Article 14: Equality, Reasonable Classification, Arbitrariness and Legitimate Expectation

Introduction

Article 14 of the Constitution provides 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. Courts apply it in two ways: by testing whether a law or decision classifies people on a reasonable basis, and by striking down State action that is arbitrary. Most challenges to rules, policies, tenders, recruitment decisions and licensing orders turn on one of these two tests.

This guide explains both tests, when classifications have failed, how the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies, and the limits courts recognise. It draws on Supreme Court and High Court judgments published on NyayVidhan, each cited with the Court's own paragraph numbers.

Who Is Protected

Article 14 protects every person, including non-citizens. Refusing to register a marriage only because one spouse is a foreign national violates the right to equality (Ashwani Sharad Pendese v. Registrar of Hindu Marriage, 2023:RJ-JP:38276, paras 21, 28).

Reasonable Classification

Article 14 permits reasonable classification. It must rest on an intelligible differentia rationally connected to the object, but it need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete, and without material showing how a law will operate, its presumption of validity prevails (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi, (2001) 7 SCC 708, paras 8, 11, 15). Marginal over- or under-inclusion does not breach Article 14 (Basheer @ N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 1334 of 2002, para 20).

• The challenger's burden. The challenger must show that the classes treated differently are similarly placed (Paras Mines and Minerals v. Union of India, 2025:RJ-JP:6292-DB, para 16), and an Article 14 challenge needs a pleaded factual foundation; hardship or commercial expediency is not enough (Seema Silk & Sarees v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2008 (7) SCALE 624, paras 12-14).
• Classifications upheld. Treating appeals pending on the date of an amendment differently from pending trials was rational (Basheer, paras 23, 28). Protecting public servants from harassment through the sanction requirement in Section 197 CrPC is a rational classification (Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44, para 14). Institutions that missed a regulatory deadline form a separate class from those that met it (Jaipur National University v. Union of India, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14095/2020, paras 35, 40-41), and an emergent parolee is not similarly placed with a regular parolee (Nilam Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1020/2021, paras 16-17).

When a Classification Fails

• Unequal procedural rights. A statute that let only one side of a proceeding appear through professionals denied the other a fair hearing; Section 56 of the RERA Act was read down so that respondents enjoy the same right (Sanjay Ghiya v. Union of India, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18078/2018, paras 33-38, 45).
• Gender stereotypes. A rule that treats men and women differently is tested by its effect, not its stated object, and a classification resting on gender stereotypes violates Articles 14, 15(1) and 16 (Tara Agrawat v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13808/2009, paras 16, 19-20; Rajani Bhardwaj v. Director, Secondary Education, 2025:RJ-JP:11228, para 22).
• Singling out one group. A ban on NOCs that fell on private pharmacy colleges alone, while universities remained free to start courses, was arbitrary and discriminatory (Global Pharmacy College v. State of Rajasthan, 2025:RJ-JD:44028, para 9.1).
• Like cases treated unlike. Re-cancelling licences on a ground already rejected for a similarly placed holder was ex facie discriminatory (Dalpat Singh Chudawat v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5211/2021, paras 36-37). Treating the scar of a removed tattoo differently from an injury scar is hostile discrimination (Union of India v. Sanyogita, 2024:RJ-JD:20026-DB, para 11).

Arbitrariness

State action that is manifestly arbitrary violates Article 14, and a court may read down an arbitrary rule instead of striking it down. A complete bar on withdrawing a voluntary retirement notice after acceptance, ignoring administrative inconvenience, lacked an adequate determining principle and was read down (Bhikam Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2025:RJ-JD:14994-DB, paras 14-17, 39-41).

• Tenders and auctions. The power to reject the highest bid is public power subject to Article 14. Rejecting a competitive above-reserve bid needs material such as a valuation, collusion or lack of competition; comparison with the bidder's own earlier bid is not enough (Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 1125, paras 75, 81, 85, 87, 94).
• Licensing. Refusing an arms licence because of the applicant's relatives' crimes is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) (Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024:RJ-JD:39660, paras 32-33).
• Conditions that cannot be met. Insisting on sureties from a prisoner known to be indigent renders sanctioned parole illusory and violates Articles 14 and 21 (Khartaram v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JD:66-DB, paras 10-11, 19).
• Benefits given selectively. When the State extends a one-time benefit to students of lower merit, it cannot deny it to higher-ranked students on a defence its own records contradict (Prajwal Tukaram Kasbekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026:BHC-AUG:32965-DB, paras 6-7).
• Acting beyond the notice. Cancelling a result when the show cause notice never indicated cancellation breaches natural justice and Article 14 (Risha Lodha v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6261/2021, paras 52-54).

Legitimate Expectation

When the State announces a scheme and a citizen acts on it to her detriment, she has a legitimate expectation that the promise will be kept; closing the scheme did not excuse the State from giving the promised benefits (Vandana v. State of Rajasthan, 2024:RJ-JP:5916, paras 12-13, 17, 19, 22-23). Where a court has held that an earlier government resolution created a legitimate expectation about an age limit, the State cannot reach the same result through a fresh resolution (Farida Mustak Mulla v. State of Maharashtra, 2026:BHC-KOL:8069-DB, paras 10-11).

The Limits of Article 14

• No negative equality. Parity cannot be claimed with a benefit wrongly given to another (State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir Hiwarkar, 2026 INSC 1118, para 13).
• Cut-off dates are policy. Every cut-off date affects some candidates; hardship alone does not make it arbitrary, and a writ court interferes only if it is whimsical or mala fide (Dr. Naveen Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 687/2022, paras 28-29).
• Economic measures. Courts review economic and monetary measures for legality, arbitrariness or mala fides, not wisdom, and a classification founded on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus stands (Dudhu Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025:RJ-JD:54051-DB, paras 5.1.1-5.2, 5.13).
• Executive choices. The State's choice of its law officers can be questioned only on a demonstrated case of arbitrariness, not on vague allegations (Ishwar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 2024:RJ-JD:44044-DB, para 13).

Key Points

• Article 14 protects every person, citizen or not (Ashwani Sharad Pendese, paras 21, 28).
• A classification needs an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object; it need not be perfect, and the challenger must plead and prove that the classes are similarly placed (Nallamilli Rami Reddi, para 8; Paras Mines, para 16; Seema Silk, paras 12-14).
• Classifications fail when they deny one side equal procedural rights, rest on gender stereotypes or single out one group without reason (Sanjay Ghiya, paras 33-38; Tara Agrawat, paras 19-20; Global Pharmacy College, para 9.1).
• Manifestly arbitrary action, including rejecting a fair bid without material, falls foul of Article 14, and arbitrary rules may be read down (Bhikam Chand, para 41; Dhanlaxmi Merchandise, paras 87, 94).
• Legitimate expectation protects people who acted on a State promise, but there is no negative equality and cut-off dates are policy (Vandana, paras 22-23; Sudhir Hiwarkar, para 13; Naveen Jakhar, paras 28-29).

More rulings are collected on the Article 14, Arbitrariness in State Action and Reasonable Classification pages. See also our guides to Article 21 and writ petitions under Article 226.