Equality before law under Rule of Law
✅ Equality Before Law under Rule of Law
📘 I. What is Equality Before Law?
Equality before the law is a fundamental element of the Rule of Law, which means that:
All individuals, regardless of status, wealth, class, gender, or political power, are equal in the eyes of the law.
No person is above the law, and no person is below its protection.
The law must be applied uniformly and impartially.
This principle is deeply embedded in constitutional systems across democracies, including:
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution – “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) of the U.S. Constitution.
European Convention on Human Rights – Article 14 (Non-discrimination).
UK Constitutional Principle – Equality before the law as part of the unwritten constitution.
🧱 II. Key Concepts
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Formal Equality | Everyone is treated the same under the law. |
| Substantive Equality | Allows reasonable classification to treat unequal situations differently to ensure fairness. |
| Non-Arbitrariness | State actions must not be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory. |
| Equality of Access | Legal remedies and protections must be equally available to all. |
⚖️ III. Landmark Case Laws on Equality Before Law
Here are more than five key cases that have shaped the understanding of this principle:
1. A.V. Dicey – Origin of the Principle (UK Legal Tradition)
While not a case, A.V. Dicey, the British jurist, formulated the Rule of Law in his book "Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution" (1885), with three key components:
Supremacy of law,
Equality before the law,
Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land.
This philosophical foundation influenced many judicial interpretations across common law countries.
2. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 (India)
Facts:
A civil servant was transferred arbitrarily by the government. He challenged the order under Article 14.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness and discrimination are antithetical to equality.
Principle:
Equality is not just about identical treatment but also about eliminating arbitrary state action.
Rule of Law prohibits arbitrary decisions even if they apply to all equally.
3. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 (India)
Facts:
A special tribunal was created to try certain offences under a special procedure, bypassing regular courts.
Held:
The court struck down the law as violative of equality before law, as it allowed for discriminatory classification without reasonable basis.
Principle:
Any classification under the law must be intelligible and have a rational nexus with the objective.
Special treatment without reasonable justification breaches the Rule of Law.
4. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (U.S.)
Facts:
African-American children were denied access to certain public schools due to segregation laws.
Held:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public education violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Principle:
“Separate but equal” is inherently unequal.
The substantive application of equality requires dismantling systemic discrimination.
5. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 (India – Mandal Commission Case)
Facts:
Challenge to reservations (affirmative action) in public employment for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
Held:
Supreme Court upheld reservations but struck down the economic criterion and the creamy layer within backward classes.
Principle:
Substantive equality allows for affirmative measures to level the playing field.
Equality does not mean identical treatment, but equitable opportunity.
6. Police v. Roseanne Davidson, [1994] (New Zealand High Court)
Facts:
A transgender woman claimed discrimination in being held in a male prison facility.
Held:
Court held that administrative decision-making must account for equal treatment and dignity under human rights law.
Principle:
Equality before law includes equal respect for identity and dignity.
Administrative discretion must align with human rights standards.
7. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (U.S.)
Facts:
Issue was whether termination of disability benefits without a hearing violated due process and equal protection.
Held:
The court allowed termination without a hearing but emphasized the importance of proportionate procedures.
Principle:
Due process and equality are intertwined in administrative actions.
All individuals must have fair procedures regardless of socioeconomic status.
8. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945 (India)
Facts:
A Muslim woman sought maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC, which applies to all citizens.
Held:
Supreme Court held that personal laws cannot override the constitutional right to equality and protection under a uniform criminal code.
Principle:
Constitutional equality supersedes personal or religious law when the two conflict.
Everyone is equally protected under general laws like maintenance provisions.
✅ IV. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| E.P. Royappa | India | Arbitrary transfer | Equality = Non-arbitrariness |
| Anwar Ali Sarkar | India | Special courts | Invalid classification |
| Brown v. Board | U.S. | Racial segregation | Substantive equality |
| Indra Sawhney | India | Affirmative action | Reasonable classification upheld |
| Davidson Case | NZ | Trans rights | Identity-based equality |
| Mathews v. Eldridge | U.S. | Social welfare | Fair procedure = Equal treatment |
| Shah Bano | India | Personal law vs equality | Constitution prevails over customs |
🔍 V. Key Takeaways
Equality before law is a dynamic principle that adapts to social and legal contexts.
It requires both equal treatment and fair outcomes.
Administrative authorities must:
Avoid arbitrary decisions,
Ensure access to justice for all,
Provide clear legal justification for any classification or differential treatment.
Judicial review ensures that administrative actions conform to equality norms.
📌 Conclusion
The principle of Equality Before Law under the Rule of Law ensures that:
No one is above the law,
Every individual has the same legal rights and responsibilities,
And the State itself is subject to legal control.
This foundational concept upholds democracy, fairness, and justice, and is a check against discriminatory or arbitrary government actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments