Formal and Substantive Equality
Formal Equality and Substantive Equality: Detailed Explanation
1. Meaning of Equality
Equality is a fundamental principle in democratic societies, enshrined in constitutions worldwide.
In the Indian context, Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
However, the concept of equality is interpreted in different ways, mainly as Formal Equality and Substantive Equality.
2. Formal Equality
Definition:
Formal Equality refers to the idea that everyone should be treated the same under the law, without any discrimination.
It is often summarized as “equal treatment of equals”.
The law applies uniformly, regardless of differences in social, economic, or historical contexts.
Characteristics:
Focuses on uniform application of laws.
Emphasizes absence of discrimination or favoritism.
The law is neutral and does not recognize group-specific differences.
Often called “equality as sameness”.
Limitations:
Can perpetuate existing inequalities by ignoring structural disadvantages.
May lead to formal justice but substantive injustice.
Example:
If a law imposes a uniform tax rate on everyone, without exemptions, it reflects formal equality.
But poorer people may be disproportionately burdened, raising concerns of substantive fairness.
3. Substantive Equality
Definition:
Substantive Equality goes beyond formal treatment to achieve real, meaningful equality.
It acknowledges differences among groups and individuals and seeks to remove barriers to equal opportunities.
Sometimes called “equality as equity” or “equality of results”.
Characteristics:
Recognizes historical and social disadvantages faced by certain groups.
Allows differential treatment to promote equal outcomes.
Focuses on removing systemic discrimination and ensuring effective participation.
Embraces affirmative action policies like reservations and quotas.
Example:
Reservation in education and employment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Providing free education to marginalized groups.
4. Comparison Between Formal and Substantive Equality
| Aspect | Formal Equality | Substantive Equality |
|---|---|---|
| Principle | Equal treatment of everyone | Different treatment to achieve equal outcomes |
| Focus | Uniform application of laws | Removing barriers to equality |
| Approach | Neutrality | Equity and fairness |
| Criticism | May perpetuate inequality | May involve positive discrimination |
| Examples | Same law for all | Reservations for disadvantaged groups |
5. Relevant Case Law
A. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Significance: Expanded the understanding of equality under Article 14.
Held: Equality is a dynamic concept; it cannot be reduced to formal equality alone.
The Court emphasized substantive equality and fairness.
Quote: "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be frozen into a rigid formula."
B. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission case)
Significance: Addressed the scope of affirmative action under Article 15 and Article 16.
Held: Affirmative action (reservations) is an essential aspect of substantive equality to correct historical injustice and social backwardness.
Formal equality (no discrimination) is not sufficient to achieve real equality.
Introduced the concept of the “creamy layer” to exclude socially advanced individuals from reservations, emphasizing nuanced affirmative action.
C. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
Upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for OBCs.
Emphasized the importance of substantive equality in achieving social justice.
D. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts.
The Court held that formal equality (equal treatment under law) was inadequate where social stigma and discrimination persisted.
Emphasized the need for substantive equality to protect dignity and fundamental rights.
6. Conclusion
Formal Equality ensures no arbitrary discrimination and treats everyone the same under the law.
Substantive Equality seeks to address the root causes of inequality by providing special provisions and accommodations to historically disadvantaged groups.
Indian constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to prioritize substantive equality to realize the goal of social justice.
The two forms of equality are complementary but serve different purposes in the pursuit of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments