The Indian government imposed a countrywide lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the lockdown, India witnessed the deplorable plight of thousands of migrant workers who were unable to avail transportation to return to their native places, and were forced to either travel back on foot, or survive in the city they worked in, without their daily wages. The plight of the migrant workers brought to light the importance of the discourse around the disparate impact of measures which are facially neutral. The Equality Code (Articles 14 to 18) under the Indian Constitution has endured the test of time to ensure that measures which directly discriminate between people on the enumerated protected grounds, are struck down. However, with evolving times, it is imperative to address neutral measures which, albeit applicable to all, affect different segments of the population differently. While the Supreme Court has analysed indirect discrimination in a recent judgement, this article is an attempt to analyse whether facially neutral measures can be considered discriminatory under our constitutional framework. The authors conclude that Article 15 can be interpreted to consist of safeguards against facially neutral laws with disparate impacts. The jurisprudence of certain countries regarding discriminatory facially neutral measures has been examined to bolster this analysis. At the end, a sliding scale theory is proposed to analyse the constitutionality of a facially neutral measure, while also examining the constitutional validity of the imposed lockdown vis-à-vis the disproportionate impact it has posed on the migrant workers.