Administrative law has guided the evolution of Article 14 (equality before law) from formal equality to substantive equality, recognizing that treating unequals equally may perpetuate injustice — requiring affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and ______ to address historical disadvantages.

Substantive equality in administrative law: (a) Formal equality: Early cases interpreted Article 14 as treating likes alike; classifications must be rational, based on intelligible differentia, (b) Substantive equality evolution: (i) Indra Sawhney (1992): Upheld OBC reservation with creamy layer exclusion; recognized historical disadvantage requires affirmative action to achieve real equality, (ii) Articles 15(4), 16(4): Enable special provisions for SC/ST/OBC in education/employment to address structural inequalities, (iii) M. Nagaraj (2006), Davinder Singh (2024): Refined reservation jurisprudence balancing equality with merit, administrative efficiency, (c) Administrative law application: (i) Proportionality test ensures affirmative action measures are rational, necessary, balanced, (ii) Natural justice ensures fair procedure in implementing reservations (e.g., creamy layer determination), (iii) Judicial review checks arbitrary exclusion/inclusion in reservation lists, (d) Principle: Equality not uniformity; reasonable classification permitted to address substantive inequalities; dignity requires recognizing and remedying historical disadvantage, not just formal neutrality, (e) Applications: Reservation in education/employment, gender justice measures (Vishaka, Shayara Bano), disability rights (RPwD Act), LGBTQ+ protections (Navtej Singh Johar). Illustrates transformative administrative law: using administrative principles to advance substantive equality for marginalized groups.