Day 15 – Q. 1. “The Indian Constitution is not merely a legal text but a living, breathing document that evolves with societal needs.” Examine this statement with reference to the judicial interpretation of the ‘Right to Equality’ under Article 14. (150words, 10 marks) 

Q. 1. “The Indian Constitution is not merely a legal text but a living, breathing document that evolves with societal needs.” Examine this statement with reference to the judicial interpretation of the ‘Right to Equality’ under Article 14. (150words, 10 marks) 

Introduction 

The Indian Constitution was not meant to be static—it was designed to adapt to changing societal  needs. Article 14, the Right to Equality, reflects this evolving nature through progressive judicial  interpretation, making the Constitution a truly living document. 

Body

Indian Constitution Is a Living Document 

1. Flexible wording helps it grow: The use of broad, open-ended terms allows for  reinterpretation over time. Example: Words like “liberty” and “equality” were given expansive meaning in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). 
2. Courts keep it updated: The judiciary interprets the Constitution to respond to new  challenges. Example: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared the Right  to Privacy as a fundamental right.
3. Amendments allowed, but with limits: The Constitution allows changes while safeguarding  core values. Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the Basic Structure  doctrine. 
4. PILs connect it with people: Public Interest Litigations have brought social issues into  constitutional discourse. Example: In MC Mehta v. Union of India, the court used PILs to enforce environmental rights. 

Right to Equality 

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have  interpreted this to mean not just formal equality, but substantive fairness—recognising diverse  needs and removing barriers that hinder real equality. This broader view has supported  reservations, gender justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. 

How Judiciary Interpreted Right to Equality Over Time 

1. Laws must not be arbitrary: Article 14 ensures that state actions must be fair, reasonable,  and non-arbitrary. Example: In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Court held that arbitrariness is  antithetical to equality. 
2. Different groups need different treatment: The principle of reasonable classification allows  positive discrimination for justice. Example: In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), reservations for OBCs were upheld to achieve  substantive equality. 
3. Same work means same pay: The right to equality includes equal pay for equal work,  regardless of job status. Example: In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982), the Court extended equal pay to temporary  employees. 
4. Women must be treated fairly: Any law or policy that reinforces gender stereotypes violates  equality. Example: In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008), the Court struck down a law barring  women from working in bars. 
5. LGBTQ+ community has equal rights: Sexual orientation is protected under equality, dignity,  and non-discrimination. Example: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Section 377 was read down to  decriminalize consensual homosexual acts. 
6. Transgender persons are equal citizens: The right to self-identify gender is integral to dignity  and equality. Example: In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Court recognized the third gender and affirmed  their constitutional rights. 

Conclusion

Through Article 14, the Constitution shows its living spirit—adapting and evolving to serve  justice. Judicial interpretations have made the Right to Equality a powerful weapon against  injustice in a changing society.