Multiple choice

Under Article 14 of the constitution, a state cannot arbitrarily discriminate between citizens.

The state of X land (having a constitution exactly similar to that of India), by a much publicised legislation, seeks to differentiate between ordinary citizens and prostitutes by giving the latter a special status owing to the nature of their profession and asking them to live outside the city as they are spoiling the image and character of the cities. The legislation is widely opposed saying that it falls foul of Article 14 of the constitution.

Which of the following is correct?

  1. It is not foul as the government is justified in improving the standard of life of the citizens under the Directive Principles of State Policy by protecting the image and character of the cities.

  2. It is not foul as prostitutes, by the very nature of their trade, should expect such actions from the government.

  3. It is foul as there is no legitimate connexion between the actions of the state and the objective sought to be achieved.

  4. It is foul as prostitutes are also citizens and deserve to be treated humanely.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option 1: No, since no citizen can be discriminated arbitrarily as this violates Article 14 of the constitution. Preserving the image or character is an arbitrary excuse. This also means that prostitutes have no image or character. Option 2: No, it is foul as the legislation flouts Article 14 of the constitution. Option 3: Yes. Objective of preserving the image or character of cities is not served by the legislation as the children of prostitutes who themselves are no longer prostitutes shall have to face this discrimination from birth, for being forced to live outside the cities and not mix with city children. The legislation, can in fact, lead to a social crisis, which shall malign the image and character of all involved - City people, prostitutes, government. Option 4: No, prostitutes are as much citizens as are ordinary citizens; it is their right to live freely in cities. No mercy is warranted. No lame or arbitrary decision should engender any kind of discrimination against them.

Keep practicing — related questions