Article 14 and the Doctrine of Ultra Vires in Indian Jurisprudence

Article 14 and the Doctrine of Ultra Vires: Pillars of Constitutional and Administrative Rectitude in India

Introduction

The Indian constitutional framework is anchored by principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law. Central to this edifice are Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which enshrines the right to equality, and the doctrine of ultra vires, which ensures that all forms of power are exercised within their legally prescribed limits. Article 14 serves as a bulwark against arbitrary state action, while the doctrine of ultra vires provides the mechanism to invalidate actions that transgress statutory or constitutional boundaries. This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of the intricate relationship between Article 14 and the doctrine of ultra vires, exploring how the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness inform the application of ultra vires, particularly in the context of legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial actions in India. The analysis draws significantly upon landmark judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions to elucidate this critical interface.

Understanding Article 14 of the Constitution of India

The Essence of Equality and Non-Arbitrariness

Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every person "equality before the law" and "the equal protection of the laws" within the territory of India. While "equality before the law" is a negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual, "equal protection of the laws" is a positive concept signifying that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.

The Supreme Court of India has progressively expanded the contours of Article 14. A significant jurisprudential shift occurred with E.P Royappa v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Another (1974 SCC 4 3), where the Court observed that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Crucially, the Court held that "Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies... 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 Article 14." This principle was further cemented in Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India And Another (1978 SCC 1 248), where it was held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be "right and just and fair" and not "arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive," thereby linking Article 14's non-arbitrariness doctrine with procedural due process. The Court in Ajay Hasia And Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi And Others (1981 SCC 1 722) reiterated that any action which is arbitrary must necessarily involve a negation of equality and that the doctrine of classification is not the be-all and end-all of Article 14.

Reasonable Classification

While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. For a classification to be valid, it must satisfy two conditions, as laid down in numerous cases, including the seminal decision in State Of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 AIR SC 75):

  1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group.
  2. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

In Anwar Ali Sarkar, Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, which empowered the State Government to refer individual "cases" to Special Courts without any stipulated criteria, was held unconstitutional as it vested unfettered discretion, leading to arbitrary classifications. Similarly, in D.S Nakara And Others v. Union Of India (1983 SCC 1 305), the Supreme Court struck down a classification of pensioners based on an arbitrary date of retirement for the purpose of a liberalized pension scheme, finding it violative of Article 14 as it lacked an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the objective of providing socio-economic security. The Court in Transport And Dock Workers Union And Others v. Mumbai Port Trust And Another (2010 SCC Online SC 1361) reiterated that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification, provided the policy reasonably classifies persons for achieving its purpose and deals equally with all persons belonging to a well-defined class.

The Doctrine of Ultra Vires

Conceptual Framework

The doctrine of ultra vires, meaning "beyond the powers," is a fundamental principle of administrative law. It signifies that an authority can only exercise powers conferred upon it by law. If an authority acts beyond the powers granted, its actions are deemed ultra vires and, consequently, void and unenforceable. This doctrine applies to all governmental and statutory bodies, ensuring they operate within the confines of their enabling legislation and the Constitution.

As stated by Francis Bennion and cited in Bihar Motor Transport Federation And Others v. State Of Bihar And Others (1993 (1) BLJR 409), "Any provision of an item of delegated legislation is ineffective if it goes outside the powers which (expressly or by implication) are conferred on the delegate by the enabling Act. The provision is then said to be ultra vires (beyond the powers)."

Ultra vires can be substantive or procedural. Substantive ultra vires occurs when the authority acts beyond the scope of the powers conferred, either by doing something it has no power to do or by exercising a power for an improper purpose. Procedural ultra vires occurs when the authority fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements prescribed by the enabling statute.

Grounds for Declaring Actions Ultra Vires

An action may be declared ultra vires on several grounds, including:

  • Exceeding jurisdiction or powers conferred by the enabling statute.
  • Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
  • Exercise of power for an improper purpose (mala fides).
  • Unreasonableness or manifest arbitrariness.
  • Violation of fundamental rights, including Article 14.
  • Inconsistency with the provisions of the parent Act or other statutes (in the case of delegated legislation). (SIMRAT RANDHAWA v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 883).

The Intersection: Article 14 as a Ground for Ultra Vires

Arbitrariness as a Touchstone

The development of arbitrariness as a distinct ground for challenging state action under Article 14 has profound implications for the doctrine of ultra vires. When an action, whether legislative, executive, or administrative, is found to be arbitrary, it is not only violative of Article 14 but can also be considered ultra vires the constitutional mandate of equality. As articulated in Dr. Neera Gupta v. University Of Delhi (1996 (38) DRJ 622), citing Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628), "Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory."

The Supreme Court in cases like Shayara Bano v. Union Of India And Others (2017 SCC 9 1), concerning Triple Talaq, and Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union Of India (2018 SCC 10 1), concerning Section 377 IPC, struck down statutory provisions as manifestly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14. Similarly, in Joseph Shine Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India (S) (2019 SCC 3 39), Section 497 IPC (adultery) was declared unconstitutional for being arbitrary and offending Articles 14, 15, and 21. Such declarations effectively render the impugned provisions ultra vires the Constitution.

Delegated Legislation and Article 14

Delegated legislation, such as rules and regulations, is particularly susceptible to challenge on the grounds of being ultra vires the parent Act or the Constitution, including Article 14. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1985 SCC 1 641), the Supreme Court held that subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity as plenary legislation and can be questioned if it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable, or if it violates Article 14.

In Arun Kumar And Others v. Union Of India And Others (2007 SCC 1 732), the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was challenged as inconsistent with the parent Act and ultra vires Article 14. While the Court upheld the rule in that instance, it affirmed the principle that delegated legislation must conform to the legislative policy and not be arbitrary. More recently, in ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY v. GEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) (Supreme Court Of India, 2024, based on provided text), a university regulation was challenged as ultra vires Article 14 for creating a discriminatory hierarchy among teachers based on salary for awarding marks for past teaching experience. The High Court in Shaheed Khan And Others v. State Of M.P And Others (2011 (4) M.P.L.J. 159) emphasized that delegated legislation must have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the statute.

The principle that a law can be declared ultra vires for substantive unreasonableness under Article 14 was noted in Shiv Kumar Pathak And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others (2013 (10) ADJ 1 (FB)).

Administrative Actions and Article 14

Executive and administrative actions are equally subject to scrutiny under Article 14. In Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Two Others (1954 AIR SC 224), the Supreme Court struck down a clause in the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1953, which vested absolute and unchecked discretion in licensing authorities, holding it to be an unreasonable restriction violative of Article 19(1)(g) and, by implication, arbitrary under Article 14.

In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza And Others (1981 SCC 4 335), certain service regulations of Air India that mandated termination of Air Hostesses upon first pregnancy or provided for arbitrary extension of retirement age by the Managing Director were struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court found these provisions lacked a rational basis and were discriminatory.

The judgment in Chairman, J&K State Board Of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik And Others (2000 SCC 3 59) illustrates how a notification delegating the power of examination cancellation to the Chairman, when the Act vested this power in the Board, was held ultra vires the Act and also arbitrary under Article 14 due to vagueness and improper delegation.

Judicial Scrutiny: Analyzing Key Precedents

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in delineating the boundaries of state power through the combined application of Article 14 and the doctrine of ultra vires.

The case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And Others v. Ramanlal Govindram And Others (1975 SCC 1 778) saw the Supreme Court declare Section 437-A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963, which provided for summary eviction, as ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and Article 14. The Court found the provisions to be arbitrary and imposing unreasonable restrictions. This followed the reasoning in similar contexts such as Ramanlal Govindram v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And Ors. (1970 GLR 11 1), where the Gujarat High Court discussed the nature of such remedies.

The courts have also clarified that not every special procedure or classification is violative of Article 14. In G.L. Salwan v. The Union Of India And Anr. (AIR 1960 P H 249), citing Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1952 SC 123), it was noted that an Act providing special methods of procedure in certain classes of cases is not necessarily ultra vires if the classification is reasonable. Similarly, in Ram Krishan Raina v. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank (1998 KLJ 450), an exemption granted to state government employees was upheld as a valid classification under Article 14.

The distinction between challenging a law based on legislative wisdom versus constitutional contravention was highlighted in State Of West Bengal & Anr. v. Sri Biswa Basu Mukherjee & Ors. (1995 (1) CHN 230), where the court noted it is not concerned with the motive of the legislature or political wisdom unless mala fides are alleged or the law is otherwise incompetent.

Challenges in Application and Judicial Approach

While Article 14 provides a robust ground for challenging actions as ultra vires, its application involves complexities. Courts must balance judicial review with deference to legislative and executive policy choices. The presumption of constitutionality attaches to plenary legislation, and the burden of proving unconstitutionality lies heavily on the challenger.

The concept of "manifest arbitrariness" has emerged as a high threshold for striking down plenary legislation, as discussed in Shayara Bano and noted in the reference to a larger bench in Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. Director, Cbi And Others (2005 SCC 2 317) regarding whether arbitrariness alone can invalidate legislation. However, for administrative actions and delegated legislation, the scrutiny for arbitrariness under Article 14 is often more exacting.

The judiciary, as observed in RAMPHAL DANGI AND ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS (2018 SCC OnLine P&H 711), has a duty to declare a provision unconstitutional if it contravenes any constitutional article. The proportionality doctrine has also been applied vigorously to legislative and administrative actions infringing fundamental freedoms.

Conclusion

The interplay between Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of ultra vires forms a cornerstone of Indian administrative and constitutional law. Article 14, with its expansive interpretation encompassing non-arbitrariness, serves not only as a fundamental right but also as a critical standard for assessing the validity of legislative, executive, and administrative actions. An action that is arbitrary is inherently unequal and unjust, and if it emanates from an exercise of power, it is often ultra vires the constitutional or statutory grant of that power.

The Indian judiciary, through a series of landmark pronouncements, has consistently affirmed that all state power must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and within the bounds of law. By striking down actions and provisions that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or exceed conferred authority, the courts uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and ensure that the promise of equality translates into a tangible check on the potential for abuse of power. The symbiotic relationship between Article 14 and the doctrine of ultra vires thus remains vital for preserving the rule of law and fostering a governance structure that is accountable, transparent, and just.

References

(Inline parenthetical citations have been used throughout the article as per the common practice in many legal writings and to integrate references seamlessly within the text. The primary reference materials provided have been analyzed and integrated.)

Key Statutes:

  • Constitution of India, 1950.

Key Case Law (as cited):