That is exactly what I am eliciting from my article that discrimination on caste creed, race etc are made under the constitution and yet bluffing all are equal. Virtually, there is no equality. One may strive hard to rise and he will be called a forward; another will be idling forever and will be named a backward; so under the law, the latter gets all the benefits; and the former gets punished; that made a huge section of intelligence go out of the nation. The law can only be one; either all are equal; or there is no equality. there cannot be an apex bluff. KR IRS 6825
On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 21:05, 'Bala N. Aiyer' via KeralaIyers < [email protected]> wrote: > Still, subsequent changes give special privileges for Muslims and > Christians that is denied for Hindus, and special privileges based on > Castes (including the castes among Christians and Muslims) that is kept > since 1950 (75 years but still they want to eliminate castes and give equal > rights. ---> one way street. They are not able to eliminate that though > these privileges were given only for 25 years. > > With kind regards & best wishes, > > Bala N. Aiyer > > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2025 at 02:40:54 AM CDT, Rajaram Krishnamurthy < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Constitution Article > > Article 14 in Constitution of India > > 14. Equality before law > > The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the > equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. > > Editorial Comment -Article 14 rejects any type of discrimination based on > *caste*, race, and religion, place of birth or sex. This Article is > having a wide ambit and applicability to safeguard the rights of people > residing in India. > > This article is divided into two parts: > > Equality before the Law: This part of the article indicates that all are > to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This is a negative concept as > it implies the absence of any privilege in favor of any person. This is a > substantive part of the article. > > *Equal protection of the Laws: This part means that the same law will be > applied to all the people equally across the society. This is a positive > concept as it expects a positive action from the state. This is a > procedural part of article 14.* > > “The dissent of Justice Subba Rao in the State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya > 1960stated that Article 14 comprises both “positive content” as well as > “negative content”. Whereas, equality before the law is a negative content, > equal protection of the laws exhibits a positive content of Article 14.” > > The doctrine of Anti Arbitrariness: The scope of article 14 was > drastically increased by the Supreme Court by including the executive > discretion under its ambit. In the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil > Nadu, 1974, the court said that Article 14 gives a guarantee against the > arbitrary actions of the State. The Right to Equality is against > arbitrariness. They both are enemies to each other. So it is important to > protect the laws from the arbitrary actions of the Executive. > > “The first landmark judgment which actually spotted the virtue of > non-arbitrariness in Article 14 was S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India . > The Court, for the first time held “absence of arbitrary power” as sine qua > non to rule of law with confined and defined discretion, both of which are > essential facets of Article 14.” In here Justice Subba Rao elaborating on > the wide expanse of Article 14 , vide para 14 held thus: “In this context > it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the > first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional > system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when > conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly > defined limits.” > > In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978, Justice Bhagwati said that > Equality is against the arbitrariness of State action. So this doctrine > ensures equality of treatment. “The seven-Judge Bench held that a trinity > exists between Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21. All these articles > have to be read together. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a > person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) > the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental > rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given > situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be tested with reference to > Article 14.” > > Natural Justice as a part of Article 14: From the case of A.K. Kraipak v. > Union of India, It is evident that Natural Justice (natural justice is > technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair > hearing (audi alteram partem)) is an integral part of Article 14. The > court held that “the Principle of Natural Justice helps in the prevention > of miscarriage of Justice, These Principles also check the arbitrary power > of the State.” > > Classification Test: In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice > Tendolkar, 1958 the Supreme Court describes the jurisprudence of equality > before the law. It simply permits the State to make differential > classification of subjects (which would otherwise be prohibited by Article > 14) provided that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia > (i.e. objects within the class are clearly distinguishable from those that > are outside) and has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be > achieved by the classification. > > In the case of Indra Sawhney v UOI, 1993 which is a landmark judgment on > aspects of reservation in India. “The Court interpreted the relation > between Article 14 and Article 16. It was held that Article 16(1) is a > facet of Article 14. Just as Article 14 permits reasonable classification, > so does Article 16(1). A classification may involve reservation of seats or > vacancies. The principle aims of Article 14 and 16 is equality and equality > of opportunity and Clause (4) of Article 16 is a means of achieving the > very same objective. Both the provisions have to be harmonized keeping in > mind the fact that both are the restatements of the principle of equality > enshrined in Article 14.” > > Further expansion of Article 14 was done in the case of Visakha v State of > Rajasthan, 1997 > > “The judgment sought to enforce the fundamental rights of working women > under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual > Harassment violates the fundamental right of the women of gender equality > which is codified under Article 14 of Indian Constitution and also the > fundamental right to life and to live a dignified life. The Court held that > even though there is no express provision for sexual harassment at > workplace under Indian Constitution, it is implicit through these > fundamental rights.” (references mentioned below) > > Expansion of Article 14 in terms of defining Gender: In the case > ofNational Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI, 2014. > > “This case was filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India > (NALSA) to legally recognize persons who fall outside the male/female > gender binary, including persons who identify as “third gender”. While > drawing attention to the fact that transgender persons were subject to > “extreme discrimination in all spheres of society”, the Court held that the > right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) was framed in > gender-neutral terms (“all persons”). Consequently, the right to equality > would extend to transgender persons also.” > > Further in Shayara Bano v UOI, 2016 “the 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme > Court pronounced its decision in the Triple Talaq Case, declaring that the > practice of instantaneous triple talaq [Talaq-ul-biddat] was > unconstitutional. The Bench observed that the fundamental right to equality > guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, manifested within its > fold, equality of status. Gender equality, gender equity and gender justice > are values intrinsically entwined in the guarantee of equality, under > Article 14.” > > These above discussed landmark cases and many more have contributed to > expand the ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, to > strive for a more equal and fair society. > > Q Then is not brahmin made inequal to schedule caste and minority and > majority discriminations? > > In India, the principle of equality before the law, as enshrined in > Article 14 of the Constitution, aims to ensure that everyone is treated > equally under the law, regardless of their caste. While Article 14 > generally prohibits discrimination, it also allows for reasonable > classification, meaning that laws can be different for different groups if > there is a justifiable basis for the distinction. This allows for > affirmative action policies that aim to uplift Scheduled Castes > (historically marginalized due to the caste system) while still upholding > the principle of equality for Brahmins and all other citizens. > > 1. Equality Before the Law: > > Article 14 guarantees that all individuals are equal before the law and > are entitled to equal protection of the laws. > > This means that no one, regardless of their caste, can be above the law or > be granted special privileges. > > It implies that the law should be applied *uniformly to all citizens in > similar circumstances. * > > 2. Reasonable Classification: > > While Article 14 prohibits class legislation (laws that arbitrarily > discriminate between groups), *it does allow for "reasonable > classification". * > > This means that laws can be different for different groups if there is a > rational basis for the distinction and if the classification is related to > the objective of the law. > > For example, affirmative action policies like reservations in education > and employment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are considered > permissible under Article 14 because they aim to address historical > inequalities and promote social justice. > > 3. Affirmative Action and Scheduled Castes: > > The Indian Constitution includes provisions for affirmative action to > uplift Scheduled Castes, who have faced historical discrimination and > marginalization. > > These provisions may involve reservations in education, employment, and > political representation. > > While these policies may appear to differentiate between castes, they are > designed to address the existing inequalities and ensure that Scheduled > Castes have equal opportunities. > > 4. Balancing Equality and Social Justice: > > The application of Article 14 in the context of caste involves balancing > the principle of equality with the need for social justice and affirmative > action. > > The courts have generally held that affirmative action policies are > permissible *as long as they are based on reasonable classification and > are aimed at achieving a legitimate social objective. * > > *The courts also emphasize that affirmative action should not be > indefinite and should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are not > perpetuating inequality.* > > In essence, the law in India does not treat Brahmins and Scheduled Castes > identically when it comes to addressing historical injustices and ensuring > equal opportunity. However, this differential treatment is not seen as a > violation of the principle of equality because it is based on reasonable > classification and aims to achieve social justice. The goal is to create a > society where everyone has a fair chance to succeed, regardless of their > caste background. > > Q discrimination of minority and majority shows the law is not > equal to both > > The statement is generally true. Discrimination against minorities often > suggests that the law is not being applied equally to all citizens, as it > should. While the law may be written in a way that appears neutral, its > application or interpretation can favor the majority, resulting in unequal > treatment. > > Unequal Application of the Law: > > Even if laws are designed to be neutral, they can be applied differently > based on factors like race, religion, or social status. This can lead to > a situation where the majority group enjoys certain advantages or > protections that are not extended to minorities. > > Structural Discrimination: > > Discrimination can also be embedded in the systems and institutions of a > society. This means that even without explicit discriminatory laws, > policies and practices can disadvantage minority groups in areas like > education, employment, and access to justice. > > Tyranny of the Majority: > > In some cases, the majority group's political power can be used to > marginalize or oppress minority groups. This can lead to the passage of > laws or policies that benefit the majority at the expense of minorities. > > Historical and Social Context: > > It's important to consider the historical and social context in which laws > are applied. Discrimination can be a legacy of past injustices, and even > neutral laws can perpetuate existing inequalities. > > Examples: > > Laws against cow slaughter disproportionately affecting Muslim cattle > traders, even when the majority group is not similarly prosecuted, > according to Human Rights Watch. > > Anti-conversion laws used to target Muslim men who marry Hindu women. > > Unequal access to education or employment opportunities based on religion > or caste. > > Constitutional Protections: > > Many countries have constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality before > the law and prohibiting discrimination based on various grounds. However, > these protections may not always be effectively implemented or enforced, > especially when dealing with deeply entrenched social inequalities. > > B India has several laws prohibiting discrimination, rooted in the > Constitution and reinforced by specific legislation. Article 15 of the > Constitution prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, > or place of birth. Additionally, the Constitution includes Article 14 > (equality before the law) and Article 17 (abolition of untouchability). Key > legislation includes the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention > of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. > > Constitutional Provisions: > > Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the > laws for all persons within India. > > Article 15: Specifically prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, > caste, sex, or place of birth. It also addresses discrimination in access > to public places and facilities. > > Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. > > Specific Legislation: > > Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, > 1989: Enacted to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and > Scheduled Tribes. > > Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Provides for the punishment of > offenses related to untouchability. > > Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: Prohibits > discrimination against transgender persons in various sectors like > employment, education, and healthcare. > > Other Relevant Laws and Provisions: > > Equal Remuneration Act, 1976: > > Ensures equal pay for men and women for the same work or work of a similar > nature. > > Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: > > Provides for maternity benefits and prohibits termination of employment of > pregnant women. > > Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and > Redressal) Act, 2013: > > Deals with the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at > workplaces. > > These laws and constitutional provisions aim to create a society where all > citizens have equal opportunities and are protected from discrimination > based on various grounds. > > Thus, Indian constitution (and word legal measures) maintain equality > under the constitution viz discrimination by law and rules ;and even if > advocated to repeal within a time frame, still shall be continued. THAT IS > KARMA. > > K RAJARAM IRS 5825 > > -- > On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust > > We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join > > Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup > > Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust > > Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions: > https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "KeralaIyers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZoq%3DEG5L01U2TJksasMyWQToeap3gL%3Dxv1sU0mGXG%3Dy4QA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZoq%3DEG5L01U2TJksasMyWQToeap3gL%3Dxv1sU0mGXG%3Dy4QA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust > > We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join > > Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup > > Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust > > Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions: > https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "KeralaIyers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/584357673.1778026.1754408099839%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/584357673.1778026.1754408099839%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopPRW%2B1_cEWTXvHObkLNp%2B4e6trwnOa_Ff020-CHZyDkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
