Equality of citizens

The doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems

Right of equality of citizens is always founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those, who have been left out

Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities.

If any act of Executives is found tainted with mala fide or discrimination, same cannot be allowed to continue.

Reasonable classification is permissible and Art.25 of the Constitution is only attracted in an apple to apple comparison

Although Art.25 of the Constitution envisages equality amongst citizens, it also allows for differential treatment of persons who are not similarly placed by virtue of a reasonable classification

However, to justify this difference in treatment, the reasonable classification needs to be 'based on intelligible differentia, which has a rational nexus with the object being sought to be achieved

Likewise, the persons may be classified in groups and such groups may be treated differently, if there is a reasonable classification.

Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity

Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined

Validity

Record reveals that Government decided to abandon project after the lapse of more than nineteen years

It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution

Hence, it is the duty and obligation of every public functionary, including the Respondents / Department, to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution

High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner (an employee of respondent-LDA) was that he was involved in preparation of bogus documents/ receipts showing someone as transferee of a plot

Contention of petitioner is that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

Validity

Record reflects that the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, recommending imposition of minor penalty upon petitioner, however, the Competent Authority disagreed with the said recommendations and ordered for initiation of de novo inquiry

During de novo inquiry proceedings, procedural requirements of a fair trial were not followed, rather straightaway major penalty of "dismissal from service" was proposed against the petitioner

Foremost aspiration of conducting departmental inquiry is to find out whether a prima facie case of misconduct has been made out against the delinquent officer

Guilt or innocence can only be thrashed out from the outcome of inquiry and at the same time, it is also required to be seen as to whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored while conducting inquiry

It is against the principle of natural justice to draw a conclusion adverse to the interest of a person on the basis of disputed facts either without recording evidence or providing him proper opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and lead evidence in his defence

In a regular inquiry, it is a precondition that an evenhanded and fair opportunity should be provided to the accused and if any witness is examined against him, then a fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine the witnesses

In a departmental inquiry on the charges of misconduct, the standard of proof is that of compliance of the principles of natural justice

Even there is no specific reference to the evidence or material, which urged Competent Authority (respondent)to award major penalty of "dismissal from service"

Thus, the said major penalty does not appear to be in conformity with law

High Court set-aside the impugned orders declaring the same to be illegal and without lawful authority and remitted the matter to Competent Authority (respondent) with the direction to first hold regular inquiry by providing opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Wrong concession in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim benefit of a wrong decision.

Wrong concession in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim benefit of a wrong decision.

Writ jurisdiction of the Chief Court was invoked by officials working on the post of Superintendent (BPS-17) in Anti-Terrorism Court and Custom and Banking Court of Gilgit-Baltistan

Record revealed that the (same) post of Superintendent in District Judiciary had been re-designated/upgraded as Staff Officer (BPS-18) w.e.f 1st June 2020, but the petitioners had not been upgraded to bring them at par with the similar placed persons

Qualification and nature of duty for the post of Superintendent in the Courts where the petitioners were working and Lower Judiciary of Gilgit Baltistan was same

Article 25 of the Constitution, having been included in the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, required that persons similarly placed had to be treated similarly except on the basis of reasonable classification

Qualification and nature of duties of both posts being the same , the petitioners could not be treated differently

Petitioners, in light of Arts. 4 & 25 of the Constitution, had the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law and were entitled to equal protection of law

Equality before law was subject to reasonable classification but in the present case there was no question of any classification

Post of the Superintendent in BPS-17 in subordinate Judiciary of Gilgit-Baltistan had been re-designated as Court Officers and the same was upgraded from BPS-17 to BPS-18 w.e.f 1st June 2020 by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court vide Notification No. CC-E/2020 dated 11th June 2020, hence the post held by the petitioners also needed to be re-designated/upgraded as per analogy of "equal treatment among the equals"

Petitioners being similarly placed in terms of their natures of job i.e. same type of work, service grade and qualification had clearly been discriminated in treatment by the respondents' vis-à-vis their counterparts in the Lower Judiciary of Gilgit Baltistan

Chief Court directed the respondents to remove the cause of such discrimination by notifying the up-gradation of petitioner's cadre for equal treatment bringing them at par with their counterparts working in the subordinate judiciary of Gilgit Baltistan

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Scope and pre-requisites.

Equals must be treated equally and similarly circumstanced and situated persons must be dealt alike, as it is a basic and fundamental principle, which rests upon justice under the law.

Principles of Policy obligate the State to take steps to ensure full participation of women in all spheres of national life and to protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child and make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work, ensuring that children and women are not employed in vocations unsuited to their age or sex, and for maternity benefits for women in employment.

Petitioners prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to grant them 20% Secretariat Allowance in the similar manner as various other Federal Government employees were being granted

Validity

Petitioners had not annexed any document, Office Memorandum, instructions issued by the Finance Division or judgment to explore that any of their counterparts from their department was extended the benefit of the allowance while they had been discriminated

Article 25 of the Constitution could only be pressed into service when not only the designation of the employees should be identical but their nature of job should also be alike

In absence of the latter pre-requisite, the ground of discrimination could not be pressed into service being hit by the principle of reasonable differentia

Petitioners had not tendered any document to show that their job status on all scores including their nature of duties had been equal with the ones who were extended the benefit of the allowance

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Scope of reasonable classification stated.

Equality clause (Article 25 of the Constitution) did not prohibit classification for those differently circumstanced provided a rational standard was laid down

Protection of Art. 25 of the Constitution could be denied in peculiar circumstances of the case on basis of reasonable classification founded on an intelligible differentia which must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification

Intelligible differentia connoted dissimilarity or disparity capable of being comprehended

Classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which should distinguish the persons that were grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia or categorization/cataloguing must have a logical and commonsensical nexus with the object sought to be achieved

Definition of classification "intelligible differentia" meant differentiating between two sets of the people or objects

All such differentiations should be easily understood and should not be artificial

Concept of reasonableness was rationally a fundamental component of equality or non-arbitrariness.

Scope of reasonable classification stated.

Although Article 25 of the Constitution envisages equality amongst citizens, it also allows for differential treatment of persons who are not similarly placed under a reasonable classification

However, to justify this difference in treatment the reasonable classification needs to be based on intelligible differentia that has a rational nexus with the object being sought to be achieved'

Only if this test is satisfied can the distinct treatment meted out to a class of persons be sustained under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Equality clause (Article 25 of the Constitution) did not prohibit classification for those differently circumstanced provided a rational standard was laid down

Protection of Art. 25 of the Constitution could be denied in peculiar circumstances of the case on basis of reasonable classification founded on an intelligible differentia which must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification

Intelligible differentia connoted dissimilarity or disparity capable of being comprehended

Classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which should distinguish the persons that were grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia or categorization/cataloguing must have a logical and commonsensical nexus with the object sought to be achieved

Definition of classification "intelligible differentia" meant differentiating between two sets of the people or objects

All such differentiations should be easily understood and should not be artificial

Concept of reasonableness was rationally a fundamental component of equality or non-arbitrariness.

Article 25 recognizes that all citizens are equal before law and have a fundamental right to equal protection of law.

Absence of due process offends Arts. 4, 10-A and 25 of the Constitution.

Petitioners were aggrieved of issuance of notices by Sub-Registrar for payment of CVT which could not be collected in full at the time of registration of documents

Validity

Impugned notice(s) seeking payment of deficiency of the CVT were not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the same had been issued without providing a right of personal hearing to the petitioner(s), without determination of the amount due mentioned therein as stipulated under the law and without considering the exemptions contained in the applicable law

Impugned notice(s) were illegal and of no legal effect as the same had been issued without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law

Fresh proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner(s) for the recovery of deficient amount of the CVT in accordance with law provided there was a valid assessment order

Constitutional petitions were allowed.

Absence of due process offends Arts. 4, 10-A and 25 of the Constitution.

Petitioners were aggrieved of issuance of notices by Sub-Registrar for payment of CVT which could not be collected in full at the time of registration of documents

Validity

Impugned notice(s) seeking payment of deficiency of the CVT were not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the same had been issued without providing a right of personal hearing to the petitioner(s), without determination of the amount due mentioned therein as stipulated under the law and without considering the exemptions contained in the applicable law

Impugned notice(s) were illegal and of no legal effect as the same had been issued without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law

Fresh proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner(s) for the recovery of deficient amount of the CVT in accordance with law provided there was a valid assessment order

Constitutional petitions were allowed.

Article 25 of the Constitution though guarantees the right of equality of citizens but such right is founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguished persons or things that were grouped together from those, who have been left out

Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities.

Petitioner was selected for recruitment against the post of Medical Officer being eligible candidate by the District Recruitment Committee and her name reflected in the original merit list prepared by it but she was not appointed

Validity

Undisputed merit list had created a vested right in favour of petitioner, which was required to be given due weight and regard as she had developed legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment

No valid reason and implicit justification was rendered for denying appointment to the petitioner

Impugned action was against fundamental rights of petitioner guaranteed under Arts. 9, 18, 25 & 27 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.

Petitioners put much emphasis on the ground that they were entitled to regularization of their services as the authorities had regularized similarly placed persons who were appointed on daily wages/contract basis

Stance of authorities was that the petitioners were not entitled to regularization as the previous daily wages/contract employees were regularized after scrutinizing each and every case while the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of prescribed criteria

Validity

Petitioners, at the time of joining, had accepted all the terms and conditions of their contract employment and could not resile from the same at a belated stage

Perusal of prescribed criteria revealed that a person who was appointed to a post on work charge/daily wages must have one-year complete satisfactory service, must fulfil the qualification/experience and age limit as per the Regulations and the post for which he applied must exist in the budget/the Regulations

Record attached by the authorities revealed that amongst the petitioners, some did not fulfil the requirement of age limit, while others' work was not satisfactory and there was also service break in their employment

Petitioners did not fulfil the criterion for the regularization of their service and it could not be said that the respondents had treated them indifferently or given discriminatory treatment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant assailed non-extension of their contractual appointments and contended that they were discriminated against the employees whose contracts were extended

Validity

To establish discrimination it was imperative for the appellants to substantiate that they were equally placed with the employees whose contracts were extended

Such an allegation that too bereft of any support or material under the law was bald and evasive.

Pakistan is governed by the Constitution as amended from time to time which is a blend of secular law and Islamic law as is made clear by both the Preamble of the Constitution and the Objectives Resolution at Art. 2-A which form a part of the Constitution

When the Constitution is read in a holistic manner it is apparent that the form of Government in Pakistan is one of parliamentary democracy based on the trichotomy of powers between the Executive, Legislature and the judiciary where checks and balances on each organ's powers are ensured by the other organs of the State

Constitution through numerous of its Articles ensures the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law and the due process rights of its citizens as would be expected in any civilized society and Islamic welfare State

One of the key attributes of the Constitution is that it seeks to protect and safeguard the rights of the individual from misuse or abuse of executive power and does so by enshrining a number of fundamental rights which are found in Chapter one of the Constitution which aims to strike a fair balance in respect of legal and legitimate preventive detention of citizens in appropriate cases in the interest of the State based on sound reasons and prevent such detention being misused for ulterior purposes by the executive.

Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is intra vires the Constitution and is also not in breach of any fundament right of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution, including right to equality guaranteed under Art.25 of the Constitution.

Petitioner sought issuance of promotion order against the vacant post of Junior Clerk in the light of fitness/typing test

Validity

Merit list of fitness/typing test issued by the University revealed that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 whose gross speed of typing was 42 wpm (words per minute) and net speed was 39 wpm, however, was declared to have failed in securing appointment as Junior Clerk

Some employees were promoted as Senior Clerks with gross typing speed of 17 wpm and even less

Claim of petitioner having been discriminated was proved from the record

Contention of the University that the petitioner had an alternate remedy to file appeal before Syndicate, therefore, he could not file a writ petition was repelled by the High Court for the reasons that the petitioner had filed an application before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance but the University had not considered the same and that constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be invoked where fundamental right of petitioner was violated

Constitutional petition was accepted.

Constitution of Pakistan also provides that all citizens are equal and must be treated with equality.

Scope and meaning.

Scope and meaning.

Petitioners were aggrieved of the decision of authorities to conduct examinations of "O" Levels and "A" Levels being taken by its respective institutions

Contention of petitioners was that the other countries of the world due to the prevailing epidemic situation had given the facility of school assessed grades to their students but the petitioners were being denied said facility which was in sheer violation of Art.25 of the Constitution

Validity

Petitioners could not point out any discrimination since the authorities were undertaking examination not only in Pakistan but also in other parts of the world as well and therefore the questioned actions of the authorities could not be adjudged on the scale of discrimination and inequitable treatment

Provincial government had also issued the schedule for examination within the province, meaning thereby, no such exemption was given to all other students of the province studying in public or private sector

Fundamental Right of life under Art.9 of the Constitution envisaged that the authorities must chalk out all necessary SOPs for safety of students who were appearing in examination, convey the same to the students, which were binding on them being sovereign command within the meaning of Art. 5(2) of the Constitution and most importantly ensure that the SOPs were being observed by the students and those conducting examinations at the examination centers

Constitutional petition was dismissed

Petitioners being residents of urban areas challenged the vires of the recruitment policy for certain posts, under which 12 additional marks were granted to candidates who were residents of rural area in Union Councils of the District

Validity

Framing of recruitment policy fell in the executive domain and High Court could neither assume the role of a policy maker nor that of law maker

Policy being prerogative of concerned Authority could not be challenged in the constitutional petition, unless same had found to be irrational, mala fide, perverse or arbitrary

No such defect had been highlighted in the impugned policy which otherwise seemed to be based on reasons, to redress the grievance of the residents of the under-developed localities, which was also the demand of Art.37 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Contention of department was that the petitioner was declared to be unsuitable for the post of Sub-Inspector on the ground that his brothers had remained proscribed persons

Validity

Only personal character of a candidate was relevant while making recruitment for any post including that of Sub-Inspector

No one could be penalized/made accountable for acts of others

Excluding the name of petitioner from the list of Sub-Inspectors was unwarranted and uncalled for

Department, before excluding the name of petitioner, had neither issued a notice nor passed a speaking order which fact alone hinted that it had acted in utter disregard of the law, whereas it was universally recognized principle of law that nobody should be condemned unheard

Other candidates for the posts were appointed by the department, as such the petitioner, being similarly placed person was also entitled to similar treatment

Constitutional petition was allowed and the department was directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.

Every citizen must be treated with equality and his dignity, liberty, life and honor must be guaranteed as envisaged in the Constitution

High Court not only has a right but a fundamental Constitutional duty that Fundamental Rights are not infringed.

Rule of fairness and non-arbitrariness recognized in jurisprudence is meant that an advantage or benefit derived from a competent legal dispensation, departmental practice or established procedure that has been extended to and enjoyed by a person may legitimately be expected to remain available unless notice or opportunity to defend or adjust his position is given to that person

Doctrine of legitimate expectation is rooted in Art. 25 of the Constitution which abhors arbitrariness and insists on fairness in all administrative dealings

Doctrine has now gained importance in administrative law as a component of natural justice, non-arbitrariness and rule of law and aims at checking the growing abuse of administrative power as a supplement to the principles of natural justice.

Orders similar to the impugned orders had been passed in some other Constitutional petitions by the Single Judges of the High Court which were upheld in intra court appeals

Respondents were entitled to the same relief on the principle of consistency and equality

Respondents/employees could not be discriminated without any cogent reason by violating the provisions of Art. 25 of the Constitution and it was duty of employer department to protect fundamental rights of employee as enshrined in Art.9 of the Constitution

No ground to interfere in the impugned order was made out

Intra-court appeals by the employer department, being devoid of merits, were dismissed.

Persons placed at same pedestal cannot be treated differently.

Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, makes it clear that it is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan, to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law

No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law

Citizens of Pakistan defined in Art. 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan whether inside or outside Pakistan, (wherever they may be) are protected by Art. 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan

Value placed by the Constitution of Pakistan on the inalienablilty of the right to protection of the law for all can be guaged from the fact that this right is further extended to every other person for the time being within Pakistan

No person can be compelled to do anything or forbidden from any action unless the law specifically provide for the same

Article 5(2) of Constitution of Pakistan states that obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen, wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan

Both the citizens in and outside the Pakistan are protected under the Constitution of Pakistan without any discrimination as provided under Art. 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan

Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan also states in unequivocal terms that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law

No one is above the law and everyone has to follow the law in its true spirit.

Every statute is meant to eliminate the discrimination and government institutions cannot be given preferential status before a court of law

Principles of natural justice are founded on the equality of citizens, which is even guaranteed under Art. 25 of the Constitution

State or government cannot be treated differently unless such privilege is extended through a lawful statute.

Actions of the State were subject to Art.18 of the Constitution and if any action of the State intended to eliminate competition in a trade, the same shall be hit by the said Article, as it did not permit the State to confer any privilege on a private person or any private or public corporation to have monopoly in any trade, business, industry or service

Article 25, while ensuring equality of all citizens, covered the entire field of State action, it would extend not only when a citizen was discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his rights, but also in matter of granting privileges vis-à-vis giving jobs by the State, granting permits or licences, inviting tenders for Government contracts or issuing quotas

Fundamental Rights to due process under Art. 4 of the Constitution, freedom to carry out a lawful trade or business under Art.18 by maintaining fair competition and right against discrimination under Art.25 of the Constitution collectively provided requisite Constitutional underpinning to maintain level playing field, in all public sectors, at all times.

Constitution was a living and organic document, and while interpreting the same, expensive and dynamic approach was to be adopted

Fundamental Rights included equality in terms and conditions of service and Arts. 25, 37(d) & 38(e) of the Constitution were to be read with Arts. 4 & 25 of the Constitution.

Dimensions and parameters of a competitive process for a permanent appointment and a contractual/temporary appointment are altogether different

Competition for a contractual/temporary employment is not as aggressive and competitive as competition for a permanent employment

Many vying for a permanent employment would not bother applying for contractual/temporary employment

Moreso when there is no representation in the advertisement inviting applications for contractual/temporary employment that the same would somehow transform into permanent employment

If a person employed purely on temporary basis is to be given a permanent employment without any competitive process it would amount to stealing a march on hundreds of thousands of able would-be applicants who did not apply for temporary/contractual employment, but would have applied had they known that the contractual employment would, without any further competitive process, turn into permanent employment

Conversion of a person's temporary/contractual employment without any transparent competitive process, would be a clear violation of Arts. 3 & 9 of the Constitution

Equal opportunity in public employments is a constitutional mandate

Principle of "each according to his ability to each according to his work" can only be achieved by appointing meritorious candidates in the public sector through strict competition

Such competition for a permanent employment in the public sector cannot be given a go-bye simply because a contractual employee, desirous of his employment being made regular/permanent, was given contractual employment through a competitive process

Equality clause enshrined in the Constitution is to be followed scrupulously by the public sector

Youth, burning the midnight oil to secure permanent employment in the public sector, would be let down and demoralized if the contractual employment is converted into permanent employment without a competitive process

Such relaxation would be a bad precedent to a large number of qualified people aspiring for permanent employment in the public sector.

Contention of petitioner was that the housing and population census under Ss.2(c) & 31, of the General Statistics (Reorganization) Act, 2011 should include all classes of the population and by not enumerating persons with disabilities in the upcoming national census, the same was incomplete and violative of Fundamental Rights

Validity

Per Art.31 of the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities, ratified by Pakistan, in 2011; an international obligation was cast upon Pakistan to collect appropriate information regarding persons with disabilities in order to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the purposes of the Convention

Lack of data and information on disability and situation of persons with disabilities at the national level contributed to invisibility of persons with disabilities in official statistics, presenting an obstacle to achieving development planning and implementation that was inclusive of persons with disabilities

Depriving persons with disabilities from being included and counted in the National Census would offend their welfare and future prospects as the State had no credible information regarding their population, hence, exclusion of persons with disabilities from Census (head count) was in violation of right to life and human dignity under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution besides being discriminatory under Art.25 of the Constitution

High Court observed that having a general headcount of persons with disabilities was more important than having no information at all regarding the same, and the said mechanism would not upset the calendar of the upcoming population census and was workable

High Court directed that census codes, in machine readable formats, should include collecting information regarding disability along with gender and Pakistan Bureau of Statistics to ensure that the next population census included a special column relating to persons with disabilities along with various categories of disabilities

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner challenged constitutionality of advertisement for posts of educators which provided five years age relaxation for all candidates and three years further for female candidates

Petitioner contended that the additional age relaxation given to women was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 25 & 27 of the Constitution under which no citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in service should be discriminated and all citizens were equal and there should be no discrimination on basis of sex

Article 25(3) of the Constitution provided that the State was competent to make any special provisions for protection of women and children, but the authorities under garb of such protection were giving preference to female candidates over male

Held that condition imposed in advertisement was not meant to infringe any of the Constitutional guarantees to men, rather the same was a step towards protection and encouragement of deprived limb/women of society

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Placing of names on the Exit Control List fell within the purview of Arts. 4 & 25 of the Constitution and in all such cases if the said Articles were not applied equally to all citizens regardless of their status, perception may rise in the minds of people that not all are equal before the law, which would erode the confidence of public in the administration of justice and rule of law.

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment.

Phrase 'equal protection of law' envisaged in Art.25 of the Constitution means that no person or class of persons would be denied the same protection of law, which is enjoyed by person or other class of persons in like circumstances in respect of their life, liberty or property

Persons similarly situated or in similar circumstances are to be treated in the same manner

Concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human being which is a physical impossibility.

Protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform, rather, it means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike.