Articles 14 and 15 form the bedrock of the "Right to Equality" cluster (Articles 14–18) within Part III of the Constitution of India. Article 14 commands that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." The first limb — equality before the law — derives from A.V. Dicey's English Rule of Law and denotes the absence of special privilege; the second — equal protection of the laws — is borrowed from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and connotes positive, equal treatment of equals. Article 15 elaborates this by prohibiting discrimination only on the enumerated grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and extends to access to shops, public restaurants, wells, roads and places of public resort (Article 15(2)).
Article 14 permits reasonable classification but forbids class legislation. The doctrinal test, crystallised in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958), requires an intelligible differentia distinguishing the grouped persons and a rational nexus between that differentia and the object sought. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court added the new doctrine that equality is antithetical to arbitrariness, transforming Article 14 into a guarantee against arbitrary State action. Article 15 carries internal exceptions: clause (3) permits special provisions for women and children; clause (4), inserted by the First Amendment (1951) after State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), allows reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs; clause (5), added by the 93rd Amendment (2005) and upheld in Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008), extends reservation to private unaided educational institutions; and clause (6), added by the 103rd Amendment (2019) and upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), enables a 10% Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota.
Named applications abound. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) capped reservations at 50% and excluded the "creamy layer." Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) read down Section 377 IPC partly on Article 14 grounds. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) struck down adultery (Section 497 IPC) as violating Articles 14 and 15. As of 2026, debates over the constitutionality of sub-classification within SCs/STs — settled in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), which permitted such sub-classification — and the 50% ceiling remain live in the wake of Maratha and EWS litigation.
For exam purposes, Articles 14–15 are tested heavily in the UPSC General Studies Paper II (Polity & Governance) and in the law optional, and feature in FSOT, CSS and BCS comparative-law segments. Typical question angles include: distinguishing "equality before law" from "equal protection of laws"; the twin test of reasonable classification versus the arbitrariness doctrine; the constitutional amendment trail behind Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 15(6); and the interplay between Article 15 and Articles 16, 17 and 46. Aspirants must memorise the landmark cases and amendment numbers, since prelims MCQs and mains analytical questions both probe this lineage.
Example
In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment introducing Article 15(6), validating the 10% EWS reservation against challenges that it violated the equality code of Articles 14 and 15.
Frequently asked questions
Equality before the law, drawn from Dicey's Rule of Law, is a negative concept denoting absence of special privilege and equal subjection to ordinary law. Equal protection of the laws, borrowed from the US Fourteenth Amendment, is a positive concept requiring equal treatment of those similarly situated.