(7) If foreign sovereigns (rulers), diplomats and ambassadors have committed criminal or civil crimes, the state will not prosecute them according to the same procedures. There are globally recognized laws and processes in this regard. In the case of Indra Sawhney, the right to equality is also recognized as one of the fundamental features of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens. A company that is a legal person also participates in this section. This concept implies equality for equals and aims to remove hostile discrimination or the elimination of inequality. In Ramesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1978 SC 327 It should be noted that the concepts of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law” refer to both equality of justice. The principle of equality is not uniformity of treatment of all in all respects.
It only means that all those affected in the same way will be treated equally, both in terms of privileges granted by laws and responsibilities. The same right should apply to all those in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and another. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution stipulates that the State may not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws in the territory of India. The two differ subjectively. At first glance, the terms “equality before the law” and “equal protection of methods” appear to be the same, but in reality they have different meanings. The terms “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law” appear in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The concepts of equality before the law and equal protection of the law differ slightly. However, the latter is part of the first.
When there is no equal legal protection, there is no equality before the law. It should also be noted that this concept is not absolute, because we can only apply it among those who are equal and not among the unequal. The Constitution also allows the State to enact laws that apply only to certain categories of persons in order to achieve certain reasonable objectives. Both equality before the law and equal protection of the law are aimed at establishing “equality of status and opportunity” enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution. Moreover, because not all people are in the same situation by nature; Article 14 provides that the State may treat different persons differently if the circumstances so warrant. This is called the doctrine of reasonable classification and states that protective discrimination is also a facet of equality. Article 14 allows classification but prohibits class law The same protection of the right guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be of a general nature. This does not mean that the same laws should apply to everyone. This does not mean that all laws should have universal application, as not all people are in the same situation because of their nature or situation.
The different needs of different groups of people often require separate treatment. By the nature of society, there should be different places, and the legislator controls policy and enacts laws in the best interest of state security. In fact, an identical amount would lead to inequality in unequal circumstances. Thus, a reasonable classification for the development company is allowed. The article is prohibited in class legislation, but it does not prohibit reasonable classification. However, the classification must not be `arbitrary, artificial or evasive`, but must be based on a real and substantial distinction proportionate to the objective pursued by the legislation. Article 14 implies that persons treated as such are treated differently without a reasonable basis. However, if equality and inequality are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which establishes undue discrimination by granting special privileges to a category of persons arbitrarily chosen from among a large number of persons, all in proportion to the privilege granted between whom and persons.
No reasonable distinction or substantial difference can justify the admission of one and the exclusion of the other from such a privilege. Special Regulations for Women and Children and SC, ST and Backward Classes: Article 14 of the Constitution Act of India states that all are equal before the law. No one can prevent the State from making special arrangements for women and children. For example, a special seating arrangement for women on buses, trains, subways is not unconstitutional. It was decided by the court that “reserve certain places for women at the university”. According to Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, boldness is considered a criminal offence when committed by men, and not a criminal offence when committed by women, so women cannot be prosecuted for Abetters. It is clear that it contains special provisions for women and is valid under article 15, paragraph 3, of constitutional law. Article 437 of the Penal Code of 1973 restricts the release on bail of an accused as a crime punishable by death, with the exception of women, children under 16 years of age or sick or infirm persons.
in Choki v. State of Rajasthan, the court ruled that she was valid for reasons of making special arrangements for women and was therefore protected by articles. Section 15§4 was introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951. This amendment was amended in Madras v. Champakam Dorirajan. In this case, the reservation of places for admission to state medical and technical faculties was made on the basis of caste and religion. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it was based on municipal matters. Article 15(4) dealt with India`s constitutional law after the amendment. the objective of empowering the Government to make special arrangements for the improvement of the educationally and socially backward classes of the citizens of India and for the planned tribes and castes.
The State has made many special provisions for the weaker parties such as ST, SC and the educationally and socially backward classes of the citizens of India, which means that “Scheduled Caste” means castes, races or tribes or parts or groups within such castes, races or tribes that are considered planned castes under Article 341 for the purposes of this Constitution. Article 341 (1) additional protection for members of scheduled castes, taking into account the social, economic and educational backwardness they suffer as a result of their caste. Equal protection requires a state to govern impartially – and not just to make distinctions between individuals that are not relevant to a legitimate government purpose. Therefore, the equality protection clause is crucial for the protection of citizens` rights. The concept of equal protection of the law comes from the United States Constitution. Which has a positive character. If a person believes that the federal or state government has violated the equal rights guaranteed by that person, that person may take legal action against that government agency to remedy the situation. In short, equals would be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally, the Supreme Court ruled that when equals and unequals are treated differently. According to Dicey, equality before the law and equal submission of all to ordinary jurisdiction are necessary to realize the concept of the rule of law. According to A.V.
Dicey, no group of persons can be the subject of a separate or special jurisdiction. He criticized the French legal system of rights administration, which established separate courts for the settlement of disputes between officials and citizens. In addition, this distinction has also been explained in some cases. In Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1992), it was found that the terms “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law” did not have the same meaning, although there are many similarities between them. The word “law” in the first expression was more general in mind, and in the second expression it was more specific. It was also noted that “equality before the law” is a dynamic multifaceted concept.