Abstract
From Article 14’s principle of equal treatment, emerged a doctrine named ‘manifest arbitrariness’ crafted by courts to overturn unchecked government actions and sweeping laws.
This article examines the concept of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ as applied by the Supreme Court of India under Article 14 of the Constitution. Though the term is absent from the Constitution, judicial decisions have used it to invalidate legislation and executive action that appear capricious, disproportionate, or lacking a determinative principle. Starting with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu in 1974, moving through Shayara Bano v. Union of India in 2017, then Joseph Shine v. Union of India in 2018, followed by the Association for Democratic Reforms case on electoral bonds in 2024, and recent arbitration rulings in 2025, this doctrine evolves from philosophical principle to stylistic weapon.
Far from a formal test, manifest arbitrariness operates as an interpretive style where tone and principle carry more force than rigid logic. Its expressive weight invokes deeper constitutional values when laws lack determinative clarity. While enabling vital oversight, predictability concerns persist; hybrid standards could ensure clearer application. From constitutional silence to modern judgments’ rhetorical core, it reveals Article 14’s evolving grammar.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India frequently employs the concept of arbitrariness to assess government actions pursuant to Article 14, which pertains to the equality clause in the Constitution. Among the various approaches, ‘manifest arbitrariness’ has emerged as one of the court’s most potent instruments. This term is not found in the Constitution itself, rather, it has been developed entirely through judicial interpretations over time. In practice, manifest arbitrariness serves two primary functions.
Primary Functions of Manifest Arbitrariness
- Firstly, it acts as a legal criterion, allowing courts to invalidate laws or policies that appear erratic, evidently unjust, or entirely devoid of reasonable justification.
- Secondly, it operates as a judicial approach which judges utilise as a forceful, straightforward language to indicate that a law or action is clearly inappropriate.
This adaptability grants courts significant authority to safeguard constitutional rights and curb governmental overreach.
Concerns of Consistency and Predictability
Nevertheless, it also raises issues regarding consistency and predictability. When judges depend predominantly on their intuition instead of established standards, various courts might arrive at disparate conclusions.
This article investigates the development of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ through significant cases, assesses what enables it to function as both a legal principle and a stylistic method, and examines its influence on India’s constitutional framework. It weighs both its advantages and the necessity for more defined guidelines.
Summary Table: Functions and Implications
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Legal Criterion | Allows invalidation of laws or policies that are erratic, unjust, or lack reasonable justification. |
| Judicial Approach | Acts as forceful language to signal clear inappropriateness of a law or action. |
| Advantage | Safeguards constitutional rights and limits governmental overreach. |
| Concern | May lead to inconsistency and unpredictability due to reliance on judicial intuition. |
Historical Evolution
1. Philosophical Seed: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[i]
In his landmark ruling, Justice Bhagwati stated: ‘From a positivistic perspective, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.’ Arbitrariness in state action is prohibited by Article 14. The Court declared arbitrary state action to be a freestanding violation of Article 14, invalidating Tamil Nadu’s transfer of an anti-corruption official to obscurity without justification. Royappa transformed equality doctrine by moving from formal classification to substantive fairness review, laying the foundation for judicial scrutiny of laws and policies based on irrationality, even though ‘manifest arbitrariness’ was not yet fully developed.
2. Pre-2017 Refinement
Years went by before scholars saw arbitrariness as tied to how reasonable a decision appeared. Important rulings that shaped this view were-
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi[ii]– emphasised rational classification.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[iii]– the court redefined procedural fairness by weaving in principles of reasonableness. Fair treatment under law took on broader meaning through this ruling. A shift emerged, not sudden, yet clear, where justice required more than mere procedure. Outcomes needed alignment with equitable standards. This judgment quietly reshaped constitutional interpretation without grand declarations.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co[iv]– it became clear that arbitrary nature by itself does not undermine complete legislative authority.
What stands out is how these instances acknowledge arbitrariness as a basis for scrutiny, yet fail to define it clearly. Though used in practice, the concept remained loosely shaped without precise expression. At times, decisions leaned on it without naming its role outright. Clarity emerged only in hindsight, never upfront. The pattern suggests reliance minus structure – present, just not spelled out.
3. Breakthrough: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[v]
A practice called triple talaq was cut down by the Court, labeled not just unfair but wildly so: erratic, out of scale, without clear rule or reason. That label ‘manifestly arbitrary’ wasn’t tossed lightly but it anchored meaning in chaos, excess, absence of logic. What followed reshaped legal terrain as judges moved beyond checking procedures toward weighing the substance itself. Legislation once shielded by broad authority now faced deeper examination, not merely whether power existed, but how it landed on people’s lives.
4. Reinforcement: 2024-2025 Extensions
In the 2019, Joseph Shine v. Union of India[vi], where outdated views were put aside. Equality between genders gained stronger footing through that ruling. The judgment built on earlier ideas but gave them fresh weight. Old assumptions did not hold up when tested against modern values. Courts saw the need to update interpretations. That moment shifted how laws apply regardless of sex.
A fresh twist in how elections are watched came from Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024)[vii]. This case shifted the lens on openness in voting matters. Not every detail was changed overnight, yet visibility improved. Where secrecy once ruled, now some light seeps through. Decisions made behind closed doors face more eyes today. Because of this ruling, hidden choices aren’t quite so easy to hide.
Early next year, court rulings on arbitration matters begin including financial regulations. New legal boundaries appear under updated statutes affecting how disputes are settled. Rules once limited now reach into areas tied to trade and public policy frameworks.
Conceptual Analysis: Grammar and Aesthetic
1. Judicial Grammar
A certain unpredictability emerges when brief assertions shape legal outcomes, with attention focused narrowly on chosen details while deeper analysis stays absent. The appearance of justice arises not only from statutes but also from how rulings are framed. Style becomes substance in these moments. Authority gains acceptance because of presentation, just as much as principle.
2. Judicial Aesthetic
Perception shapes how the phrase is received, guiding instinctive assessments of legality. Where proportionality follows a structured sequence, manifest arbitrariness turns on a judge’s sense of whether a rule feels unjustifiably erratic. Though methodical in design, one contrasts sharply with the other’s reliance on subjective clarity. A law may survive logical scrutiny yet fail when it appears unreasonably harsh. Intuition becomes decisive where exact criteria blur.
3. Distinction From Proportionality
When proportionality demands careful examination such as valid purpose, logical link, need, and weighing outcomes, manifest arbitrariness gives the Court room to act even absent strict structure. This path opens where laws lack clear intent or affect deeply held public interests.
| Proportionality | Manifest Arbitrariness |
|---|---|
| Requires structured steps and logical analysis. | Depends on perception and judicial intuition. |
| Focuses on purpose, necessity, and balance. | Focuses on whether a rule feels unjustifiably erratic. |
| Methodical and predictable in design. | Flexible and subjective in application. |
Implications and Critique
1. Democratic And Legislative Influence
What once was a straightforward process has shifted under new pressures. Drafting laws now includes guessing how judges may react, steering clear of anything that feels arbitrary, regardless of legality. When electoral bond rules unraveled suddenly, it happened because fairness, that’s seen through perception overruled design; adjustments came too late. A quiet restraint shapes decisions ahead of time, which tightens responsibility yet weakens independence. Policy creativity fades where image gains weight before substance is tested.
- Lawmakers anticipate judicial perception.
- Fear of arbitrariness limits policy innovation.
- Judicial reaction influences legislative drafting.
2. Normative Concerns
Dependence on gut feeling within courts invites scrutiny. Should emotion replace method, boundaries between branches weaken – judges begin to write laws. Predictability fades when rulings hinge on who sits on the bench, not established norms. Some note the irony: a process meant to check caprice may itself act without consistency, where identical cases yield clashing results under differing panels.
- Emotional reasoning risks judicial overreach.
- Predictability suffers due to subjective decisions.
- Different benches may reach conflicting outcomes.
3. Future Directions
Occasionally, courts may set basic thresholds for clear arbitrariness – focusing on evident absence of rationale combined with excessive consequences – without losing room for case-by-case assessment. One method stands out: applying structured balance tests to economic rules, while allowing subjective evaluation when human dignity is involved. Over time, observed trends in invalidated laws might shape adjustments, aligning court authority more closely with democratic lawmaking. Ultimately, consistency emerges not from rigid formulas, but from repeated judicial practice.
Conclusion
A tool of wide reach, ‘manifest arbitrariness’ now shapes how Article 14 operates, not only as legal standard but also as expression. Flexibility defines its value; decisions emerge from perception instead of rigid steps, allowing intervention where laws lack rational basis. Cases like triple talaq or electoral bonds show brevity serving justice swiftly. Still, uncertainty follows instinctive rulings – one bench’s outrage another may not share.
When form outweighs framework, boundaries blur between correction and intrusion. Viewing it as crafted judgment reveals deeper function: authority expressed through wording, not just applied rule. A fresh lens requires careful shaping or blending standards that keep pace without losing clarity. The shift in Article 14’s structure moves forward, weighing legal power against protection under law. End Notes:
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.
- Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, (2024) SCC OnLine SC
