Can Article 14 really be both substantive and procedural?
constitutional general advanced questionMain problem hai yeh, I'm trying to wrap my head around Article 14 and its application in the Naresh Kumar vs Union of India case. Professor sahab says it's a classic example of substantive equality, but then he also mentions the procedural aspect in the context of Article 21. But can we really say Article 14 is both substantive and procedural? If it's about non-discrimination on grounds of religion, does it not only apply to the substantive aspects of a law, like the right to practice one's faith? Or does it also cover the procedural aspects, like ensuring the government doesn't discriminate in the application of the law? What's the logic behind the Supreme Court's reasoning in this case? Can someone pls clarify?
2 Comments
Arre yaar, I strongly disagree. If Article 14 is both substantive and procedural, it means it's applicable in both the content and process of law. But then what's the difference between equality before the law and equality in law? It's too broad a definition and may lead to confusion. Let's narrow it down, aapke vichar?
"Arre yaar, yeh sawal to bahut achha hai. Article 14 ke baat karte hue, main aapko yeh bata dunga ki iska sabhi ko maloom hai ki yeh Equal Protection Clause hai. Lekin yeh rha sawal hai ki yeh kya substantive ya procedural hai. Sabse phele, ismein sabhi ko barabar treatment ki guarantee hai, jiska kya matlab hai? Yeh aapko maloom hoga ki yeh procedural ka hissa hai.