Article 14 and Non-Arbitrariness

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to every person. It permits reasonable classification, but forbids class legislation and state action that is irrational, discriminatory or arbitrary. Municipal bodies are local authorities within the State under Article 12, so their rule-making and enforcement must satisfy Article 14.

Tests under Article 14

A law or administrative practice may treat groups differently only when the distinction is constitutionally reasonable.

• The classification must rest on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those included from those excluded.
• The differentia must have a rational nexus with the law or policy's objective.
• Persons who are similarly situated in relation to that objective must ordinarily be treated alike; materially different circumstances may justify different treatment.

Non-arbitrariness and administrative discretion

In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court treated equality as antithetical to arbitrariness. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reinforced that state action must be fair, just and reasonable, extending Article 14 scrutiny beyond formal classification.

• Criteria, exclusions, cut-off dates and geographical distinctions cannot be capricious or based on irrelevant considerations.
• Unguided discretion may violate Article 14 when similarly placed persons can receive different treatment without objective standards.
• Courts generally review constitutional validity rather than policy wisdom, while allowing latitude in complex social and economic policy.

Selective municipal enforcement

A municipality cannot enforce building, licensing, sanitation, vending or encroachment rules against selected persons while overlooking similarly situated violators without a relevant and consistently applied basis.

• Prioritisation may be valid when based on objective considerations such as public safety, severity or urgency, provided these considerations relate to the regulation's purpose.
• Targeting based on favouritism, hostility or irrelevant considerations, or adopting a pick-and-choose approach without standards, may amount to arbitrary discrimination.
• Transparent criteria, recorded reasons, consistent procedures and safeguards against selective application reduce constitutional risk.
• Article 14 does not create a right to demand repetition of an illegality merely because another violator escaped enforcement.