality Review
1. E. P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
- Established equality as a dynamic concept
- Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classification
- Test: Reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness
2. Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992)
- Affirmed reservation system (affirmative action)
- Article 16(4) allows special provisions for backward classes
- Review standard: Reasonable classification for achieving substantive equality
3. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018)
- Decriminalization of homosexuality
- Affirmed dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ persons
- Standard: Fundamental rights require strict scrutiny of discriminatory laws
4. Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)
- Extended Article 14 equality to educational institutions under state control
- Classification must not be arbitrary or unreasonable
5. Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India (2016)
- Affirmed reservation limits and Article 15 restrictions
- Courts used proportionality and reasonableness in review
6. M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006)
- Reservations in promotions
- Court applied strict proportionality standard: backwardness + efficiency
4. US Case Law on Equality Review
1. Brown v Board of Education (1954)
- Strict scrutiny: racial segregation unconstitutional
- Reinforced equality as substantive and fundamental
2. Loving v Virginia (1967)
- Struck down interracial marriage bans
- Strict scrutiny: race-based laws need compelling state interest
3. United States v Virginia (1996)
- Gender-based exclusion from military academy unconstitutional
- Intermediate scrutiny: must show “exceedingly persuasive justification”
4. San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez (1973)
- Education funding via local property taxes
- Rational basis review: economic classification upheld
5. European Case Law (ECHR) on Equality Review
1. D.H. and Others v Czech Republic (2007)
- Roma children segregated in schools
- Court applied proportionality: discrimination in education unlawful
2. Thlimmenos v Greece (2000)
- Law affecting religious minority differently
- Proportionality and substantive equality: unequal treatment without justification violates Article 14
3. Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009)
- Restrictions on non-ethnic minorities from holding office
- Court emphasized effectiveness of equality standard, proportionality test
6. Principles Emerging from Comparative Review
- Strict Scrutiny / Highest Standard
- Used when fundamental rights or suspect classifications are involved
- Examples: Race, caste, religion, gender in core rights issues
- Intermediate / Heightened Scrutiny
- Applied to quasi-suspect categories
- Requires important government interest + substantial relationship to the goal
- Rational Basis / Reasonableness
- Any reasonable classification allowed
- Used for economic or social policy matters not affecting fundamental rights
- Proportionality Test (Europe)
- Is the measure suitable, necessary, and proportionate to the aim?
- Balances state interest with individual equality
- Non-Arbitrariness (India)
- Classifications must be intelligible, rational, and not arbitrary
- Dynamic approach: equality evolves with social context
7. Comparative Insights
| Feature | India | USA | Europe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | Reasonableness + Strict | Strict / Intermediate / Rational | Proportionality |
| Focus | Both formal & substantive equality | Formal + some substantive | Substantive + proportionality |
| Affirmative Action | Allowed (Article 15/16) | Race/gender quotas limited | EU anti-discrimination directives |
| Review Philosophy | Dynamic, evolving equality | Structured scrutiny tiers | Balancing & proportionality |
8. Conclusion
Comparative equality review standards show that while all jurisdictions aim to prevent unjustified discrimination, the methodology differs:
- USA → Tiered scrutiny with strict formal rules
- India → Flexible, dynamic, substantive equality focus
- Europe → Proportionality and balancing of interests
Indian courts apply a hybrid standard, combining reasonableness, proportionality, and fundamental rights protection, which allows for affirmative action while preventing arbitrary discrimination.
RELATED Blog
comments