Words like “Economic and Political liberty of thoughts, Justice Social, Worship, Belief…” are included in the preamble of constitution and equality status and of opportunity, which not only secure fairness in economic and social activities of the people but also act as shield to person’s liberty against the arbitrary measures which is that the foundation for principles of Natural Justice.
Apart from the preamble rule of natural justice may be a very core concept of the Indian Constitution. The cornerstone of this principle is laid down by article 14,19 and 21 of Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India plays an important role to extend the importance of the principle of natural justice in India. The violating principles of natural justice end in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice violates the Equality clause of Art. 14.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
Article 14 of the Indian constitution of India provides that the state shall not deny to a person Equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the Territory of India.
Article 14 uses two expressions “Equality before the law “which implies the absence of any special privileges in favour of people and therefore the subject of all classes to the standard law and “Equal Protection of the Law” which means equal treatment in equal circumstances.
The scope of article 14 is expanding day by day which is the outcome of judicial decisions. This text laid down a general preposition that each one person in similar circumstance shall be treated during a similar way both in privileges and liabilities imposed.
Art 14 manifests within the sort of following propositions:
- A law granting freehand and unhindered power on an authority is dreadful for being arbitrary and discriminatory.
- 14 illegalize prejudice within the definite exercise of any discretionary power.
- 14 smacks at arbitrariness in administrative action and guarantees fairness and equality of treatment.
Many cases are held by the Indian Judiciary during which Article 14 of the Constitution of India is worked as a shield for cover of natural justice.
In the recent case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd vs. Brojo Nath an order of stoppage of service of an eternal employee merely by issuing three months was clasp to be unconstitutional and invalid as being deprived the worker of the proper and Protection under Art. 14. The Court stated that it might strike down, any unfair and unreasonable clause of a contract entered into between parties who weren’t equal in bargaining power. and therefore, the Court further held that such an action was in conformity with the mandate of the “great equality clause” in Art. 14, which protects the principles of natural justice.
With Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, the Supreme Court said that the rule of Audi alteram partem impose the equality clause in Art 14 and it applicable not only to the quasi-judicial bodies but also to administrative order unfavourably affecting the party in question unless the rule has been expressly excluded by the Act within the question.
Similarly, with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court was of opinion that Art 14 is an authority for the proposition that the principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Art. 14 and an order depriving an individual of his civil rights passed without affording him a chance of being heard suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice.
Social equality may be a state of affairs during which all people within a selected society or isolated group have equivalent status in possibly all respects, possibly including freedom of speech, property rights, civil rights, and equal ingress to certain social services and social goods. However, it’s going to also include health equality, economic equality and other social securities. Social equality requires the absence of legally enforced class or caste boundaries and therefore the absence of discrimination motivated by an inalienable part of an individual’s identity. For instance, sex, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health or disability must absolutely not end in unequal treatment under the law and will not reduce opportunities unjustifiably.
Equal opportunities are interpreted as being judged by ability, which is compatible with a free enterprise. Pertinent problems are horizontal inequality − the inequality of two persons of same origin and skill and differing opportunities given to individuals − like in (education) or by inherited capital.
Equity or economic equality is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly in reference to taxation or welfare economics. More specifically, it’s going to ask equal life chances no matter identity, to supply all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to extend funds and commitment for redistribution.
Inequities and inequality have remarkably increased in the recent decade, viably driven by the worldwide economic procedures of economic liberalisation, globalisation and integration. This has led to states ‘lagging behind’ on headline goals like the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and different levels of inequity between states are argued to possess played a task within the impact of the worldwide depression of 2008–2009.
Equity is predicated on the thought of ethical equality. Equity looks at the distribution of capital, goods, and access to services throughout an economy and is usually measured using tools like the Gini index. Equity could also be distinguished from economic efficiency in the overall evaluation of welfare. Although ‘equity’ has broader uses, it’s going to be posed as a counterpart to economic inequality in yielding a “good” distribution of wealth. it’s been studied in experimental economics as inequity aversion.
New Concept of Equality for The Protection of individuals Of India
In the case of the Air India v. Nargesh Meerza Regulation 46 of Indian Airlines regulations provides a stewardess are going to retire from the service upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage within 4 years of Service or on first pregnancy, whoever found earlier but regulation 47 of the regulation act the director had the discretion extend the age of retirement one year at a time beyond the age of retirement up to the age of 45 years at his option if an stewardess was found medically fit. It was held by the court that a stewardess on the bottom of pregency was unreasonable and arbitrary, it had been the violation of article 14 under the constitutional law of India.
The regulation didn’t restrict marriage after four years and if a stewardess after having fulfilled the condition became pregnant, there was no ground why first pregnancy should substitute the way of her running service. of the court said that the termination of service on pregnancy was manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary on the idea of this it had been violation of article 14 of Indian constitution.
In John Vallamattom v. union of India, section 118 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 court invalidated which prohibited the proper of a Christian to form valid will for a spiritual or charitable purpose as long as he made it a minimum of 12 months before his death. The court occurred the prescription of your time and therefore the application of the supply only to Christian artificial having no nexus with the thing of law.
In P. Rajendan v. state of Madras, court said that there was district wise distribution of seats in state medical colleges on the bottom of proportion of population of a neighborhood to the entire population of the state. classification is going to be valid under article 14, there must be a relation between the classification and therefore the object sought to be achieved. anybody scheme of admission rules should be devised so on select the simplest available talent for admission to medical college within the state. actually, discriminatory as a high qualified candidate from one district could also be rejected while a less qualified candidate from another district could also be admitted.
In D.S Nakara v. union of India, during this case supreme court said that Rule 34 of the central services (pension) rules, 1972 as unconstitutional on the bottom that the classification made by it between pensioners retiring before a particular date and retiring then date didn’t depend on any rational principle it had been arbitrary and therefore the infringement of article 14 of Indian constitution law.
In a democratic country like India, the responsibility of administrative agencies is increasing at a rapid speed and with rapid climb of state liability and civic needs of the people. If the function of the state and its administrative agencies isn’t changed in a just and fair manner the Rule of Law would lose its essence and validity. Since violation of natural justice results in arbitrariness, so violation of justice in violation of equality and this results in the violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Under Article 14 & Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the articles firmly affect the principles of natural justice.
The violation of principles of natural justice shall leads to arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice is additionally a violation of the Right to Equality under Article 14. Natural Justice has its foundation on good conscience and human values that follows a good procedure. If the state doesn’t discharge its function during a just and fair manner the Rule of Law would lose its validity.
This article is authored by Mauli Bisen, Second-Year, BBA. LL.B student at LNCT University
Also Read – Human Rights And Indian Constitution