The mandate of Article 14 requires that State shall not deny equality

before law and equal protection of laws to any person within the
territory of India. By incorporating in Article 14 the British doctrine
of rule of law aspropoundedbyProf.Diceyandthe"equalprotectionoflaw"
clauseof14thAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution,theframersofourConstitution
hadintheirzealinfusedextravigourandvitalityintherighttoequality.Butthescope
ofArticle14hadbeensubjecttoreasonablecurtailinordertocarryoutwelfare
programmes.1 In1974,thenewdoctrineofequalitywasevolved. 2 Arbitrarinessis
antithesistotheconceptofequality.3Thustheapexcourthasevolvedtodifferentand
distinctdoctrines.ThisprojecthighlightstheoldandnewdimensionofArticle14.
ItisonlyunderstandablethatourSupremeCourtshouldhaveappliedthetheoryof
classification,evolvedbytheAmericanSupremeCourtforgivingcontentandtrue
meaningtorighttoequality.Accordingtothisdoctrineequalprotectionoflaw
prohibitsclasslegislationbutpermitsreasonableclassificationofpersonsorthings. 4
Thenewdoctrinefocusesonthepreventionofarbitrarystateactionbecauseanact
thatisarbitrarycannotbeequal. 5Theadministrativeactionsaresubjecttothetestof
fairplayatthesametimeconsideringtheneedforsomefreeplayinthejoints. 6
TheactionoftheStateoritsinstrumentalitymustbereasonable. 7Article14conforms
to the Wednesbury principle and rules out the facets of irrationality. 8 Since the

inceptiontheIndianSupremeCourthashad hesitationinapplyingthetheoryof

classificationwhiletestingtheConstitutionalviresoflegislationsandState
actions impugned on the basis of their being violative of Article 14. The classic nexus
test was enunciated by S.R. Das, J. in the case of Anwar Ali Sarkar case9, that is based
on intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
1 Constitution(FirstAmendment)Act,1951bluntedtheattackonthegroundofviolationofArticle
14forallowingsmoothpassageofZamindariAbolitionActsofvariousStates.Constitution(25th
Amendment)ActintroducedArticle31CforgivingoverridingeffecttoArticles39(a)and(b)over
fundamentalrightsenshrinedinArticles14,19and31.
2 E.P.Royappav.StateofTamilNadu,(l974)4SCC3.
3 Ibid.
4 Cf.Prof.Willis,'CONSTITUTIONALLIMITATIONS'(Istedn.)p.579.
5 Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SCC 555.
6 Fazih v. Doordarshan, (1989) 1 SCC 89 (paras. 5-6)
7Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Law of India (7th edn, Princeton Hall of India, 1998, New Delhi)
8 Associated Provincial Pictures v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 K.B. 223
9 State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.