The Violation of Natural Justice

The unfolding of events 

The recent controversy surrounding the removal of caste-related signboards in western Uttar Pradesh raises important questions about the principles of equality before law, natural justice, and cultural rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The issue stems from the historical appropriation of Rajput icons, particularly King Mihir Bhoj Pratihara, by sections of the Gujjar community. While Rajputs have long maintained that their kings were above caste boundaries and should be regarded as pan Hindu figures, a counter narrative has recently emerged, in which Gujjar organisations have sought to claim these icons as part of their own lineage.

To assert these claims, the Gujjar community has installed signboards and markers in several places, identifying Mihir Bhoj and other historical figures, such as Prithviraj Chauhan, as Gujjar rulers. In response, Rajputs have also erected boards highlighting the Rajput identity of these kings, emphasising their position as central figures in Rajput cultural memory. This contestation, at its core, is a debate about historical representation, collective memory, and identity.

The matter took a new turn with the recent judgement of the Honourable Allahabad High Court. In a recent judgment, the Court directed that caste symbols and markers should not be displayed in public spaces or on private vehicles, noting that such practices risk inflaming caste tensions and disturbing public order. Court noted that the constitutional aim is to create a casteless society. In principle, this direction seeks to create a neutral public sphere free from divisive assertions of caste identity.

However, the implementation of this judgment by the Uttar Pradesh Police in Meerut has sparked fresh controversy. Reports suggest that while the police acted swiftly to dislodge boards erected by Rajputs, similar signboards established by the Gujjar community were left untouched. This selective enforcement has raised serious concerns about fairness, equality before the law, and adherence to constitutional values.

Courtesy - Dainik Bhaskar

The Constitutional Mandate of Equality

Equality code enshrined in Article 14

Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India. This provision embodies the principle that laws must not only be equal in text but must also be enforced equally in practice. Any form of selective action, where one community’s installations are removed while those of another are ignored, amounts to a direct violation of Article 14.

The doctrine of equality demands that state authorities act impartially. The rule of law, which forms the backbone of the Indian legal system, cannot survive if executive agencies are perceived to be biased or selective. By acting against Rajput signboards while leaving Gujjar signboards intact, the Uttar Pradesh Police risks undermining public confidence in the neutrality of state institutions.

The Principle of Natural Justice

Natural justice is a foundational concept of law, transcending written codes and rooted in fairness, equity, and reasonableness. It is often summarised by a legal maxim goes as - Audi alteram partem – hear the other side.

The police action in Meerut is problematic in this regard. By targeting only one community’s expression while ignoring the other’s, the authorities have not acted fairly or equitably. Even if the state wishes to enforce the High Court’s order, it must do so uniformly and without discrimination. Selective application creates an impression of prejudice, which is fundamentally against the principles of natural justice.

Cultural Rights under Article 29(1)

The debate is not merely about law enforcement; it also touches upon the cultural rights of communities. Article 29(1) of the Constitution guarantees any section of citizens with a distinct language, script, or culture the right to conserve the same. For Rajputs, rulers like Mihir Bhoj and Prithviraj Chauhan form an integral part of their cultural heritage. Their valour, resistance to invasions, and role in shaping medieval Indian history are central to Rajput identity and cultural pride.

When Rajputs put up boards highlighting the Rajput lineage of these kings, they are not only asserting caste identity but also conserving their cultural memory. To curtail this expression while allowing another community to continue its claims amounts to denying Rajputs the protection of Article 29(1). This contradiction further strengthens the perception that the state is acting unfairly.

Historical Appropriation and Identity Politics

The conflict over Mihir Bhoj’s identity also reflects broader patterns of historical appropriation in Indian politics. Communities often look to the past to derive legitimacy, pride, and political strength in the present. In the absence of a robust historical consensus, competing claims arise over prominent figures. While such debates are not inherently harmful, they become problematic when state institutions appear to take sides. The role of the state should be to act as an impartial arbiter, ensuring peace while safeguarding constitutional rights.

The Way Forward

The immediate challenge lies in ensuring that the High Court’s order is implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. If caste-based boards are to be removed, then the removal must apply equally to all communities without exception. Anything less will deepen mistrust and fuel social division.

At the same time, the state must recognise the importance of cultural rights. Article 29(1) cannot be brushed aside in the name of uniform enforcement. A more balanced approach would involve regulating the manner of expression so that cultural rights are preserved without endangering public order. For instance, communities could be encouraged to celebrate their icons in cultural programs, academic discussions, and memorials rather than in provocative public displays.

Finally, the larger question of historical representation needs careful scholarly attention. History cannot be settled through signboards or police action; it requires academic rigour, debate, and dialogue. The state must facilitate such platforms rather than allowing identity politics to play out on the streets.

Selective action by the police strikes at the very heart of Article 14, disregards the principles of fairness, and undermines the cultural protections guaranteed under Article 29(1).

In a diverse democracy like India, the rule of law must be neutral and impartial. When state agencies appear biased, it not only weakens trust in governance but also aggravates social fault lines. Upholding natural justice, ensuring equality before the law, and respecting cultural rights must remain the guiding principles for both courts and law enforcement agencies. Only then can India truly honour its constitutional vision.