Constitutional Jurisprudence On Equality Before Law In Criminal Trials
🏛️ I. Constitutional Basis
The doctrine of Equality Before Law in criminal trials stems primarily from:
Article 14 of the Constitution of India — “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Article 21 — “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
These two articles are interlinked — Article 14 ensures fairness and non-discrimination in the application of laws, while Article 21 ensures that the procedure used against an accused is fair, just, and reasonable.
Thus, constitutional jurisprudence on equality in criminal trials ensures that:
All persons accused of crime are treated equally before courts.
The procedure must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.
The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
⚖️ II. Important Case Laws
Let’s go through five significant Supreme Court judgments in detail.
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded “in the public interest” under the Passport Act, without giving her a chance to be heard. She challenged this as a violation of her personal liberty under Article 21 and equality under Article 14.
Held:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Articles 14, 19, and 21, holding that they are not mutually exclusive but interlinked. The “procedure established by law” in Article 21 must be:
Fair, just, and reasonable (not arbitrary),
In conformity with the principle of equality under Article 14.
Relevance to Criminal Trials:
This case laid the foundation that criminal procedures — arrests, trials, and punishments — must conform to fairness and equality. Arbitrary or unequal treatment of accused persons violates Article 14 and 21.
2. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 SCR 284)
Facts:
The State created “Special Courts” for the speedier trial of certain offences, allowing selective reference of cases by the government. The accused challenged this as discriminatory.
Issue:
Did the law creating special courts violate Article 14?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court struck down the Act as unconstitutional because it allowed arbitrary selection of cases for “special treatment.” Equality before the law means not just equal laws but also equal application of those laws.
Principle:
Classification in criminal procedure must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Arbitrary discrimination in trials offends Article 14.
3. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
Facts:
Royappa challenged his transfer from Chief Secretary to a lesser post as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Held:
The Court redefined Article 14 — “Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness. Where there is arbitrariness, there is denial of equality.”
Relevance to Criminal Trials:
This principle directly applies to criminal justice: if an investigation, prosecution, or sentencing process is arbitrary or discriminatory, it violates Article 14. Equality requires uniform application of criminal law and procedural fairness.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369
Facts:
A public interest petition revealed thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in Bihar jails for years without trial — some had spent more time in jail than the maximum sentence for their alleged offence.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21, and equality before law demands that the poor must not suffer because of delay or lack of resources.
Significance:
Recognized speedy trial as a constitutional right.
Highlighted inequality between rich and poor accused — the poor cannot be discriminated against due to poverty or inefficiency of the state machinery.
Mandated the release of undertrial prisoners who had been detained excessively.
5. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
Facts:
The constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987, was challenged. The Act had stringent provisions like long detention without bail and special courts.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the Act but read it down to prevent misuse. It stressed that procedural fairness and non-arbitrariness must prevail even in anti-terror laws.
Relevance:
Even in extraordinary situations (like terrorism), equality before law and fairness in trial cannot be compromised. The judiciary acts as a guardian against discriminatory or excessive state power in criminal proceedings.
🧭 III. Key Principles Emerging from Jurisprudence
Equality before law (formal equality) and equal protection of laws (substantive equality) both apply to criminal trials.
Arbitrary or discriminatory application of criminal procedure violates Article 14.
Fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness are the touchstones of criminal justice under Articles 14 and 21.
Socio-economic inequality cannot be allowed to result in inequality of justice (Hussainara Khatoon).
Special laws or courts are permissible only when based on rational classification and not arbitrary (Anwar Ali Sarkar).
Due process of law is now read into Article 21 — making fair trial a constitutional mandate (Maneka Gandhi, Kartar Singh).
📘 IV. Conclusion
The constitutional jurisprudence on equality before law in criminal trials ensures that:
Every accused, regardless of status or background, is entitled to equal and fair treatment.
The criminal process must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or oppressive.
Judicial review acts as a safeguard to uphold the dignity and equality of individuals in the face of state power.
As the Supreme Court observed in Maneka Gandhi,
“Equality and fairness are the essence of rule of law — the antithesis of arbitrariness.”
RELATED Blog
comments