Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a single sentence, but its compact grammar shows how legal Hindi assigns participants, coordinates alternatives, and turns a future-tense verb into a binding prohibition. The provision belongs to the Constitution that came into force in 1950; the wording below has been checked against the Legislative Department's official Hindi Constitution. This page analyzes the unchanged public-domain constitutional text, not later commentary on what courts have held it to mean.
The complete passage and translation
राज्य, भारत के राज्य क्षेत्रों में किसी व्यक्ति को विधि के समक्ष समता से या विधियों के समान संरक्षण से वंचित नहीं करेगा।
rājya, bhārat ke rājya kṣetroṃ meṃ kisī vyakti ko vidhi ke samakṣ samtā se yā vidhiyoṃ ke samān saṃrakṣaṇ se vañcit nahīṃ karegā.
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. (Article 14; formal constitutional register)
The official English and Hindi arrange the same relations differently. English starts The State shall not deny, then adds the recipient and the two protected guarantees. Hindi postpones वंचित नहीं करेगा until the end. Everything before it prepares the legal domain, affected person, and things from which that person may not be deprived.
The clause skeleton: roles before the verb
The neutral grammatical skeleton is:
| Constituent | Role | Question answered |
|---|---|---|
| राज्य | unmarked subject | Who bears the prohibition? |
| भारत के राज्य क्षेत्रों में | domain/location | Within what territorial scope? |
| किसी व्यक्ति को | affected object | Who may not be deprived? |
| विधि के समक्ष समता से / विधियों के समान संरक्षण से | two coordinated complements of separation | Deprived of what? |
| वंचित नहीं करेगा | negative verbal predicate | What is prohibited? |
राज्य किसी व्यक्ति को संरक्षण से वंचित नहीं करेगा।
rājya kisī vyakti ko saṃrakṣaṇ se vañcit nahīṃ karegā.
The State shall not deprive any person of protection. (formal legal-style skeleton)
English-speaking learners often read the first two nouns as an English SVO sequence, as though “the State [does something to] India.” That fails because भारत is inside the possessive phrase भारत के राज्य क्षेत्रों, and the whole phrase is governed by में. Postpositions, not position alone, reveal the roles.
1. राज्य: an institutional subject
Here राज्य is not one federated state such as Rajasthan. In constitutional legal register it denotes “the State” as the bearer of public power. The masculine singular future करेगा agrees with this unmarked subject. The long intervening phrases do not change that relation.
राज्य नागरिकों के अधिकारों की रक्षा करेगा।
rājya nāgrikoṃ ke adhikāroṃ kī rakṣā karegā.
The State shall protect citizens' rights. (constructed formal legal style)
This example is newly composed; it illustrates the grammar, not a quotation or a statement of constitutional doctrine. Its final करेगा has the same agreement pattern: राज्य is masculine singular, while plural अधिकारों is embedded inside an oblique possessive phrase.
2. भारत के राज्य क्षेत्रों में: genitive plus locative
भारत के modifies the plural legal phrase राज्य क्षेत्र, “territories of India.” Before locative में, plural क्षेत्र appears in its oblique form क्षेत्रों. The resulting sequence is भारत के + राज्य क्षेत्रों + में. This wording is highly formal and constitutional; everyday speech would normally say भारत की सीमा के अंदर or भारत में, depending on the meaning. The entire phrase marks territorial scope rather than a direct participant.
यह नियम भारत के राज्यक्षेत्र में लागू होगा।
yah niyam bhārat ke rājyakṣetr meṃ lāgū hogā.
This rule shall apply within the territory of India. (constructed formal legal style)
The excerpt places this scope phrase early because jurisdiction matters to the proposition as a whole. A neutral conversational paraphrase can shorten it to भारत में, but that loses the deliberately delimited legal term.
3. किसी व्यक्ति को: free choice under negation
किसी is the oblique form of कोई before the noun, and को marks व्यक्ति as the affected object of वंचित करना. Under a negative prohibition, किसी व्यक्ति को…नहीं has a free-choice effect: “not any person,” hence “no person.” It does not mean one particular unknown person.
किसी आवेदक को केवल उसकी भाषा के कारण अवसर से वंचित नहीं किया जाएगा।
kisī āvedak ko keval uskī bhāṣā ke kāraṇ avsar se vañcit nahīṃ kiyā jāegā.
No applicant shall be denied an opportunity solely because of their language. (constructed formal legal style)
The passive नहीं किया जाएगा backgrounds the decision-maker. Article 14 instead retains the institutional subject राज्य and therefore states directly who is constrained.
4–5. विधि के समक्ष समता: a formal relational phrase
विधि is formal legal “law”; neutral speech usually prefers कानून. Compound postposition के समक्ष means “before / in the presence of” (formal). It makes विधि oblique in function, although the feminine noun does not visibly change form. समता is an abstract Sanskritic noun, “equality.”
कानून के सामने सब बराबर हैं।
qānūn ke sāmne sab barābar haiṃ.
Everyone is equal before the law. (neutral everyday paraphrase, not a quotation)
The contrast is register, not a contrast in principle: विधि के समक्ष समता packages a stable legal concept, while कानून के सामने सब बराबर हैं supplies an overt plural human subject and an ordinary adjective. Formal nominalization lets the constitutional sentence coordinate two protected concepts efficiently.
6–8. से…या…से: two coordinated guarantees
The valency of वंचित करना is person को + thing से + वंचित करना. Here से is separative: it marks what is withheld or taken away. Two parallel से phrases are linked by या:
विधि के समक्ष समता से या विधियों के समान संरक्षण से
vidhi ke samakṣ samtā se yā vidhiyoṃ ke samān saṃrakṣaṇ se
of equality before the law or of the equal protection of the laws (formal coordinated phrase)
The repeated से keeps both branches structurally complete. In the second branch, plural विधियों is oblique before के; समान is an indeclinable adjective modifying masculine संरक्षण. The shift from singular विधि to plural विधियों belongs to the fixed legal formulation. It should not be “smoothed out” merely because English uses law and laws.
The separation uses of से page develops the same semantic core in everyday predicates such as removing something from a place.
9–10. वंचित नहीं करेगा: a prohibition shaped as future
वंचित is a predicative adjective inside the complex predicate वंचित करना, “to deprive.” Negative नहीं takes scope over the whole predicate. The future करेगा does not forecast what the State happens to do later. In a constitutional provision, it is deontic (formal/legal): it states what the State is not permitted to do, corresponding to English shall not.
प्राधिकारी अनुरोध को बिना कारण अस्वीकार नहीं करेगा।
prādhikārī anurodh ko binā kāraṇ asvīkār nahīṃ karegā.
The authority shall not reject the request without reason. (constructed formal rule)
In ordinary conversation, नहीं करेगा usually predicts or describes intention: “will not do.” Genre supplies the binding force here. Grammar and institutional context work together; future morphology alone does not create a law.
Referents, omissions, and discourse effect
There are no overt personal pronouns. राज्य remains the understood subject of करेगा, and किसी व्यक्ति ranges over the protected persons. The sentence does not identify an official who might act, a procedure, or a specific case. Those arguments are omitted because the provision states a general constraint on the institutional actor.
The order produces a particular rhythm: actor → territorial domain → protected person → first guarantee → alternative guarantee → prohibition. The two heavy से phrases accumulate immediately before वंचित नहीं करेगा, so the negative command closes the sentence with maximum scope. Moving the verb earlier would be grammatical, but less characteristic of dense constitutional prose.
Common Mistakes
Reading भारत as the object
❌ राज्य भारत किसी व्यक्ति को वंचित नहीं करेगा।
Incorrect — भारत belongs inside the territorial phrase; the postpositions cannot be dropped.
✅ राज्य भारत के राज्य क्षेत्रों में किसी व्यक्ति को वंचित नहीं करेगा।
rājya bhārat ke rājya kṣetroṃ meṃ kisī vyakti ko vañcit nahīṃ karegā.
The State shall not deprive any person within the territory of India. (constructed shortened legal style using the constitutional territorial phrase)
Giving deprivation the English argument pattern
❌ किसी व्यक्ति से संरक्षण को वंचित नहीं करेगा।
Incorrect — the affected person takes को, and the thing withheld takes से.
✅ किसी व्यक्ति को संरक्षण से वंचित नहीं करेगा।
kisī vyakti ko saṃrakṣaṇ se vañcit nahīṃ karegā.
[It] shall not deprive any person of protection. (formal)
Treating किसी as one specific person
❌ यहाँ किसी व्यक्ति का अर्थ एक अनजान, खास व्यक्ति है।
Incorrect interpretation — under the general negative, किसी has free-choice scope: any person.
✅ राज्य किसी भी व्यक्ति को इस अधिकार से वंचित नहीं करेगा।
rājya kisī bhī vyakti ko is adhikār se vañcit nahīṃ karegā.
The State shall not deprive any person whatsoever of this right. (constructed emphatic legal style)
Reading करेगा as a prediction only
✅ वह कल ऐसा नहीं करेगा।
vah kal aisā nahīṃ karegā.
He will not do that tomorrow. (ordinary prediction)
✅ प्राधिकारी ऐसा नहीं करेगा।
prādhikārī aisā nahīṃ karegā.
The authority shall not do so. (binding reading in a rule)
Neutral prose paraphrase
भारत में राज्य को हर व्यक्ति के साथ कानून के सामने बराबरी का व्यवहार करना होगा और कानूनों का बराबर संरक्षण देना होगा। राज्य किसी को भी इन बातों से वंचित नहीं कर सकता।
bhārat meṃ rājya ko har vyakti ke sāth qānūn ke sāmne barābarī kā vyavahār karnā hogā aur qānūnoṃ kā barābar saṃrakṣaṇ denā hogā. rājya kisī ko bhī in bātoṃ se vañcit nahīṃ kar saktā.
In India, the State must treat every person equally before the law and provide equal protection of the laws. The State cannot deprive anyone of these things. (explanatory paraphrase, not authoritative legal wording)
The paraphrase replaces राज्य क्षेत्रों, विधि, समक्ष, समता, and the compact deontic future with more transparent forms. It also splits one sentence into two and repeats राज्य. That is easier to process, but it loses the original's exact legal terminology, balanced से…या…से coordination, and final all-encompassing prohibition.
Key Takeaways
- Postpositions expose the roles: affected person को, protected guarantee से, territorial domain में.
- The final नहीं करेगा is deontic in constitutional genre: a binding “shall not,” not merely a forecast.
- Repeated parallel phrases create legal scope and cohesion; the neutral paraphrase is easier but less exact.
Now practice Hindi
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Hindi →Related Topics
- Administrative and bureaucratic HindiB1 — Read and write administrative Hindi by recognizing institutional passives, document references, role labels, and procedural noun phrases.
- Formal written HindiB1 — Shape clear formal Hindi by coordinating audience, sentence architecture, address, and vocabulary instead of merely choosing longer words.
- को as differential object markerA2 — Understand how animacy, specificity, definiteness, affectedness, and verb meaning condition को on direct objects and reshape perfective agreement.
- से as source and separationA2 — Use से for origins, departure points, separation, and starting times with correct oblique nouns and fused pronoun forms.
- Postpositional phrase placementA2 — Place complete Hindi postpositional phrases before the predicate and move them as units to express frame, topic, focus, or afterthought.
- Third-person future formsA2 — Build Hindi third-person futures for singular, plural, feminine, inanimate, and honorific subjects, with accurate agreement and interpretation.