Doctrine of non-arbitrariness

1. Doctrine of non-arbitrariness
under Article 14,
its overview and analysis.
By : Shri. Avinash Laxman Mhatre
Roll No.42, LL M / IIIrd Sem
Under guidance of
Professor Alka Patil, Mumbai University

2. 1. Introduction
2. Learning Outcome :
Awareness about different concepts involved in Article 14
Understanding the expanding horizons of Right to Equality
3. Evolution of this Doctrine
4. Relation between Right to Equality- Fundamental Right
Guaranteed By Article 14 and the Doctrine of Arbitrariness
5. Nexus Test / Test of Reasonable Classification with the
Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness
6. Conclusion

3. INTRODUCTION
In a system wedded to freedom and democracy, it is only fair that the
fundamental rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution should have primacy
over any privileges or special rights of any class of people, including the elected
legislators, and that all such claims should be subject to judicial scrutiny, for situations
may arise where the rights of the people may have to be protected even against the
Parliament or against captive or capricious parliamentary majorities of the moment.
Article-14 of the Constitution, says that "Every state shall give the right of equality
before the law and to equal protection of law to the residents within the Indian
territories". Non-arbitrariness as a method of statutory invalidation was not intended to
be a part of the Indian Constitution. The intention of the founding fathers of India was
strongly against the use of the doctrine of substantive due process by new
Constitutional courts of India which were to be equipped with hitherto unseen powers of
judicial review. But that is not what happened. Articles 14 and 21 became repositories
of fairness and due process as they were given a ‘new dimension’. The test of
arbitrariness as a limiting principle in constitutional law began with the equality
provisions of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

4. 2. Learning Outcome :
 Awareness about different concepts involved in Article 14
 Understanding the expanding horizons of Right to Equality-
In the latter half of 1973, in a case, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the
Supreme Court has floated from the conventional idea of equality which depended on
reasonable classification and has set out another idea of equality. It was held that
“Equality is a dynamic idea with numerous perspectives and measurements and it
can’t be ‘cribbed, cabined and bound’ inside conventional and dogmatic cutoff
points.” From a positivist perspective, equality is an absolute opposite to
arbitrariness. Actually, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies: one has a place
with the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of a
monarch. Where a statute is arbitrary, it is verifiable that it is inconsistent both as per
political rationale and constitutional law and is along these lines violative of Article 14.

5. 3. Evolution of this Doctrine
E.P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu & others
Supreme Court for this situation, further deciphered Article-14 of the
constitution giving more noteworthy significance to "Equality and giving Equal
protection of the law". Every resident ought to be dealt with equally without
been victimized on the grounds of the statement of faith, sexual orientation,
age, religion, and so forth and it gave another angle to Article-14 and held it as
an assurance that is against the doctrine of arbitrariness. As per this doctrine,
it empowers the "reasonable classification" of individuals and a thing however
forbids the classification of class. The decision was soon followed by Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, where it was reiterated that equality could not be
‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Yet, in
the most recent judgment given by the zenith court in Rajbala v State of
Haryana: The degree and the substance of the doctrine were upheld by the
protected seat of the Supreme Court.

6. 4: Relation between Right to Equality- Fundamental Right Guaranteed By
Article 14 and the Doctrine of Arbitrariness
The main portion of this article obviously states that no individual is exempt from the
laws that apply to everyone else and then again, in its subsequent half bit its that every
individual ought to be given equal protection of the law. For instance, A will be a finance
manager who is rich and B who is a working-class individual, so both of these ought to
be equally ensured by the law and no segregation ought to be made between the two
classes.
In the event that there is a special case to the principle of equality and the State thinks fit
that such exemption is a sensible ground for treating the two distinct people in an
unexpected way. The State depends on the sensible reason for making up any state
move against any individual resident of a state which goes about as a significant
connection or association between Article-14 which centres around the idea of equality
and the doctrine of arbitrariness which discusses the objectivity.

7. 4: Nexus Test / Test of Reasonable Classification with the Doctrine of
Non-Arbitrariness
The most ideal approach to realize that whether the activity taken by
the State was against the Article-14 or not is to do the trial of sensible
classification. In this test, the primary concern which is been tried is that are
the residents of the state are dealt with equally or not, and on the off chance
that not, then for what reason would they say they are not treated equally?
This principle spins around the idea that all individuals ought to be dealt with
equally which must be taken care of by the state. On account of E.P.
Royappa, the Supreme Court found the new idea of equality which was an
integral part of non-arbitrariness.
In the level-headed trial of classification, arbitrariness has been
eliminated and has made a great deal of disarray therein. Article-14 and
doctrine of non-arbitrariness are two equal ideas in which a State should
treat every individual equally and can just separate between them based on
the trial of sensible classification, i.e., those residents who are diverse in their
physical appearance, thinking and investigative abilities, and so forth, can be
dealt with distinctively yet not based on the cast, religion, sex, and so on.

8. 6. CONCLUSION
In the end, it is evident that Article 14 ensures equality before law and
strikes at arbitrary and discriminatory state action. If power conferred by
statute on any authority of the State is vagrant and unconfined and no
standards or principles are laid down by the statute to guide and control the
exercise of such power, the statute would be violative of the equality clause,
because it would permit arbitrary and capricious exercise of power, which is
the antithesis of equality before law. Our Constitution envisages a society
governed by rule of law. Absolute discretion uncontrolled by guidelines which
may permit denial of equality before law is antithesis of rule of law. The
exercise of all administrative power vested in public authority must be
structured within a system of controls informed by relevance and reason,
relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard
to the manner in which it attempts to do so.
Thank you !!!