(a) Article 14
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
The said Article is clearly in two parts - while it commands the State not to deny to any person 'equality before the law', it also commands the State not to deny the equal protection of the laws. Equality before the law prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept.
The concept of 'equal protection of the laws' requires the State to give special treatment to persons in different situations in order to establish equality amongst all. It is positive in character.
Therefore, the necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be treated equally, whilst un-equals would have to be treated unequally
Legislation that confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided or uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of the application of law or allows it to select cases violates Article 14.
In Jayantilal Kalidas Mehta vs The State of Maharashtra 1970 case, some sections contended that gave unguided, uncontrolled, and arbitrary powers to the collector, which was violating Article 14 of the constitution.
Every discretionary power is not necessarily discriminatory. Equality is not violated by mere conferment of discretionary power. It is violated by the arbitrary exercise of power. This is the theory of guided power.
If the power is exercised arbitrarily the courts would correct it.
The court exercises control over the delegation of discretionary powers to the administration by adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the law under which such powers are delegated concerning the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
Therefore, if the law confers vague and wide discretionary power on any administrative authority, it may be declared ultra vires Article 14, Article 19, and other provisions of the Constitution.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law but the courts have permitted reasonable classification to be made. Where the law is valid under the article, a discriminatory action would still be violative of the equality clause.
Hence, Option 1 is correct.
We can also get the right answer by using the elimination method, Art. 28, and Art.44 are unrelated to the question, and Art. 32 is to protect the FR of the citizens.
