As per Article 14, the State can’t deny equality under the steady gaze of law and equal protection of law to any person inside India. The articulation ‘equality before law’ is a negative idea and the State has an obligation to abstain from doing any act which is discriminatory in nature.
Under it, there is a shortfall of any unique privilege to a specific gathering of individuals and paying little heed to the rank of a person, he is dependent upon similar arrangements of law. Subsequently, no person is exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else of the land/lex loci and all need to abide by it.
The term ‘equal protection of law’ depends on the fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. It coordinates that equal protection of the law ought to be given to every one individuals of India for the pleasure in their rights with no privileges or partiality towards any person. This is a positive idea since it infers an obligation on the State to make moves for guaranteeing this right to every one of the residents.
Consequently both these articulations make the arrangement of equal treatment restricting on the State. On account of Sri Srinivas Theater v. Government of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court clarified that both these articulations may have all the earmarks of being same however they have various implications. The term equality under the steady gaze of the law is a unique idea with numerous viewpoints, one such perspective being that there ought to be a shortfall of any privilege or a person being exempt from the rules that everyone else follows.
Under equality under the watchful eye of the law, the guideline of like ought to be treated alike is followed. It implies that the right to sue and be sued for a similar reason for action ought to be something very similar for individuals who are equals for example individuals who are in comparable conditions and such right ought to be accessible to them with no discrimination based on religion, sex, caste or some other such factor.
On account of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the court held that the term ‘equal protection of law’ is a characteristic result of the term ‘equality under the watchful eye of law’ and in this manner it is hard to envision a circumstance wherein there has been a violation of equal protection of law isn’t a violation of equality under the steady gaze of law. Thus, while they have various implications, both the terms are interrelated.
There is some special case for the standard of equality which has been given under the Indian Constitution. Under Articles 105 and 194, the Members of the Parliament and the State Legislatures respectively are not expected to take responsibility for anything which they say inside the House.
Under Article 359 when there is an announcement of Emergency, the activity of Fundamental Rights including Article 14 can be suspended and if any violation of this right is finished during such declaration, it can’t be tested in the Courts after the decree closes. Under Article 361 the President and the Governors are not liable to any court for any act which is finished by them in exercising their power and duties of the office.