‘Arbitrariness is antithesis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India’

 Arbitrariness is the anti-thesis of Article 14. Do you agree with the said statement? If so, give reasons.

The said statement is taken from E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & another, 1974 SCR (2) 348 wherein it is mentioned that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits.

From a positivistic 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 Article 14.

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 the court ruled that it must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.

The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitraiy and therefore constituting denial of equality.

Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of “authority” under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.

In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621 the Apex Court said that Article 14 strikes, at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the best of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.