Study this in the app →

English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

Foundations and the Right to Equality (Articles 12–18)

मराठीत स्पष्टीकरण

Fundamental Rights · Part 1 / 4 · Fact-checked on · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

What Fundamental Rights are, who can claim them, what counts as 'the State', how courts strike down laws, and the Right to Equality in Articles 14 to 18, including reservations.

Each idea is explained first in Marathi (मराठी), ending with the English and Hindi exam terms, followed by the same point in exam English. UPSC Prelims is in English or Hindi, so understand it in Marathi and revise it in English.

मूलभूत हक्क संविधानाच्या (राज्यघटनेच्या) भाग III मध्ये, अनुच्छेद 12 ते 35 मध्ये आहेत. त्यांची खासियत अशी की सरकारने तुमचा हक्क डावलला तर तुम्ही थेट सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात किंवा उच्च न्यायालयात जाऊन न्याय मागू शकता. उदाहरणार्थ, विनाकारण तुम्हाला अटकेत ठेवले तर न्यायालय तुमचे रक्षण करते. पण हे हक्क अमर्याद नाहीत; समाजाच्या हितासाठी राज्यघटनाच वाजवी निर्बंध घालू देते. ही कल्पना अमेरिकेच्या बिल ऑफ राइट्सवरून आली आहे. (→ English: Fundamental Rights · हिन्दी: मूल अधिकार)

In exam EnglishThe Fundamental Rights are in Part III of the Constitution, Articles 12 to 35. They are called 'fundamental' because they protect the most basic freedoms of a person, and because they are justiciable: if the State violates one, a person can go straight to the Supreme Court or a High Court to enforce it. The idea was inspired by the Bill of Rights of the United States. These rights are not absolute: the Constitution itself allows reasonable restrictions on many of them. This first part covers the foundations of Part III (Articles 12 and 13) and the Right to Equality (Articles 14 to 18).

सगळे हक्क सगळ्यांसाठी नाहीत. पाच हक्क फक्त भारतीय नागरिकांसाठी आहेत: अनुच्छेद 15, 16, 19, 29 आणि 30. बाकीचे — समानता (14), जगण्याचा हक्क (21), धर्मस्वातंत्र्य (25) इत्यादी — भारतात असलेल्या प्रत्येक व्यक्तीला, परदेशी लोकांनाही लागू आहेत. उदाहरणार्थ, पुण्यात अटक झालेल्या परदेशी पर्यटकाला अनुच्छेद 21 चे संरक्षण मिळते; पण भारतात कुठेही स्थायिक होण्याचा अनुच्छेद 19 चा हक्क त्याला नाही, कारण तो नागरिकांचा हक्क आहे. (→ English: citizen · हिन्दी: नागरिक)

In exam EnglishNot every right is for everyone. Five rights are for a citizen only: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30. The rest, including Article 14 (equality before law), Article 20 (protection in criminal cases), Article 21 (life and personal liberty) and Article 25 (freedom of religion), are for every person on Indian soil, including foreigners. For example, a foreign tourist arrested in India can claim the protection of Article 21, but cannot claim the Article 19 freedom to reside and settle anywhere in India, because that right belongs to citizens.

मूलभूत हक्क मुख्यतः सरकारपासून आपले रक्षण करतात. म्हणून 'राज्य' म्हणजे कोण हे अनुच्छेद 12 व्यापकपणे सांगतो: केंद्र सरकार, संसद, राज्य सरकारे, विधिमंडळे, पंचायती, नगरपालिका, आणि 'इतर प्राधिकरणे'. एखाद्या संस्थेला सरकारच बहुतेक पैसा देत असेल आणि तिच्यावर घट्ट नियंत्रण ठेवत असेल, तर न्यायालय तिलाही 'राज्य' मानते. म्हणून सार्वजनिक क्षेत्रातील कंपनीविरुद्ध मूलभूत हक्कांचा खटला करता येतो; सामान्य खासगी कंपनीविरुद्ध सहसा नाही. (→ English: Fundamental Rights · हिन्दी: मूल अधिकार)

In exam EnglishFundamental Rights are mainly protection against the State, so Article 12 defines 'the State' widely. It includes the Government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, all local authorities such as municipalities and panchayats, and 'other authorities' within India or under the control of the Government of India. Courts decide who counts as an 'other authority'. In Ajay Hasia (1981) the Supreme Court said a body is an instrumentality or agency of the State if, for example, the government funds it heavily or controls it deeply. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002) a seven-judge bench asked whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the government. So a public sector company can be 'the State', while an ordinary private company usually is not.

अनुच्छेद 13 मुळेच भाग III ला ताकद मिळते. मूलभूत हक्क हिरावून घेणारा किंवा कमी करणारा कोणताही कायदा — राज्यघटनेपूर्वीचा असो वा नंतरचा — त्या मर्यादेपर्यंत रद्दबातल ठरतो. येथे 'कायदा' म्हणजे अध्यादेश, नियम, अधिसूचना आणि कायद्याचे बळ असलेल्या रूढीही. हाच न्यायालयीन पुनर्विलोकनाचा पाया आहे. एखाद्या कायद्यातील एकच कलम चुकीचे असेल तर फक्त तेच कलम रद्द होते — फळाचा सडलेला भाग तेवढा कापून टाकावा तसे. जुना कायदा हक्काशी टक्कर देत असेल तर तो मरत नाही, ग्रहण लागल्यासारखा झाकला जातो; हक्कात दुरुस्ती झाली तर तो पुन्हा जिवंत होतो. 24 व्या घटनादुरुस्तीने (1971) जोडलेल्या 13(4) नुसार, अनुच्छेद 368 खाली केलेली घटनादुरुस्ती या अनुच्छेदासाठी 'कायदा' नाही. (→ English: judicial review · हिन्दी: न्यायिक पुनर्विलोकन)

In exam EnglishArticle 13 is what gives Part III its teeth. Any law, whether made before or after the Constitution came into force, is void to the extent that it takes away or abridges a Fundamental Right. 'Law' here is wide: it includes ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, and even customs having the force of law. This is the basis of judicial review. Two doctrines follow. Under the doctrine of severability, only the offending part of a law is struck down if the rest can stand on its own. Under the doctrine of eclipse, a pre-Constitution law that conflicts with a Fundamental Right is not dead but overshadowed, and revives if the right is later amended. Article 13(4), added by the 24th Amendment (1971), says a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not 'law' for the purpose of Article 13.

अनुच्छेद 14 मध्ये दोन कल्पना आहेत. कायद्यापुढे समानता म्हणजे — मुख्यमंत्री असो वा साधा शेतकरी, सर्वांना एकच कायदा, एकच न्यायालय; कोणीही कायद्याच्या वर नाही (ब्रिटिश कल्पना). कायद्यांचे समान संरक्षण म्हणजे — सारख्या परिस्थितीतील लोकांना सारखी वागणूक (अमेरिकी कल्पना). पण समानता म्हणजे सर्वांना अगदी एकसारखे वागवणे नव्हे. उदाहरणार्थ, ज्येष्ठ नागरिकांना कमी कर लावणे चुकीचे नाही — तो फरक खरा आहे आणि कायद्याच्या उद्देशाशी संबंधित आहे. पण कारणाशिवाय मनमानी निर्णय घेतला तर तो समानतेच्या विरुद्ध आहे, असे सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने सांगितले. (→ English: equality before law · हिन्दी: विधि के समक्ष समता)

In exam EnglishArticle 14 says the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The two phrases come from different traditions. 'Equality before law' is a British idea linked to the rule of law: nobody is above the law, and the same courts and laws apply to everyone. 'Equal protection of the laws' comes from the US Constitution: people in similar situations must be treated alike. Equality does not mean identical treatment. The State may classify people if the classification is reasonable: it must rest on an intelligible differentia (a real difference between groups) and have a rational nexus with the purpose of the law. In E.P. Royappa (1974) the Supreme Court added that arbitrariness is the opposite of equality, so an arbitrary action by the State violates Article 14.
Article 14: two ideas in one article
Equality before lawEqual protection of the laws
OriginBritish idea (rule of law)US Constitution
NatureNegative: no special privilege for anyonePositive: equal treatment in equal circumstances
AllowsSame laws and courts for everyoneReasonable classification with a rational purpose

अनुच्छेद 14 प्रत्येक व्यक्तीचे — कंपन्या आणि परदेशी लोकांचेही — रक्षण करतो. पण राज्यघटनेतच काही अपवाद आहेत. अनुच्छेद 361 नुसार राष्ट्रपती आणि राज्यपाल आपल्या पदाच्या कर्तव्यांसाठी कोणत्याही न्यायालयाला उत्तरदायी नाहीत; पदावर असेपर्यंत त्यांच्याविरुद्ध फौजदारी खटला सुरू करता येत नाही किंवा चालू ठेवता येत नाही. हे संरक्षण व्यक्तीला नसून पदाला आहे — पद सोडल्यावर ते राहत नाही. म्हणून हे कायद्यापुढे समानता या तत्त्वाच्या विरुद्ध मानले जात नाही. (→ English: equality before law · हिन्दी: विधि के समक्ष समता)

In exam EnglishArticle 14 protects every person, including companies and foreigners. It has exceptions written into the Constitution itself. The most important is Article 361: the President and the Governors are not answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of their office, and no criminal proceedings can be started or continued against them in any court during their term of office. This is not seen as a breach of equality, because it protects the office rather than the person, and only for as long as the person holds it.

अनुच्छेद 15 भेदभावाला मनाई करतो: धर्म, वंश, जात, लिंग, जन्मस्थान — 'केवळ' या कारणांवरून सरकार कोणत्याही नागरिकाशी भेदभाव करू शकत नाही. 15(2) खासगी लोकांनाही लागू आहे: हॉटेल मालक 'या जातीच्या लोकांना प्रवेश नाही' असे म्हणू शकत नाही; सार्वजनिक विहीर, तलाव, रस्ता वापरण्यापासून कोणालाही रोखता येत नाही. 15(3) स्त्रिया आणि मुलांसाठी विशेष तरतुदींना परवानगी देतो — महिला महाविद्यालय किंवा मुलींसाठी योजना समानता या तत्त्वाच्या विरुद्ध नाही. (→ English: Equality · हिन्दी: समता)

In exam EnglishArticle 15 applies the idea of equality to discrimination. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The word 'only' matters: a law based on other grounds may be valid. Article 15(2) goes beyond the State: no citizen can be barred, on these grounds, from shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, or from wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort funded by the State or dedicated to public use. Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women and children, so a women-only college or a scheme for girl students does not violate Article 15.

शिक्षणातील आरक्षण अनुच्छेद 15 मधून विकसित झाले. 1951 मध्ये चंपकम दोराईराजन प्रकरणात, समाजाच्या आधारे महाविद्यालयीन जागा वाटणारा मद्रास सरकारचा आदेश सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने रद्द केला. लगेच संसदेने पहिली घटनादुरुस्ती (1951) करून 15(4) जोडले: सामाजिक आणि शैक्षणिकदृष्ट्या मागासवर्ग, अनुसूचित जाती आणि जमातींसाठी विशेष तरतुदी करता येतात. 2005 मध्ये 93 व्या दुरुस्तीने 15(5) जोडले — खासगी शिक्षणसंस्थांतही आरक्षण (अल्पसंख्याक संस्था वगळून). 2019 मध्ये 103 व्या दुरुस्तीने 15(6) जोडले — इतर आरक्षणांत नसलेल्या आर्थिकदृष्ट्या दुर्बलांना 10% पर्यंत. (→ English: backward classes · हिन्दी: पिछड़े वर्ग)

In exam EnglishReservation in education grew out of Article 15. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) the Supreme Court struck down a Madras government order that allotted college seats by community. Parliament responded with the First Amendment (1951), which added Article 15(4): the State may make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The 93rd Amendment (2005) added Article 15(5), allowing reservation in admission to educational institutions, including private ones, whether aided or unaided, but not minority educational institutions. The 103rd Amendment (2019) added Article 15(6), allowing up to 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections who are not covered by the other reservations.

अनुच्छेद 16 सरकारी नोकऱ्यांमध्ये समान संधी देतो: धर्म, जात, लिंग, वंश, जन्मस्थान, निवास — केवळ या कारणांवरून कोणालाही नोकरीसाठी अपात्र ठरवता येत नाही. अपवाद: (1) काही नोकऱ्यांसाठी राज्यातील निवासाची अट घालण्याचा अधिकार फक्त संसदेला; (2) सेवांमध्ये पुरेसे प्रतिनिधित्व नसलेल्या मागास वर्गांना आरक्षण; (3) अनुसूचित जाती-जमातींना पदोन्नतीत आरक्षण (1995) आणि त्यासोबतची ज्येष्ठता (2001); (4) न भरलेल्या राखीव जागा पुढील वर्षांत नेणे (2000); (5) मंदिराचा विश्वस्त त्याच धर्माचा असावा ही अट; (6) आर्थिकदृष्ट्या दुर्बलांना 10% पर्यंत. (→ English: Equality · हिन्दी: समता)

In exam EnglishArticle 16 guarantees every citizen equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. No citizen can be made ineligible for, or discriminated against in, any government job on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence. The exceptions are carefully listed. Under 16(3), only Parliament can prescribe residence within a state as a condition for certain jobs there. Under 16(4), the State can reserve appointments for any backward class not adequately represented in its services. Clause 16(4A), added by the 77th Amendment (1995), allows reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the 85th Amendment (2001) added consequential seniority. Clause 16(4B), added by the 81st Amendment (2000), lets unfilled reserved vacancies be carried forward without counting them towards the ceiling. Clause 16(5) allows a religious institution to require its office-holders to belong to that religion, and 16(6) allows up to 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections.

आरक्षणाबद्दल दोन महत्त्वाचे निकाल. 1992 च्या इंद्रा साहनी (मंडल) प्रकरणात नऊ न्यायाधीशांनी केंद्र सरकारी नोकऱ्यांत इतर मागास वर्गांना 27% आरक्षण योग्य ठरवले, पण तीन नियम घातले: मागासवर्गातील सधन 'क्रीमी लेयर' वगळावा; एकूण आरक्षण सामान्यतः 50% पेक्षा जास्त नसावे; पदोन्नतीत आरक्षण नाही. नंतर संसदेने अनुसूचित जाती-जमातींसाठी पदोन्नतीतील आरक्षण पुन्हा आणले. 2022 च्या जनहित अभियान प्रकरणात 3–2 बहुमताने आर्थिकदृष्ट्या दुर्बलांसाठीचे 10% आरक्षण न्यायालयाने वैध ठरवले. (→ English: backward classes · हिन्दी: पिछड़े वर्ग)

In exam EnglishTwo judgments shape how reservation works. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), known as the Mandal case, a nine-judge bench upheld 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes in central government jobs, but laid down three rules: the 'creamy layer' (better-off members) of backward classes must be excluded; total reservation should not normally exceed 50 per cent except in extraordinary situations; and Article 16(4) does not allow reservation in promotions. Parliament then added Article 16(4A) to restore reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), a five-judge bench, by a majority of 3 to 2, upheld the 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections, holding that it does not violate the basic structure.
Reservation clauses in Articles 15 and 16
ClauseWhat it allowsAdded by
15(4)Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs1st Amendment, 1951
15(5)Reservation in admissions, including private institutions (not minority institutions)93rd Amendment, 2005
15(6), 16(6)Up to 10% for economically weaker sections103rd Amendment, 2019
16(4)Reservation in appointments for backward classes not adequately representedOriginal Constitution
16(4A)Reservation in promotion for SCs and STs; consequential seniority from 200177th Amendment, 1995; 85th Amendment, 2001
16(4B)Unfilled reserved vacancies carried forward, outside the ceiling81st Amendment, 2000

अनुच्छेद 17 ने अस्पृश्यता नष्ट केली; ती कोणत्याही स्वरूपात पाळणे गुन्हा आहे, दंडनीय आहे. या शब्दाची व्याख्या राज्यघटनेत नाही. संसदेने 1955 मध्ये कायदा केला; 1976 मध्ये त्याचे नाव नागरी हक्क संरक्षण कायदा झाले. बहुतेक मूलभूत हक्क फक्त सरकारविरुद्ध असतात, पण हा खासगी व्यक्तींनाही लागू होतो: जातीमुळे दुकानदाराने माल दिला नाही किंवा गावातील लोकांनी पाणी भरू दिले नाही — तर तो गुन्हा आहे. (→ English: untouchability · हिन्दी: अस्पृश्यता)

In exam EnglishArticle 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. Enforcing any disability arising out of untouchability is an offence punishable in accordance with law. The Constitution does not define the word; Parliament gave effect to the article through the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976. Unlike most Fundamental Rights, Article 17 applies against private individuals as well as the State: a shopkeeper or a village body that refuses water or entry to a person because of caste commits an offence.

अनुच्छेद 18 ने किताब रद्द केले. ब्रिटिश काळात 'रावबहादूर', 'सर' असे किताब असत; आता सरकार लष्करी किंवा शैक्षणिक सन्मानांशिवाय कोणताही किताब देत नाही. भारतीय नागरिकांनी परदेशी सरकारचे किताब स्वीकारू नयेत. भारतरत्न आणि पद्म पुरस्कार हे किताब नाहीत असे 1996 मध्ये सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने सांगितले, पण ते नावाआधी किंवा नंतर लावू नयेत. एकूणच, अनुच्छेद 14 ते 18 हे उद्देशिकेमध्ये (सरनाम्यात) दिलेल्या दर्जा आणि संधीच्या समानतेसाठीच आहेत. (→ English: Preamble · हिन्दी: उद्देशिका)

In exam EnglishArticle 18 abolishes titles. The State shall not confer any title, except a military or academic distinction. No citizen may accept a title from a foreign State, and a non-citizen holding an office of profit or trust under the State needs the President's consent to accept one. Persons holding such offices also need the President's consent to accept any present, emolument or office from a foreign State. In Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) the Supreme Court held that the Bharat Ratna and the Padma awards are not 'titles' under Article 18, but they should not be used as a prefix or suffix to a name. Taken together, Articles 14 to 18 aim at equality of status and of opportunity promised in the Preamble: Article 14 sets the general rule, Articles 15 and 16 apply it to discrimination and public jobs, and Articles 17 and 18 remove inequalities of caste and rank.

Exam traps

Recap

Practice questions

Q1. Which of the following Fundamental Rights are available to foreigners in India?
1. Equality before law (Article 14)
2. Equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16)
3. Protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21)
4. Freedom to reside and settle anywhere in India (Article 19)
Select the correct answer using the code below.

  1. 1 and 3 only
  2. 2 and 4 only
  3. 1, 3 and 4 only
  4. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 and 3 only

Articles 14 and 21 protect every person, including foreigners. Articles 16 and 19 are citizens-only, so any option containing 2 or 4 is wrong.

Q2. With reference to Article 13 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. The term 'law' in Article 13 includes ordinances, bye-laws and customs having the force of law.
2. A constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is 'law' for the purposes of Article 13.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Statement 1 is correct: Article 13(3) defines 'law' widely. Statement 2 is wrong: Article 13(4), added by the 24th Amendment (1971), says an amendment under Article 368 is not 'law' under Article 13.

Q3. A law gives an executive officer unguided and unlimited discretion to decide whom a rule applies to. Which principle does it most directly violate?

  1. Equality before law and equal protection of the laws (Article 14)
  2. Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19)
  3. Abolition of titles (Article 18)
  4. Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32)
Show answer

Answer: A. Equality before law and equal protection of the laws (Article 14)

Unguided discretion allows arbitrary treatment of people in the same situation, and arbitrariness is the opposite of equality under Article 14 (E.P. Royappa, 1974). Article 19 deals with freedoms, Article 18 with titles, and Article 32 is the remedy, not the violated right.

Q4. Article 16 of the Constitution forbids discrimination in public employment on certain grounds. Which of the following grounds is mentioned in Article 16 but NOT in Article 15?

  1. Caste
  2. Place of birth
  3. Residence
  4. Sex
Show answer

Answer: C. Residence

Article 16(2) adds descent and residence to the grounds in Article 15. Caste, place of birth and sex appear in both articles.

Q5. Consider the following statements about the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
1. It required the 'creamy layer' to be excluded from reservation for backward classes.
2. It held that reservation could be provided in promotions under Article 16(4).
3. It said total reservation should not normally exceed 50 per cent.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 1 and 3 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is wrong: the Court held that Article 16(4) does not permit reservation in promotions, which is why Parliament later added Article 16(4A) by the 77th Amendment.

Q6. Which of the following Fundamental Rights can be enforced against private individuals as well as the State?
1. Abolition of untouchability (Article 17)
2. Equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16)
3. Access to shops, public restaurants and hotels without discrimination (Article 15(2))
Select the correct answer using the code below.

  1. 1 only
  2. 1 and 3 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

Article 17 and Article 15(2) apply to private conduct too: untouchability by anyone is an offence, and private shops and hotels are covered by 15(2). Article 16 concerns public employment, so it binds only the State.

Q7. Which constitutional amendment added Article 15(5), enabling reservation in admission to private educational institutions?

  1. First Amendment, 1951
  2. 77th Amendment, 1995
  3. 93rd Amendment, 2005
  4. 103rd Amendment, 2019
Show answer

Answer: C. 93rd Amendment, 2005

The 93rd Amendment (2005) added Article 15(5). The First Amendment added 15(4), the 77th added 16(4A) for promotions, and the 103rd added 15(6) and 16(6) for economically weaker sections.

Q8. Consider the following statements regarding Article 18:
1. The State may confer military and academic distinctions.
2. A citizen of India may accept a title from a foreign State with the consent of the President.
3. The Bharat Ratna is a 'title' within the meaning of Article 18.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 1 and 2 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Only statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: a citizen may not accept a foreign title at all (the President's consent applies to non-citizens holding an office of profit or trust). Statement 3 is wrong: Balaji Raghavan (1996) held national awards are not titles.

All partsNext: Part 2 →

Study this in the Upscore app to keep notes, save it for revision, track your practice scores and follow a plan to the exam date. It's free.

Study this in the app →

Sources