Manifest Arbitrariness under Article 14

Manifest arbitrariness is a judicial standard under Article 14 for striking down a law whose irrationality or caprice is clear and substantial. A law is manifestly arbitrary when it lacks an adequate determining principle, operates capriciously or irrationally, or is excessive and disproportionate.

Constitutional and doctrinal basis

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Since arbitrariness is inconsistent with equality, Article 13 permits legislation violating this guarantee to be treated as void to the extent of inconsistency.

• In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Supreme Court linked arbitrariness with the denial of equality, principally in relation to state action.
• In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Court formulated manifest arbitrariness as a ground of review applicable to both plenary and subordinate legislation.

When legislation becomes manifestly arbitrary

The defect must be apparent in the law itself or in the manner in which it operates. The doctrine addresses serious constitutional irrationality, not every legislative imperfection.

• A law may fail when it is capricious or irrational, rather than being guided by a discernible and adequate principle.
• A measure may also fail when it is excessive or disproportionate in relation to its stated object.
• The inquiry differs from the traditional reasonable-classification test because it can examine the substantive arbitrariness of the law itself.
• The doctrine was applied and reinforced in decisions including Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018).

Limits and separation of powers

Manifest arbitrariness is a demanding standard because courts do not sit in appeal over legislative policy. A court must identify a clear violation of Article 14, while respecting the legislature's freedom to choose among constitutionally permissible policies.

• Mere disagreement with a law's wisdom, effectiveness or desirability is insufficient for invalidation.
• The doctrine preserves judicial review while preventing it from becoming judicial substitution of legislative choices.