20. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of State action. The guarantee of equal protection embraces within it the entire realm of State action. As such, it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against, in the matter of exercise of his right or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him but also in the matter of granting privileges. Article 14 has come to be identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that the Article forbids discrimination and there would be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils two conditions, namely, (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or executive action.

21. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu MANU/SC/0380/1973 : AIR 1974 SC 555, the Court speaking through Bhagwati, J. opened up a new dimension of Article 14 and pointed out that the Article is of highly activist magnitude and it embodies a guarantee against any arbitrariness and said: …The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., ‘a way of life’, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.

22. The aforementioned view was reiterated and affirmed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India MANU/SC/0133/1978 : AIR 1978 SC 597, by saying that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment since the principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence. In Para 56 of the report, Bhagwati, J delivering the majority view observed:

Now, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14: what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits….

23. In Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. etc. MANU/SC/0498/1980 : AIR 1981 SC 487, considering the aforementioned new dynamic aspect given to Article 14, which was also affirmed in R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India MANU/SC/0048/1979 : AIR 1979 SC 1628, again reiterated the same view by saying that the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution In para 16 of the report, the Court said that:…It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the Courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an ‘authority under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.

24. In Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsi Ram Patel MANU/SC/0373/1985 : (1985) 3 SCC 398, the Court said that the Article 14 contains a guarantee of equality before law to all persons and protection to them against discrimination by any law. Law includes any Ordinance, Order, Bye-law, Rule, Regulation, Notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. It was held that what Article 14 forbids is discrimination by law, that is, treating persons similarly circumstanced differently or treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same way or, as has pithily been put, treating equals as unequals and unequals as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law and is directed against discriminatory class legislation. To treat one person differently from others, when there is no rational basis for doing so would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Arbitrariness can take many forms and shapes but whatever form or shape it takes, it is nonetheless discrimination.