1. Equality vs. Identical Treatment:
The judiciary has consistently held that equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment. Instead, it signifies the absence of any arbitrary classification. This means the State can make reasonable classifications for the purpose of legislation or executive action, but such classification must satisfy two conditions:
- It must be based on an intelligible differentia.
- The differentia must have a rational relationship to the objective sought to be achieved.
2. Arbitrariness as Violation of Equality:
In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 14 by stating that arbitrariness itself is a violation of the equality principle. In essence, even if a law doesn't involve classification, it can still be struck down if it's arbitrary.
3. Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination:
The Court has consistently upheld the idea of 'positive discrimination' or affirmative action, asserting that providing advantages to historically marginalized groups does not violate the equality principle. This interpretation supports the reservation policies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
4. Horizontal vs. Vertical Equality:
Through various cases, the Court has differentiated between two types of equality: horizontal and vertical. While horizontal equality mandates equal treatment of equals, vertical equality recognizes the necessity to treat differently those who are unequal. This concept backs the idea of reservations and special provisions for marginalized groups.
5. Doctrine of Protective Discrimination:
This doctrine, developed in the context of Articles 15 and 16, allows the State to make special provisions for women, children, and socially and educationally backward classes. Such provisions are seen as fulfilling the promise of substantive or real equality by addressing historical and structural disadvantages.
6. Broad Interpretation of 'State':
In R.D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India (1979), the Court adopted a broad interpretation of 'State' under Article 12, ensuring that not just the traditional state bodies but even ostensibly private entities performing public functions can be held accountable for violating the equality principle.
7. Sexual Orientation and Equality:
In the landmark judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual gay sex and emphasized that sexual orientation falls within the ambit of the Constitution's equality, freedom, and non-discrimination principles.
Through these interpretations and many others, the Indian judiciary has played an instrumental role in evolving the principle of equality from a mere non-discrimination clause to a dynamic tool of social justice. By continually interpreting and reinterpreting the equality provisions, the judiciary has aimed to adapt them to changing societal values and needs.
