Right of equality in the eyes of law
Introduction: Equality, in its absolute sense, is an impossible target to achieve. By birth, every one is unequal. What one can achieve in a society is relative equality, i.e., equal opportunity to grow. The state should also take care of free will and intention of individuals while enacting laws and punishment measures to achieve relative equality while regulating liberty and guaranteeing rights to every individual.
Inequality is a product of nature, inherent and unavoidable, while equality is a human construct, an ideal forged through societal efforts and institutions. From the moment of birth, individuals are differentiated by genetics, environment, family background, physical abilities, and intellectual capacities. These natural disparities mean that absolute equality—where all people possess identical outcomes, resources, and statuses—remains a utopian fantasy. Instead, societies must strive for relative equality, which focuses on providing equal opportunities for personal and collective growth. This approach acknowledges human diversity while empowering the state to intervene thoughtfully, regulating liberties and safeguarding rights in a way that respects individual free will, intentions, and capabilities.
In this framework, the state acts as a mediator, not an equalizer of outcomes, but a guarantor of fair starting points. By considering the unique motivations and potentials of individuals, the state can craft policies that mitigate natural inequalities without erasing them. This balance is essential because unchecked liberty can exacerbate disparities, while overregulation can stifle human agency. The result is a society where opportunities are accessible to all, fostering growth rather than uniformity.
Natural Inequalities: The Foundation of Human Diversity:At the core of this discussion is the recognition that inequality is woven into the fabric of existence. Nature does not distribute talents, health, or circumstances evenly. Consider the historical example of Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb, brothers born to the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in the 17th century. Despite sharing the same royal lineage, upbringing, and privileges, they embodied starkly different qualities. Dara Shikoh was a scholar and philosopher, known for his liberal views, tolerance toward other religions, and efforts to translate Hindu texts like the Upanishads into Persian, promoting syncretism and intellectual harmony. In contrast, Aurangzeb was austere, devoutly orthodox in his Islamic faith, and pragmatic in his pursuit of power, often employing strict governance and military strategies. Their differences in temperament, ideology, and capabilities led to a brutal war of succession, where Aurangzeb emerged victorious and executed Dara. This fraternal rivalry illustrates how even siblings, raised in identical environments, can diverge profoundly due to innate dispositions and free will. Such natural variations underscore that absolute equality is unattainable; attempting to force it would require suppressing individuality, which is antithetical to human flourishing.
In modern society, these innate differences manifest in myriad ways: one person may excel in mathematics due to genetic predispositions, while another thrives in artistic endeavors. Socioeconomic factors compound these, with children born into poverty facing barriers that their affluent peers do not. Free will further complicates the equation—individuals choose paths based on personal intentions, values, and motivations, leading to diverse outcomes. The state cannot homogenize these traits without resorting to authoritarian control, which history shows leads to oppression rather than equity.
Counterarguments to Absolute Equality: Expanding the Critique:While the ideal of absolute equality appeals to notions of justice and fairness, it faces robust counterarguments that highlight its impracticality and potential harms. Proponents of absolute equality often argue that societal structures alone create disparities, and thus, through radical redistribution and uniform policies, equality can be engineered. However, this view overlooks several critical flaws:
Biological and Genetic Realities as Inescapable Barriers:Counter to the nurture-over-nature argument, scientific evidence demonstrates that genetics play a significant role in traits like intelligence, physical prowess, and even personality. For instance, twin studies show that identical twins raised apart often exhibit similar abilities and preferences, suggesting heritability. Imposing absolute equality would require interventions like genetic engineering or forced resource allocation, which raise ethical dilemmas about consent and human rights. Such measures could lead to a dystopian society where individual uniqueness is sacrificed, stifling innovation and personal fulfillment. The Dara-Aurangzeb example reinforces this: their differing qualities were not merely products of environment but intrinsic, and no state policy could have made them identical without destroying their essences.
The Fallacy of Equal Outcomes Undermining Merit and Motivation:Advocates for absolute equality might claim that equal outcomes motivate collective progress, but this ignores human psychology. Free will drives individuals to pursue goals based on personal intentions, and removing incentives for excellence—such as rewards for innovation or hard work—can lead to stagnation. Historical experiments, like communist regimes attempting classless societies, often resulted in reduced productivity and widespread discontent because they disregarded individual capabilities and motivations. Instead of fostering equality, these systems created new hierarchies based on political loyalty, proving that absolute equality erodes liberty and breeds inefficiency.
Cultural and Social Diversity as Assets, Not Obstacles:A common pro-equality argument posits that uniformity promotes harmony, but counterarguments emphasize that diversity enriches societies. Cultural, ethnic, and ideological differences, like those between Dara's pluralism and Aurangzeb's orthodoxy, spark creativity and debate. Forcing absolute equality could homogenize cultures, leading to cultural erosion and loss of heritage. Moreover, in pluralistic societies, equal outcomes often require suppressing minority voices or traditions, which contradicts the very inclusivity equality seeks.
Economic Impracticality and Unintended Consequences:Economically, absolute equality demands infinite resources for redistribution, which is impossible in finite systems. Counterarguments highlight how such pursuits lead to inflation, black markets, or economic collapse, as seen in Venezuela's attempts at wealth equalization. By ignoring individual intentions—such as entrepreneurial drive—these policies discourage investment and growth, ultimately harming the vulnerable they aim to help.
These counterarguments collectively dismantle the feasibility of absolute equality, advocating instead for relative equality as a pragmatic alternative.
The State's Role in Achieving Relative Equality: Regulating Liberty with Nuance:Given the impossibility of absolute equality, the state must focus on relative equality by guaranteeing equal opportunities. This involves regulating liberties—ensuring they do not infringe on others' rights—while accounting for free will, intentions, and capabilities. Liberty, as the freedom to act according to one's will, is inherently controlled by state-enacted laws. These laws, in turn, manage rights to create an environment where everyone has an equal opportunity to grow. However, the current mechanisms for regulating rights often remain oblivious to individual backgrounds, capabilities, free will, intentions, and traits. The state typically defines a set of crimes and prescribes uniform punishments, overlooking the nuanced human elements that make each case unique. This one-size-fits-all approach can inadvertently perpetuate inequalities rather than mitigate them, as it fails to tailor interventions to the individual's context.
Laws Tailored to Individual Contexts:Enacting laws that consider intent prevents blanket punishments that ignore nuances. For example, in criminal justice, distinguishing between manslaughter (unintentional) and murder (malicious) respects free will and promotes fairness. This approach equalizes opportunities by rehabilitating rather than alienating offenders, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Yet, even here, the system often falls short by not delving deeper into personal histories. Laws should evolve to incorporate comprehensive assessments of an individual's background, such as socioeconomic factors, psychological profiles, and life experiences, ensuring that the regulation of liberty aligns with the goal of fostering growth for all.
Punishment Measures Sensitive to Capabilities and Individual Traits:Proportional punishments, adjusted for socioeconomic factors, avoid perpetuating inequality. Harsh sentences for minor offenses in impoverished communities deepen cycles of poverty, while leniency for the elite erodes trust. By incorporating restorative justice, the state can address root causes, enhancing opportunities for all. However, the prevailing crime-oriented punishment model—where the state provides one standardized penalty for a defined crime—neglects individual free will and traits. This is akin to a doctor treating two patients suffering from the same disease with identical medicine, disregarding their unique capabilities, allergies, or overall health profiles. In reality, effective medical treatment is personalized: one patient might require a milder dosage due to age or comorbidities, while another needs a stronger regimen based on their resilience and history.
Similarly, in the justice system, two persons guilty of the same crime should not be subjected to the same punishment. Consider a respectful, first-time offender in society—perhaps a community leader who commits theft out of desperation during a personal crisis—versus a habitual offender with a long record of similar acts driven by entrenched patterns of behavior. For the former, a rehabilitative approach like community service or counseling might suffice, respecting their free will and intention to reform, while promoting their growth and reintegration. For the latter, stricter measures, such as incarceration combined with intensive therapy, could be necessary to protect society and address deeper traits. Punishment should thus shift from being purely crime-oriented to individual-oriented, evaluating factors like background, capabilities, free will, and intentions. This nuanced regulation ensures that the state's control over liberty and rights truly provides equal opportunities for personal development, preventing the system from blindly amplifying natural inequalities.
Policies Promoting Equal Opportunity:Affirmative actions, like scholarships for underprivileged students, regulate economic liberties (e.g., taxing the wealthy) to fund programs that bridge capability gaps. These must respect free will by offering choices, not mandates, ensuring individuals can pursue paths aligned with their intentions. Extending this, policies should include individualized support systems, such as personalized education plans or vocational training that account for diverse traits and motivations, further emphasizing the state's role in controlled liberty for equitable growth.
However, the state must guard against overreach. Excessive regulation could suppress free will, leading to resentment or underground resistance, as seen in prohibition-era policies.
Addressing Potential Conflicts: Balancing Liberty, Rights, and Equality:Conflicts arise when regulating liberty for equality. For instance, wealth taxes limit economic freedom but fund social programs, creating equal opportunities. To mitigate trade-offs, the state should:
- Prioritize transparency in lawmaking to build trust.
- Incorporate feedback mechanisms respecting diverse intentions.
- Use data on capabilities to tailor interventions without stereotyping.
- Reform punishment paradigms to emphasize individual-oriented justice, ensuring that regulations on rights do not ignore personal contexts, as highlighted in the doctor-patient analogy.
By addressing these conflicts with a focus on nuance, the state can avoid the pitfalls of uniform mechanisms that overlook human diversity.
Embracing Relative Equality for a Just Society:In a world of natural inequalities, absolute equality is a mirage that distracts from achievable goals. By focusing on relative equality—equal opportunities regulated with respect for free will, intentions, and capabilities—the state can foster a balanced society. Drawing from examples like Dara and Aurangzeb, we see that diversity is strength, not weakness. Through nuanced laws and punishments that control liberty while tailoring rights to individual traits—moving beyond crime-oriented to individual-oriented approaches—the state regulates liberty, guarantees rights, and enables all to grow, transforming inherent differences into collective progress. This human construct of equality, though imperfect, honors nature's variety while advancing justice.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
