Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

55. The observations of this Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 39, succinctly capture the understanding of the substantive approach to equality. It held that substantive equality is aimed at eliminating all sorts of discrimination that undermine social, economic, and political participation in society. It was further held that Article 15(3) of the Constitution is intended to bring out substantive equality by remedying the disadvantage. It reads thus:-

“171. Section 497 amounts to a denial of substantive equality. The decisions in Sowmithri [Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, 1985 Supp SCC 137 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 325] and Revathi [V. Revathi v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 72 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 308] espoused a formal notion of equality, which is contrary to the constitutional vision of a just social order. Justness postulates equality. In consonance with constitutional morality, substantive equality is “directed at eliminating individual, institutional and systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups which effectively undermines their full and equal social, economic, political and cultural participation in society” [ S. Martin and K. Mahoney (Eds.), Kathy Lahey, Feminist Theories of (In)equality, in Equality and Judicial Neutrality (1987).] . To move away from a formalistic notion of equality which disregards social realities, the Court must take into account the impact of the rule or provision in the lives of citizens.

56. By yet another Constitution Bench of this Court in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (EWS Reservation), reported in (2023) 5 SCC 1, it was held that when substantive equality is asserted as a constitutional mandate, the State is tasked to place the concerned individuals on an equal footing. This Court, in so many words, held that substantive equality can take various forms, as per the requirements of the disadvantaged person or group. It was also observed that social justice cannot be achieved without substantive equality which means taking affirmative actions. The relevant observations read thus:-

73. Recently, in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 641, wherein one of us, J.B. Pardiwala, J., was a part of the Bench, this Court elucidated the importance of dignity in achieving substantive equality. This Court held that dignity encompasses the right of the individual to develop their potential to the fullest. The relevant observations read thus:-

“99. Dignity is crucial to substantive equality. The dignity of an individual encompasses the right of the individual to develop their potential to the fullest. [K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, para 525] The right to pursue a profession of one's choice and earn livelihood is integral to the dignity of an individual. Charging exorbitant enrolment fees and miscellaneous fees as a precondition for enrolment creates a barrier to entry into the legal profession. The levy of exorbitant fees as a precondition to enrolment serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face social and economic barriers in the advancement of their legal careers. [ See Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 1, para 35] This effectively perpetuates systemic discrimination against persons from marginalised and economically weaker sections by undermining their equal participation in the legal profession. Therefore, the current enrolment fee structure charged by SBCs is contrary to the principle of substantive equality.” (Emphasis supplied)