Article 14 and the Doctrine of Arbitrariness in Indian Constitutional Law

The Expanding Frontiers of Equality: Article 14 and the Doctrine of Arbitrariness in Indian Constitutional Law

Introduction

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which enshrines the fundamental right to equality, stands as a cornerstone of the Indian democratic republic. It mandates that "[t]he State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." While initially interpreted primarily through the lens of reasonable classification, the Supreme Court of India has, over several decades, significantly expanded its scope by developing the doctrine of arbitrariness. This doctrine posits that any State action which is arbitrary, irrational, or unreasonable is, by its very nature, violative of Article 14. This article seeks to analyze the evolution, meaning, and application of the doctrine of arbitrariness under Article 14, drawing extensively from landmark judicial pronouncements and provided reference materials.

The Doctrinal Shift: From Reasonable Classification to Non-Arbitrariness

For many years, the primary test to determine a violation of Article 14 was the doctrine of reasonable classification. This doctrine permitted differential treatment if the classification was founded on an intelligible differentia and this differentia had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute or action in question (Transport And Dock Workers Union And Others v. Mumbai Port Trust And Another, 2010). However, the judiciary recognized the limitations of this test, particularly its inadequacy in addressing State actions that, while not necessarily discriminatory in a classificatory sense, were nonetheless capricious, whimsical, or devoid of reason.

The Landmark Pronouncements: Royappa and Maneka Gandhi

A significant jurisprudential shift occurred with the Supreme Court's decision in E.P Royappa v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Another (1973). Justice Bhagwati, in his concurring opinion, articulated a new dimension of Article 14, stating: "From a positive point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Art. 14..." (as cited in Kesar Chand v. State Of Punjab And Others, 1988 and Dr. Neera Gupta v. University Of Delhi, 1996).

This paradigm was further cemented and elaborated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India And Another (1978). The Court held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It was emphasized that the principle of reasonableness, an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14. Consequently, any procedure established by law under Article 21 must also be right, just, and fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive, to be in conformity with Article 14 (Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, 1978; also cited in I.R Coelho (Dead) By Lrs. v. State Of T.N, 2007 and Nand Lal Bajaj v. State Of Punjab And Another, 1981).

Defining and Understanding Arbitrariness

The concept of arbitrariness, while central to the expanded interpretation of Article 14, is not always easy to define with precision. The Supreme Court in State Of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti And Others (2022) observed that "The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined." However, judicial pronouncements offer significant guidance.

Arbitrariness has been described as action taken "without adequate determining principle," "capriciously," "irrationally," or "unreasonably" (Guthikonda Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025, citing Sharma Transport v. Govt. Of A.P.). The Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Shakuntla And Others (2009) and State Of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti And Others (2022) articulated a test: "A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary."

The core idea is that State action must not be based on whim, fancy, or personal preference, but on reason and rational considerations relevant to the purpose for which the power is conferred. As stated in M/S. Misra Agencies And Another Etc. v. State Of Orissa And Others (1987), "Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement."

Application of the Arbitrariness Doctrine

The doctrine of arbitrariness has been invoked across a wide spectrum of State actions, including administrative decisions, legislative enactments, and actions in service matters.

Administrative Actions and Discretion

The judiciary has consistently held that administrative discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in a non-arbitrary manner. In Ajay Hasia And Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi And Others (1980), the Supreme Court, applying the arbitrariness test, found that allocating 33⅓% of total admission marks to a viva voce examination was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14. The Court reiterated the principle from Royappa and Maneka Gandhi that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.

Similarly, in Centre For Public Interest Litigation And Others v. Union Of India And Others (2012), the allocation of telecom spectrum based on a first-come-first-served policy, particularly with retrospective changes to cut-off dates, was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court emphasized that natural resources must be allocated in a fair and transparent manner, upholding the public trust doctrine.

The principle extends to the grant of State largesse. In Haji T.M Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation (1987) and GIRDHARLAL KALHYAN AGRAVAT v. STATE OF GUJARAT (2016), the Court affirmed that the State cannot act arbitrarily in entering into relationships, contractual or otherwise, and its actions must conform to rational and non-discriminatory standards. Withdrawing an ancillary status based on new, unstated parameters was deemed arbitrary in M/S Super Packaging Industries v. The National Fertilizers Limited (2011).

The fundamental requirement is fairness. As observed in M.Selvakumar v. Union of India (2023), "When there is arbitrariness in the state action, Article 14 springs into action and Court strike down such actions."

Legislative Actions and Manifest Arbitrariness

While initially there was some debate about whether arbitrariness could be a ground to strike down plenary legislation, the Supreme Court has clarified this in recent years. In Shayara Bano v. Union Of India And Others (2017), the practice of Triple Talaq was struck down, with the majority (Nariman and Lalit, JJ., with Kurian, J. agreeing on this point) holding that legislation, both plenary and subordinate, can be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness. The Court introduced the test of "manifest arbitrariness," stating: "Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary."

This principle was reaffirmed in Joseph Shine Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India (S) (2018), where Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (criminalizing adultery) was struck down as manifestly arbitrary, inter alia, for treating women as subordinate to men and lacking a discernible principle. The Court in Guthikonda Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) also cites Shayara Bano for the proposition that manifest arbitrariness applies to negate legislation under Article 14.

Earlier, in Mithu v. State Of Punjab (1983), Section 303 of the IPC, which mandated the death penalty for murder committed by a life convict, was declared unconstitutional. The Court found it arbitrary because it deprived the judiciary of its discretion to consider mitigating circumstances and imposed a blanket severe punishment, thus violating both Articles 14 and 21.

In Dr. K.R Lakshmanan v. State Of T.N And Another (1996), the Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986, was invalidated as unconstitutional under Article 14, being arbitrary and discriminatory, as the Court found no nexus between the Act and its purported objectives, especially after holding horse-racing to be a game of skill, not chance.

Service Matters and Employment

The doctrine of arbitrariness has been significantly applied in service jurisprudence. In D.S Nakara And Others v. Union Of India (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a classification of pensioners based on an arbitrary cut-off date for the applicability of a liberalized pension scheme. The Court held that such a classification lacked an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the objective of providing socio-economic security, thus violating Article 14.

In Dev Dutt v. Union Of India And Others (2008), the non-communication of all entries in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR), including "good" entries, to an employee was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court reasoned that non-communication deprives the employee of the opportunity to make a representation for upgradation, which could affect promotions and other benefits. It was stated that any rule or government instruction that contravenes Article 14 is illegal.

Interplay with Article 21: Procedural Fairness

The doctrine of arbitrariness under Article 14 is intrinsically linked with the procedural due process aspect of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). As established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India (1978), any procedure that deprives a person of life or personal liberty must be "right and just and fair" and not "arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive." If a procedure is arbitrary, it violates not only Article 14 but also Article 21. This principle was reiterated in Mithu v. State Of Punjab (1983) and I.R Coelho (Dead) By Lrs. v. State Of T.N (2007), where it was emphasized that "the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14."

Challenges and Considerations

While the doctrine of arbitrariness has significantly fortified the right to equality, its application is not without challenges. One concern, as alluded to in Transport And Dock Workers Union And Others v. Mumbai Port Trust And Another (2010), is the potential for subjectivity, as what one judge considers "rational" or "reasonable" another might not. The Court noted, "These are vague words. What may be regarded as rational or reasonable by one Judge may not be so regarded by another. This could lead to chaos in the law." However, the development of more specific tests like "manifest arbitrariness" and the emphasis on "discernible principle" aim to provide more objective criteria.

The relationship between the arbitrariness test and the proportionality doctrine is also an area of evolving jurisprudence, as touched upon in RAMPHAL DANGI AND ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS (2018), which refers to the Supreme Court's discussion of proportionality as a constitutional doctrine.

Conclusion

The evolution of the doctrine of arbitrariness under Article 14 marks a transformative development in Indian constitutional law. From its nascent articulation in E.P. Royappa to its robust application against legislative action in Shayara Bano, the doctrine has empowered the judiciary to scrutinize State action beyond the confines of the traditional classification test. It serves as a potent tool to ensure that the State acts with reason, fairness, and in a non-capricious manner, thereby upholding the foundational constitutional promise of equality and the rule of law. While challenges in its application remain, the doctrine of arbitrariness continues to be a "brooding omnipresence" in Article 14, safeguarding citizens against whimsical and unjust State power and reinforcing the ethos of a constitutional democracy committed to fairness and equality of treatment for all.

References