The Doctrine of Reasonable Classification under Article 14 :

I. Introduction

Article 14 of the Constitution of India stands as the bedrock of equality, a fundamental guarantee against arbitrary discrimination by the State.¹ It embodies the ideal of equal treatment, a cornerstone of Indian democracy.¹ However, the practical application of law in a diverse and complex society necessitates differentiation. Modern governance often requires the State to treat different groups or situations differently to achieve specific social and economic objectives or address varying needs.¹ This inherent tension between the principle of equality and the necessity of differentiation has led to the development of significant constitutional jurisprudence under Article 14.

This report aims to provide an expert analysis of the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification, a judicial tool evolved by the Supreme Court of India to test the validity of legislative and executive classifications against the mandate of Article 14. It will delve into the conceptual underpinnings of Article 14, the rationale for classification, the distinction between permissible classification and prohibited class legislation, and the specific tests – Intelligible Differentia and Rational Nexus – that constitute the doctrine. Furthermore, the report will examine landmark judicial precedents that shaped this doctrine, including State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar. Crucially, it will trace the evolution of Article 14 jurisprudence beyond classification towards the principle of non-arbitrariness, as articulated in cases like E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.⁶ Finally, the report will synthesize these doctrines, analyzing their interplay, the ongoing judicial discourse, and the enduring significance of Article 14 in safeguarding equality in India.

II. Article 14: The Constitutional Guarantee of Equality

Article 14 of the Constitution reads: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”.² This guarantee applies to “any person,” a term interpreted broadly to include not only citizens but also non-citizens (foreigners) and legal persons such as corporations and associations, within the geographical confines of India.¹² The article encapsulates two distinct yet complementary concepts: ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the laws’.

Component 1: ‘Equality Before the Law’

This concept, primarily derived from the English Common Law tradition and associated with A.V. Dicey’s Rule of Law ⁴, operates largely as a negative command to the State. It signifies the absence of any special privileges in favour of any individual, regardless of their rank, status, or wealth.² It mandates the equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land, administered by ordinary courts.² In essence, no person is above the law.¹³ This component primarily ensures formal equality, emphasizing the supremacy of law over arbitrary power and preventing the State from bestowing undue favours or imposing undue burdens based on status.² It acts as a check against arbitrary application of laws.

Component 2: ‘Equal Protection of the Laws’

Borrowed from the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ⁴, this is considered a more positive concept. It does not mean that all laws must apply universally or that all persons must be treated identically. Instead, it mandates equality of treatment under equal circumstances.² It requires that the law should apply similarly to all persons who are similarly situated, both in terms of the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.¹³ The core principle is that ‘like should be treated alike’ without discrimination.¹³ Crucially, this implies that the State can treat persons differently if their circumstances are different.⁵ This component, therefore, permits legislative classification and aims for substantive equality, acknowledging that achieving fairness may sometimes require differential treatment based on relevant differences.⁵ It forms the constitutional basis for the doctrine of reasonable classification.

These two facets of Article 14, though originating from different constitutional traditions and having distinct conceptual nuances (negative vs. positive, formal vs. substantive potential), work in tandem. ‘Equality before the law’ ensures that once a law is made, it applies equally to all within its scope without arbitrary exceptions based on status. ‘Equal protection of the laws’ addresses the content of the law itself, ensuring that the scope or classification adopted by the law is justified and does not unfairly discriminate between similarly situated persons, while allowing for differentiation where circumstances warrant. The inherent potential for tension between the demand for equal application and the need for differential laws necessitates a framework for determining when differentiation is permissible – this framework is provided by the doctrine of reasonable classification.

Article 14 serves as the foundational principle of equality, the genus, while subsequent articles like 15 (prohibiting discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), 17 (abolition of untouchability), and 18 (abolition of titles) represent specific applications or species of this general principle, addressing particular historical and social contexts of inequality in India.¹³

III. Classification in Law: Rationale and Limits

The Necessity for Classification

The guarantee of equality under Article 14 does not mandate absolute equality or the universal application of every law to every person.¹ Such an approach would be impractical and could lead to injustice in a society marked by diversity and varying circumstances. The legislature must inevitably make distinctions and classifications to address specific social and economic problems, regulate different activities, cater to the needs of different groups, and implement policy objectives.¹ Treating persons or situations that are inherently different as if they were the same can itself be a source of inequality.⁵

For instance, taxation laws commonly impose different rates based on income levels, recognizing differing abilities to pay; this classification is generally considered necessary for achieving fiscal justice.⁷ Similarly, the Constitution itself envisages special provisions for groups like women, children, or socially and educationally backward classes, acknowledging that differential treatment may be required to achieve substantive equality.⁵ Legislation often needs to be tailored to specific geographical areas, occupations, or the nature of the harm being addressed.² Therefore, the power to classify is essential for effective governance and the pursuit of social welfare.

Reasonable Classification vs. Class Legislation

While classification is permissible and often necessary, Article 14 strictly forbids class legislation.¹ Class legislation occurs when the law arbitrarily singles out a person or a group of persons for special treatment (either favourable or adverse) without any sound, rational, or substantial basis for distinguishing them from others similarly situated.² It involves creating a classification that is artificial, evasive, or lacks a real connection to the purpose of the law, essentially conferring privileges or imposing burdens without justification.²

In contrast, reasonable classification is permitted under Article 14.¹ A classification is considered reasonable if it is founded on real and substantial distinctions that are pertinent to the object the legislation aims to achieve.¹

The practical reality of governance necessitates differentiation. The State must be able to target specific issues and tailor laws to diverse circumstances. However, this power is not unfettered. The core constitutional challenge, therefore, lies in distinguishing permissible differentiation, which serves legitimate state purposes fairly, from impermissible discrimination, which arbitrarily singles out groups without justification. The Doctrine of Reasonable Classification, developed by the judiciary, provides the framework for making this crucial distinction and ensuring that the legislative power to classify remains within the bounds of the equality guaranteed by Article 14.

IV. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification: The Twin Tests

The Doctrine of Reasonable Classification is a judicial test, primarily evolved and articulated by the Supreme Court of India, to ascertain whether a legislative or executive classification conforms to the equality mandate of Article 14.¹ It serves as a crucial analytical tool to ensure that classifications made by the State are not arbitrary, artificial, or evasive, but are instead grounded in reason and fairness.¹

The Twin Tests

The jurisprudence, solidified in landmark cases like State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, establishes that for a classification to be constitutionally valid under Article 14, it must satisfy two cumulative conditions.¹ These are often referred to as the “twin tests” of reasonable classification.

Test 1: Intelligible Differentia

The first condition requires that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia. ‘Differentia’ means a distinction or characteristic that separates, and ‘intelligible’ means understandable or capable of being comprehended.³² Therefore, this test mandates that there must be a clear, definable, and understandable basis for distinguishing the persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group.¹ This basis of classification must be real and substantial, not superficial, flimsy, or arbitrary.¹

• Examples:

• In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the power given to the government to refer any individual ‘case’ to a special court was struck down because the Act provided no intelligible differentia – no clear criteria were laid down to distinguish the cases referred from those left to ordinary courts. The stated objective of ‘speedier trial’ was deemed too vague to constitute an intelligible differentia for selecting individual cases.⁴⁰
• Conversely, in Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, the classification was based on geographical areas where certain magistrates were empowered to try specific offences. The differentia – the specific geographical territory and its associated administrative challenges (like distance from Sessions Courts, availability of jurors) – was held to be intelligible.³⁴
• Tax laws often classify taxpayers based on their income levels; the level of income serves as an intelligible differentia.⁷
• In the recent case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, prison rules that mandated differential treatment based on caste (e.g., regarding food preparation) were found to lack an intelligible differentia, being based on vague and arbitrary caste prejudices rather than any discernible principle.³⁹

Test 2: Rational Nexus (or Relation)

The second condition stipulates that the intelligible differentia identified must have a rational nexus (or relation) to the object or purpose that the legislation seeks to achieve.¹ It is not enough for the classification to be based on an understandable difference; that difference must be logically connected to the goal of the law. The basis of classification and the object of the Act are distinct concepts, and the crucial requirement is the link, or nexus, between them.⁴ This relationship must be rational, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or remote.

• Examples:

• In Anwar Ali Sarkar, even assuming the object was ‘speedier trial’, the arbitrary power to select individual cases without any guiding principle meant there was no rational connection between the selection (the differentia, however unintelligible) and the stated object.⁴⁰
• In Budhan Choudhry, the geographical classification and empowerment of local magistrates (the differentia) was found to have a direct and rational nexus to the object of ensuring efficient and accessible justice administration in those specific, potentially remote or backward, areas.³⁴
• Classifying taxpayers based on income (differentia) has a rational nexus to the object of progressive taxation, where higher earners contribute a larger proportion, aiming to reduce economic disparity.³²
• In Sukanya Shantha, the caste-based classification in prisons (differentia) was held to have no rational nexus to the purported object of prison rules (reform and rehabilitation); instead, it merely perpetuated discriminatory practices.³⁹

These two tests – intelligible differentia and rational nexus – are conjunctive. Both must be satisfied for a classification to be deemed reasonable and constitutionally valid under Article 14. Failure to meet either test will render the classification discriminatory and void.¹ The judicial inquiry focuses fundamentally on the reasonableness of the classification in relation to the legislative purpose it aims to serve.

V. Judicial Precedents on Reasonable Classification

The contours of the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification have been shaped and refined through numerous judgments of the Supreme Court. Three landmark cases stand out for establishing and elaborating the core principles:

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75): Establishing the Tests

• Factual Matrix: This case involved a challenge to the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950. Section 5(1) of this Act empowered the State Government, by general or special order, to direct that certain “offences or classes of offences or cases or classes of cases” be tried by Special Courts established under the Act.⁴⁴ These Special Courts followed procedures that deviated from the standard Code of Criminal Procedure, ostensibly for speedier trials.⁴⁴ Anwar Ali Sarkar and others were convicted by such a Special Court for offences committed during a raid on a factory.⁴⁴ The conviction was challenged as violative of Article 14.⁴⁸
• Holding: The Supreme Court, upholding the High Court’s decision, declared Section 5(1) of the Act unconstitutional and void as it contravened Article 14.²²
• Judicial Reasoning: The majority found that Section 5(1) conferred arbitrary, uncontrolled, and unguided power upon the State Government.² The Act failed to lay down any principle, policy, or standard to guide the government in classifying offences or cases for trial by Special Courts.² The power was so wide that the government could arbitrarily pick and choose individual cases, subjecting some accused to the special, potentially disadvantageous procedure while others similarly situated remained under the ordinary procedure.⁴⁴

• Applying the Intelligible Differentia test, the Court held that the Act provided no clear basis for distinguishing the cases or offences selected for special trial from those not selected. The mere object of “speedier trial,” mentioned in the preamble, was considered too vague and uncertain to constitute an intelligible differentia for classifying individual cases.⁴⁰
• Applying the Rational Nexus test, the Court found no reasonable connection between the arbitrary power to select cases and the objective of achieving speedier trials. Since the selection itself lacked a discernible basis related to the need for speed, the nexus was absent.⁴⁰ The Court emphasized that procedural laws are not immune from Article 14 scrutiny, as differences in procedure can significantly impact fairness, especially in criminal trials.⁴⁸
• Significance: This judgment is foundational as it explicitly articulated and applied the twin tests of Intelligible Differentia and Rational Nexus, establishing them as the definitive standard for evaluating the reasonableness of classifications under Article 14.² It underscored that discretionary power, even if aimed at efficiency, must be guided by clear standards to avoid arbitrariness.

Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (AIR 1955 SC 191): Reaffirming the Tests

• Factual Matrix: The constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was challenged. This section empowered the State Government, in certain specified districts or parts thereof, to invest certain Magistrates (District Magistrate or First Class Magistrate) with the power to try offences not punishable with death, which would otherwise be exclusively triable by the Court of Session.³⁴ The trial procedure before such a Magistrate (warrant procedure) differed from the Sessions trial procedure (which included committal proceedings and trial with jury/assessors).³⁴ The appellants, convicted by a Section 30 Magistrate, argued this classification violated Article 14 as it subjected them to a less advantageous procedure compared to accused persons tried by a Sessions Court for similar offences.³⁵
• Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 30 CrPC, finding no violation of Article 14.³⁴
• Judicial Reasoning: The Court explicitly reiterated the twin tests laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar and previous cases.²⁶ It held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification. Applying the tests:

• Intelligible Differentia: The classification was found to be based on geographical or territorial considerations.³⁴ The legislature, understanding the varying needs of different regions, empowered the State Government to apply Section 30 where specific administrative exigencies existed, such as the distance to the Sessions Court headquarters, inconvenience in transporting witnesses, or difficulty in constituting juries or finding assessors in certain backward or remote areas.³⁴ This geographical and administrative basis was deemed an intelligible differentia.
• Rational Nexus: The differentia (specific territories with administrative challenges) was held to have a rational relationship to the object of the CrPC, which includes ensuring the efficient and accessible administration of criminal justice.³⁴ Empowering suitably experienced local magistrates in these specific areas to try certain serious offences was seen as a measure rationally connected to overcoming the identified administrative difficulties. The Court also noted that the discretion was vested in judicial officers, subject to revision, mitigating concerns of purely arbitrary application.⁵⁴
• Significance: This case reaffirmed the twin tests and clarified that classifications based on geographical location and administrative convenience can be reasonable under Article 14, provided they satisfy the criteria of intelligible differentia and rational nexus.³⁴ It demonstrated that procedural differences are permissible if based on a valid classification linked to a legitimate objective.

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (AIR 1958 SC 538): Elaborating the Principles

• Factual Matrix: The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and a notification issued thereunder by the Central Government. The notification appointed a Commission of Inquiry, headed by Justice Tendolkar, to investigate the affairs of several companies associated with Ram Krishna Dalmia and others, citing allegations of gross irregularities, mismanagement, and misuse of public funds.²⁰ The petitioners argued that the Act conferred excessively wide powers, the inquiry usurped judicial functions, and the notification violated Article 14 by arbitrarily singling out their companies for a hostile and discriminatory inquiry.²⁰
• Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and the notification, except for a specific phrase in clause 10 of the notification (“as and by way of securing redress or punishment”) which was deemed to go beyond the Act’s scope and encroach upon judicial functions.⁴⁵
• Judicial Reasoning: The Court provided a comprehensive exposition of the principles governing Article 14 and reasonable classification ²⁰:

• It reiterated that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification satisfying the twin tests (Intelligible Differentia and Rational Nexus).²⁰
• It laid down the crucial principle of presumption of constitutionality, stating that laws enacted by the legislature are presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of proving otherwise rests heavily on the challenger.²⁰
• Courts can take into account matters of common knowledge, common report, history, and surrounding circumstances to sustain this presumption and understand the basis of classification.²⁰
• The legislature is presumed to understand the needs of the people and can recognize degrees of harm, confining its action to areas where the need is clearest.²⁷
• Crucially, the Court held that even a single individual or company can constitute a class by itself if there are special circumstances or reasons applicable only to them.²⁷
• Applying these principles, the Court found that the specific and serious allegations against Dalmia’s companies (detailed in the judgment, including financial manipulation, diversion of funds, etc.) constituted a “definite matter of public importance” justifying an inquiry.⁴⁵ The government, acting in good faith on available information, could reasonably conclude that these companies, due to the unique combination and extent of alleged malpractices, formed a distinct class.⁴⁵ The petitioners failed to discharge the onus of proving that other similarly situated entities were arbitrarily excluded.⁴⁵ The Court presumed the government acted honestly in exercising its discretion under the Act.⁴⁵
• Significance: Dalmia is a landmark ruling not just for upholding the Act but for systematically articulating the principles and guidelines for applying the reasonable classification test. It clarified the presumption of constitutionality, the burden of proof, the possibility of single-person classifications, and the factors courts can consider, providing a robust framework for Article 14 analysis.¹

Table V.A: Principles of Reasonable Classification from Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar

Principle	Explanation (Based on AIR 1958 SC 538)	Relevant Snippets
Prohibition vs. Permission	Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for legislative purposes.	20
Twin Tests	Permissible classification must satisfy two conditions: (a) founded on an intelligible differentia, and (b) the differentia must have a rational relation (nexus) to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.	20
Presumption of Constitutionality	There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment.	20
Burden of Proof	The burden is upon the person challenging the enactment to show that there has been a clear transgression of constitutional principles.	20
Legislative Understanding	It must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, and its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.	27
Degrees of Harm	The legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed clearest.	27
Consideration of Context	To sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the court may consider matters of common knowledge, common report, the history of the times, and assume any state of facts conceivable at the time of legislation.	20
Single Person as a Class	A law may be constitutional even if it relates to a single individual if, on account of special circumstances or reasons applicable to him/her alone, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself/herself.	27
Government Discretion	When discretion is conferred on the government, it is presumed that the government will act honestly and in conformity with the policy laid down. Abuse of power cannot be easily assumed, especially when vested in high authority.	20
Scope of Application	Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by substantive law but also by procedural law.	20

Application in Other Contexts

The principles of reasonable classification are applied across various domains of law, though often with contextual nuances:

• Taxation: The legislature enjoys considerable latitude in matters of taxation. Classifications based on the nature of goods, income levels, geographical areas, or types of transactions are common.⁷ Courts generally uphold such classifications unless they are patently arbitrary or devoid of any rational basis.³³ The twin tests apply, but the presumption of constitutionality is particularly strong in fiscal legislation due to the complexities involved.³³ Cases like Jain Bros. v. Union of India upheld the taxation of both a firm and its partners as distinct entities, finding the classification non-arbitrary.⁵⁹ T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras upheld progressive income tax rates based on income slabs as a reasonable classification.³³ However, procedural arbitrariness, like transferring tax cases without reason or hearing, can still violate Article 14, as seen in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India.⁴³
• Service Matters: Article 14 and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) are intrinsically linked, with Article 16 often viewed as a specific application of Article 14 in the employment context.¹⁰ Classifications based on educational qualifications, experience, seniority, nature of duties, or mode of recruitment are generally permissible if they satisfy the twin tests and are not arbitrary.⁴ For example, differentiating between deputationists and departmental candidates for promotion based on different eligibility criteria might be upheld if based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective (Gauri Shanker v. Union of India ³⁰). However, arbitrary transfers or denial of promotion without a rational basis can be struck down, as discussed in E.P. Royappa.⁸ Pay parity issues are also frequently tested against Article 14 principles.⁴
• Economic Legislation: Similar to taxation, courts generally accord greater deference to legislative judgment in economic regulation.¹ The complexity of economic issues, the need for experimentation, and the balancing of various interests often lead courts to uphold classifications unless they are clearly irrational, arbitrary, or discriminatory.¹ The twin tests remain applicable, but the threshold for invalidation may be higher. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, concerning bearer bonds, illustrates this deference to legislative policy in economic matters.¹

The application of the reasonable classification doctrine is thus not uniform across all types of legislation. While the core tests remain the same, the intensity of judicial scrutiny and the degree of deference shown to the legislature often vary depending on the nature of the rights affected and the subject matter of the law. Areas involving fundamental rights like liberty (as in Anwar Ali Sarkar) or core equality concerns often invite stricter scrutiny than economic or fiscal regulations, where the legislature’s policy choices are given wider latitude, provided they are not manifestly arbitrary.

VI. The Evolution Towards Non-Arbitrariness

While the doctrine of reasonable classification, with its twin tests, served as the primary framework for adjudicating Article 14 challenges for several decades, the Supreme Court, particularly from the 1970s onwards, began articulating a broader, more dynamic interpretation of equality. This “new doctrine” posits that Article 14 is not merely about classification but serves as a fundamental guarantee against arbitrariness in any form of State action.¹

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555): Equality as Antithetical to Arbitrariness

• Factual Matrix: This case involved a challenge by E.P. Royappa, a senior IAS officer officiating as Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, against his transfer to a newly created temporary post of ‘Officer on Special Duty’ and subsequently to the post of ‘Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission’. He alleged that these transfers were mala fide, motivated by the Chief Minister’s displeasure, and resulted in his demotion to posts inferior in status and responsibility, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16.⁸
• Holding: On the facts, the Court (by majority) did not find sufficient evidence to establish mala fides or that the posts were inferior. The petition was dismissed.⁸ However, the judgment became landmark for its pronouncements on the scope of Article 14.
• Judicial Reasoning (per Bhagwati, J., for himself, Chandrachud & Krishna Iyer, JJ.): Justice Bhagwati, while concurring in the dismissal, articulated a new dimension of Article 14. He famously observed:”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 Art. 14″.4
  He further linked Article 16 (equality in public employment) as a specific facet of the general principle of equality in Article 14.10 The core idea was that any State action, whether legislative or executive, must be non-arbitrary; it must be based on relevant principles and not guided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, as arbitrariness inherently negates equality.10
• Significance: Royappa marked a significant conceptual shift. It proposed that arbitrariness itself, irrespective of whether a classification is involved or satisfies the twin tests, constitutes a violation of Article 14. This potentially broadened the scope of judicial review under Article 14 considerably, moving beyond the traditional classification framework.²

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597): Reinforcing Arbitrariness and Interlinking Articles

• Factual Matrix: The petitioner’s passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, “in the interests of the general public.” No reasons were initially provided despite request.¹¹ The petitioner challenged this action as violating her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 (specifically the right to travel abroad implicit in freedom of speech and movement), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).¹¹
• Holding: The Court held that the right to travel abroad was part of ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 and that the procedure for impounding the passport under the Act must comply with principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem – right to be heard).¹¹ While not striking down the section, it read the requirement of a post-decisional hearing into the Act.⁷² Importantly, it strongly linked the requirements of Article 21 with Article 14.
• Judicial Reasoning: The Court emphatically reaffirmed the Royappa principle that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality.²¹ It held that the “procedure established by law” required under Article 21 for depriving a person of life or personal liberty cannot be just any procedure; it must be a procedure that is “right, just and fair” and not “arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive”.¹¹ Crucially, the Court stated that the test of reasonableness for such a procedure under Article 21 must be evaluated against the touchstone of Article 14.²¹ This established an inseparable link between Articles 14, 19, and 21 (often termed the ‘golden triangle’), meaning that a law affecting personal liberty (Article 21) must not only prescribe a procedure but that procedure must be non-arbitrary (Article 14) and, if it restricts freedoms under Article 19, must also be reasonable.¹¹
• Significance: Maneka Gandhi cemented the non-arbitrariness doctrine as central to Article 14 and demonstrated its powerful interplay with Article 21. It established that procedural fairness and reasonableness, tested against Article 14’s prohibition of arbitrariness, are essential components of the ‘procedure established by law’.¹¹ This ruling significantly expanded the scope of judicial review over both substantive and procedural aspects of laws affecting fundamental rights.

The Concept of Manifest Arbitrariness

A further refinement or articulation of the arbitrariness doctrine emerged, particularly in the context of challenging legislative action, under the label of “manifest arbitrariness”.⁵³ This concept gained prominence in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (the Triple Talaq case).⁵³

• Definition: Manifest arbitrariness has been described as something done by the legislature “capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle,” or which is “excessive and disproportionate”.⁷¹ It suggests a blatant, obvious, or patent unreasonableness, potentially setting a higher threshold for invalidating legislation compared to executive action.⁸²
• Application: In Shayara Bano, the majority (per Nariman, J.) used the test of manifest arbitrariness to strike down the statutory provision (Section 2 of the Shariat Act, 1937) to the extent it recognized Triple Talaq. The practice was deemed manifestly arbitrary because it allowed a Muslim man to whimsically and capriciously break the marital tie instantaneously, without any attempt at reconciliation.⁸¹
• Test Articulation: In the subsequent Electoral Bonds case (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India), the Court, citing Shayara Bano and Navtej Singh Johar, articulated a two-pronged test for manifest arbitrariness in legislation: (a) where the legislature fails to make a classification by recognizing degrees of harm, or (b) where the purpose of the law is not in consonance with constitutional values.⁸⁰

The evolution from reasonable classification to non-arbitrariness, and further to manifest arbitrariness for legislative review, signifies a profound shift in Article 14 jurisprudence. It moves the focus from merely examining the structure and logic of classification (the relationship between the differentia and the object) to a broader assessment of the inherent fairness, reasonableness, and rationality of the State action or the law itself. While the classification test primarily asks if the grouping is justified, the arbitrariness test asks if the action itself is fundamentally unreasonable or capricious, potentially offering a wider lens for constitutional scrutiny. ‘Manifest arbitrariness’ appears to be the specific standard the Court applies when evaluating the constitutionality of plenary legislation under this broader fairness rubric.

VII. Synthesizing the Doctrines: Classification and Arbitrariness

The emergence of the non-arbitrariness doctrine alongside the traditional reasonable classification test has led to considerable debate and some judicial uncertainty regarding their precise relationship and application under Article 14. Are they distinct tests? Does one subsume the other? Or do they operate in different spheres?

Analyzing the Interplay: Supplementation, Replacement, or Integration?

Several perspectives exist on how these two doctrines interact:

1. Coexistence and Supplementation: One view is that both doctrines coexist and operate as distinct tools for Article 14 analysis. The reasonable classification test remains the primary tool for evaluating laws or actions that explicitly differentiate between groups. The arbitrariness test, however, offers a broader check, applicable even to actions that might not involve classification but are inherently capricious, irrational, or unfair in their operation.¹ Recent judgments often employ both tests, suggesting they are seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.²²
2. Arbitrariness as the Overarching Principle: Another perspective, strongly suggested by Justice Bhagwati’s pronouncements in Royappa and Maneka Gandhi, and echoed in Ajay Hasia, is that non-arbitrariness is the fundamental essence of Article 14. From this viewpoint, the doctrine of reasonable classification is not an independent principle but merely a “judicial formula” or a subsidiary rule evolved by the courts to determine whether a particular classification is arbitrary and thus violates equality.¹ If an action is arbitrary, it inherently negates equality, regardless of classification.¹⁰
3. Tension and Conflict: The relationship has not been without judicial friction. The judgment in State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. (1996) appeared to contradict the Royappa line of reasoning by stating that legislation cannot be struck down merely on the ground of being “arbitrary” or “unreasonable” if it does not violate specific fundamental rights or lack legislative competence.⁵³ This created confusion about the validity of the arbitrariness test for legislative review. However, the Constitution Bench in Shayara Bano explicitly reaffirmed the applicability of the (manifest) arbitrariness doctrine to legislation, holding that McDowell did not correctly interpret earlier precedents like Ajay Hasia and Sunil Batra.⁵³ This suggests the arbitrariness test, particularly in its ‘manifest’ form for legislation, remains a valid ground for challenge under Article 14, despite the McDowell interlude.

Current judicial practice seems to indicate that both approaches are utilized. Courts continue to apply the twin tests rigorously when a classification is explicitly challenged.²² Simultaneously, the principle of non-arbitrariness (and manifest arbitrariness for legislation) provides a broader standard to assess the overall fairness and rationality of state action, even potentially beyond classification.⁷⁰

Table VII.A: Comparison of Reasonable Classification and Arbitrariness Tests under Article 14

Feature	Reasonable Classification Test	Arbitrariness Test (including Manifest Arbitrariness)
Primary Focus	Validity of the classification made by the law/action.	Inherent nature of the state action or law itself.
Basis of Challenge	Differential treatment between groups.	Capriciousness, irrationality, lack of principle, unfairness, unreasonableness, excessiveness, disproportionality.
Core Question	Is the grouping/differentiation justified and rationally linked to the objective?	Is the action/law itself inherently unfair, irrational, or capricious, regardless of classification?
Key Components	1. Intelligible Differentia 2. Rational Nexus	Fairness, Reasonableness, Non-arbitrariness, Non-capriciousness, Proportionality (especially ‘Manifest Arbitrariness’).
Nature	Primarily comparative (evaluates difference between groups).	Can be non-comparative (evaluates the action itself against standards of reason/fairness).
Origin	Early Supreme Court interpretations (Anwar Ali Sarkar, Budhan Choudhry, Dalmia).	Evolved doctrine (E.P. Royappa, Maneka Gandhi, Shayara Bano).
Application Scope	Primarily applied when a law/action creates distinct classes.	Applied more broadly to legislative and executive action, potentially even without explicit classification.
Landmark Cases	State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar	E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Shayara Bano v. Union of India

Academic Perspectives and Critiques

The evolution of Article 14 jurisprudence has drawn significant academic commentary and critique:

• Critiques of Reasonable Classification: While widely accepted, the classification test has been criticized for sometimes devolving into a formalistic exercise, focusing excessively on the mechanics of grouping (‘intelligible differentia’ and ‘rational nexus’) without adequately addressing the substantive fairness or impact of the law.¹ An overemphasis on classification could potentially overshadow the core guarantee of equality itself.¹ Furthermore, it may not effectively address laws that are inherently arbitrary but apply uniformly without making explicit classifications.
• Critiques of Arbitrariness Test: The non-arbitrariness doctrine, particularly its application to legislation as ‘manifest arbitrariness’, has faced more trenchant criticism.⁸ Critics argue it suffers from:

• Vagueness and Lack of Standards: The terms ‘arbitrary’, ‘unreasonable’, or ‘capricious’ are seen as inherently subjective, lacking clear, objective criteria for application, potentially leading to inconsistent judicial outcomes.³⁸
• Judicial Overreach: It might empower judges to strike down laws based on their personal notions of fairness or wisdom, encroaching upon the legislature’s domain.⁸
• Ignoring Constitutional Text: Eminent constitutional scholar H.M. Seervai strongly criticized the doctrine, arguing that it detaches Article 14 from its textual anchor of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the laws” (which implies comparison) and allows the concept of arbitrariness to “hang in the air” without a clear constitutional basis.⁵³ It risks replacing the specific guarantee of equality with a generalized, non-comparative check on state power.⁶⁷
• Attempts at Synthesis/Reconciliation: Some scholars argue that the two doctrines are not fundamentally opposed. Arbitrariness, they contend, is inherent in any classification that fails the twin tests; an unreasonable classification is arbitrary.⁴² Others suggest that instead of adopting the potentially problematic arbitrariness test, the traditional classification doctrine itself could be interpreted more robustly and substantively to achieve the goals of fairness and non-arbitrariness.⁶³

The introduction and application of the non-arbitrariness doctrine, while arguably intended to infuse Article 14 with greater dynamism and potency against unfair State action, has undeniably introduced a layer of doctrinal complexity and debate. Its precise contours, standards of application (especially ‘manifest arbitrariness’ for legislation), and relationship with the established classification test remain subjects of ongoing judicial interpretation and academic discussion. This uncertainty highlights the challenge of balancing the need for clear legal standards with the imperative to ensure substantive fairness and equality under Article 14.

VIII. Conclusion

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, serves as a fundamental pillar against discrimination and arbitrary action by the State. The principle of equality, however, does not necessitate identical treatment for all persons in all circumstances. The complexities of modern society and governance require the State to classify individuals, objects, and transactions to enact effective legislation and implement targeted policies.

The judiciary, primarily through the Supreme Court, developed the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification as the primary test to ensure that such classifications remain within constitutional bounds. This doctrine, firmly established in landmark cases like State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, and elaborated in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, mandates that any permissible classification must satisfy the twin tests: it must be based on an intelligible differentia, and this differentia must have a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by the law. This framework sought to balance the need for differentiation with the prohibition against arbitrary class legislation.

However, recognizing the potential limitations of a purely classificatory approach, the Supreme Court, beginning with E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and significantly reinforced in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, introduced a new dimension to Article 14. This “new doctrine” posits that equality is antithetical to arbitrariness, and any State action, whether legislative or executive, that is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable inherently violates Article 14. This principle was further articulated as the “manifest arbitrariness” test for striking down plenary legislation, notably applied in Shayara Bano v. Union of India.

Currently, the jurisprudence under Article 14 appears to operate with both doctrines. The reasonable classification test remains a vital tool for analyzing laws that create explicit distinctions, while the non-arbitrariness principle provides a broader standard for assessing the inherent fairness and rationality of State action, potentially extending beyond classification. However, the precise interplay between these doctrines, particularly the scope and standards of the arbitrariness test, remains a subject of ongoing debate and judicial evolution, marked by conflicting precedents and significant academic critique regarding its vagueness and potential for subjectivity.

Despite these doctrinal complexities, Article 14 continues to be a dynamic and potent provision. It serves as a crucial safeguard against discriminatory laws and arbitrary governance, empowering the judiciary to scrutinize State action and ensure adherence to the fundamental constitutional values of equality, fairness, and the rule of law. The evolution of its interpretation reflects the judiciary’s ongoing effort to adapt the guarantee of equality to meet the challenges of a changing society, ensuring that Article 14 remains a vibrant and meaningful check on State power.

Works cited

1. Constitutional Law of India – Chapter 7 – Right to Equality – Student Manupatra, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-7.htm
2. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED LEGAL RESEARCH ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: AN ANALYSIS ARTICLE 14: Equality before, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijalr.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Article-14.pdf
3. Right to Equality : Doctrine of Reasonable classification and the Principle of absence of arbitrariness. Sem II Unit I – LBR Law College, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lbrlawcollege.org/right-to-equality-doctrine-of-reasonable-classification-and-the-principle-of-absence-of-arbitrariness-sem-ii-unit-i/
4. Article 14 – Constitutional Law – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/article-14
5. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/doctrine-of-reasonable-classification/
6. REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 14, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.iralr.in/post/reasonable-classification-under-indian-constitution-article-14/
7. THE DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION-AN EXCEPTION TO THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY: CARISHMA BHARGAVA – ILSJCCL – Indian Legal Solution, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://journal.indianlegalsolution.com/2020/07/15/the-doctrine-of-reasonable-classification-an-exception-to-the-right-to-equality-carishma-bhargava/
8. E.P. Royappa V. State Of Tamil Nadu: Case Summary & Study Notes – LegalFly, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legalfly.in/e-p-royappa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-case-summary/
9. The EP Royappa Case Summary – Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/the-ep-royappa-case-summary/
10. Case Brief: E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/e-p-royappa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-air-1974-sc-555/
11. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Ors. – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/
12. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_India
13. Right to Equality (Article 14 to 18): A Comprehensive Guide – NEXT IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.nextias.com/blog/right-to-equality/
14. Brief Thread On Article 14: Right To Equality – Unacademy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://unacademy.com/content/bank-exam/study-material/general-awareness/brief-thread-on-article-14-right-to-equality/
15. Right to Equality [Article 14 to 18] – Definition & Importance – Indian Polity Notes for UPSC, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-to-equality/
16. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-14/
17. Article 14 of Indian Constitution, Equality Before Law, Explanation, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.studyiq.com/articles/article-14-of-indian-constitution/
18. Article 14 – Equality Before Law and Equality protection of the law – Articles – Manupatra, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Article-14-Equality-Before-Law-and-Equality-protection-of-the-law
19. Class Legislation – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/class-legislation/
20. RAM KRISHNA DALMIA v. JUSTICE TENDOLKAR, AIR 1958 SC 538 – Law Essentials, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawessential.com/all-blogs/f/ram-krishna-dalmia-v-justice-tendolkar-air-1958-sc-538?blogcategory=Case+Comments
21. CASE COMMENTARY – MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA – IJCRT.org, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1807346.pdf
22. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha …Petitioner, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/51059/51059_2023_1_1502_56228_Judgement_03-Oct-2024.pdf
23. Article 14 – UPSC Polity Notes – Compass by Rau’s IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://compass.rauias.com/polity/article-14/
24. Difference Between Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Law – The Legal School, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://thelegalschool.in/blog/difference-between-equality-before-law-and-equal-protection-of-law
25. Reasonable Classification Test – Only IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/reasonable-classification-test/
26. Supreme Court Upholds Entitlement of CRPF Personnel to Special Duty Allowance in North-Eastern Region – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/supreme-court-upholds-entitlement-of-crpf-personnel-to-special-duty-allowance-in-north-eastern-region/view
27. Reasonable Classification Test – Drishti IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/reasonable-classification-test
28. DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION – Aishwarya Sandeep – WordPress.com, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://aishwaryasandeep.wordpress.com/2021/09/20/doctrine-of-reasonable-classification/
29. Right to Equality – PMF IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.pmfias.com/right-to-equality/
30. Intelligible Differentia – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/intelligible-differentia/
31. (PDF) A CRITICAL STUDY ON ARTICLE 14 WITH RESPECT TO CASE LAW – ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353322483_A_CRITICAL_STUDY_ON_ARTICLE_14_WITH_RESPECT_TO_CASE_LAW
32. What is Intelligible Differentia ? Meaning, Importance & Examples for Indian Law, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://advocateravi.com/what-is-intelligible-differentia/
33. Seth Sukhlall Chandanmull vs A. C. Jain, Income-Tax Officer, And … on 11 December, 1957, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/368860/
34. Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1905739/
35. Equal Protection under Article 14: Insights from Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/equal-protection-under-article-14:-insights-from-budhan-choudhry-v.-state-of-bihar/view
36. citedby: 1905739 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=citedby%3A%201905739&pagenum=8
37. The doctrine of reasonable classification – ORIGIN26 LAW LABS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://origin26lawlabs.com/the-doctrine-of-reasonable-classification/
38. The Old and New Doctrines of Equality: A Critical Study of Nexus Tests and Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness – EBC, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm
39. Sukanya Shantha V. UOI: A Laudable Application of the Principle of Intelligible Differentia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/sukanya-shantha-v-uoi-a-laudable-application-of-the-principle-of-intelligible-differentia/
40. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar: Upholding Equality Before the Law through Reasonable Classification – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/state-of-west-bengal-v.-anwar-ali-sarkar:-upholding-equality-before-the-law-through-reasonable-classification/view
41. CASE ANALYSIS OF RAMKRISHNA DALMIA V. JUSTICE TENDOLKAR – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/case-analysis-of-ramkrishna-dalmia-v-justice-tendolkar/
42. Summer Issue 2016 ILI Law Review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ili.ac.in/pdf/paper11.pdf
43. Violation of Article 14 through Arbitrary Transfer of Tax Cases: Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/violation-of-article-14-through-arbitrary-transfer-of-tax-cases:-bidi-supply-co.-v.-union-of-india/view
44. The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184660633/
45. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & … on 28 …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/685234/
46. RETHINKING “NON-ARBITRARINESS”, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Shankar_Article_NLUD.pdf
47. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/state-of-west-bengal-v-anwar-ali-sarkar/
48. State Of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar (Case Summary) – Fawyerz, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://fawyerz.in/judgments/constitutional-law/state-of-west-bengal-v-anwar-ali-sarkar-air-1952-sc-75/
49. State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-of-west-bengal-vs-anwar-ali-sarkar-1952/
50. Case Summary: State Of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 – LegalFly, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legalfly.in/case-summary-state-of-west-bengal-v-anwar-ali-sarkar/
51. State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://notes.saralupsc.com/state-of-west-bengal-vs-anwar-ali-sarkar-1952-summary-for-upsc-polity-notes/
52. Doctrine-of-Reasonable-Classification-as-an-Exception-to-the-Right-to-Equality.pdf – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW MANAGEMENT & HUMANITIES, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Doctrine-of-Reasonable-Classification-as-an-Exception-to-the-Right-to-Equality.pdf
53. Symposium – Interpreting Equality Rights in India’s Constitution: the Manifest Arbitrariness Test – IACL-AIDC Blog, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/blog/2018/9/17/symposium-interpreting-equality-rights-in-indias-constitution-the-manifest-arbitrariness-test
54. Budhan Choudhry and other v. State Of Bihar (AIR 191) 1) Reference Details Jurisdiction: Indian Supreme Court Date of Decision:, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Choudry.pdf
55. case ram krishna dalmia | PDF | Constitution | Separation Of Powers – Scribd, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/839732718/case-ram-krishna-dalmia
56. Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendolkar-Air 1958 SC 538 | PDF | U.S. State – Scribd, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/379289125/Constitution-Project
57. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Others, 1958 – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/shri-ram-krishna-dalmia-vs-shri-justice-s-r-tendolkar-others-1958/
58. Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness and Reasonable Classification – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-non-arbitrariness/
59. Double Taxation and Article 14 Compliance in Income Tax Law: Analysis of Jain Bros. v. Union Of India – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/double-taxation-and-article-14-compliance-in-income-tax-law:-analysis-of-jain-bros.-v.-union-of-india/view
60. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019 JANHIT ABHIY, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/EWS-Reservations-Judgment-182-298.pdf
61. E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327287/
62. EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu – Case Analysis – Testbook, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/ep-royappa-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu
63. Rethinking “Manifest Arbitrariness” in Article 14: Part I – Introducing the Argument, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/05/06/rethinking-manifest-arbitrariness-in-article-14-part-i-introducing-the-argument/
64. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://notes.saralupsc.com/e-p-royappa-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-1974-summary-for-upsc-polity-notes/
65. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (1973), accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/e-p-royappa-v-state-tamil-nadu-mala-fide-abuse-discretion/
66. E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu – Indian Legal Solution, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indianlegalsolution.com/e-p-royappa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu/
67. Abstract – NALSAR Student Law Review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nslr.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/NSLR-Vol-5-No-2.pdf
68. Article 14 and Arbitrariness vis-à-vis Legislative Action | SCC Times – SCC Online, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/10/11/article-14-and-arbitrariness-vis-a-vis-legislative-action/
69. how legitimate is non-arbitrariness? constitutional invalidation in the light of mardia chemicals v. union of india – CommonLII, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/INJlConLaw/2008/6.pdf
70. DOCTRINE OF NON – ARBITRARINESS – VIA Mediation Centre, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://viamediationcentre.org/readnews/OTE0/DOCTRINE-OF-NON-ARBITRARINESS
71. The Doctrine Of “Manifest Arbitrariness” – A Critique – India Law Journal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.indialawjournal.org/the-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness.php
72. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Manupatra Academy, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0133_1978
73. CASE COMMENT ON MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CASE-COMMENT-ON-MANEKA-GANDHI-V-UNION-OF-INDIA.pdf
74. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 : case analysis – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/
75. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneka_Gandhi_v._Union_of_India
76. Smt. Maneka Gandhi V Union Of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597( Judgement Analysis & The Ratio Decidendi Of The Case) – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/smt-maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india-air-1978-s-c-597-judgement-analysis-the-ratio-decidendi-of-the-case/
77. Case Comment on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijalr.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Case-Analysis-Maneka-Gandhi-v.-Union-of-India-AIR-1978.pdf
78. Analysis Of Maneka Gandhi Judgement – The Column Of Curae, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://thecolumnofcurae.wordpress.com/2020/04/26/analysis-of-maneka-gandhi-judgement/
79. Guest Post: Navigating Temporality within Manifest Arbitrariness – Unpacking the Contentious Nature of the Dissent in In re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Constitutional Law and Philosophy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/12/04/guest-post-navigating-temporality-within-manifest-arbitrariness-unpacking-the-contentious-nature-of-the-dissent-in-in-re-section-6a-of-the-citizenship-act-1955/
80. The Supreme Court’s Electoral Bonds Judgment – II: The Arbitrariness of Manifest Arbitrariness [Guest Post] – Constitutional Law and Philosophy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/02/28/the-supreme-courts-electoral-bonds-judgment-ii-the-arbitrariness-of-manifest-arbitrariness-guest-post/
81. (2017] 9 SCR 797 SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of2016) – Digital Supreme Court Reports, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2017/volume%209/Part%20I/Shayara%20Bano%20%20vs%20%20Union%20Of%20India%20And%20Others1701936024.pdf
82. Doctrine Of Manifest Arbitrariness Can Be Used To Strike Down Laws: Supreme Court Reiterates In Electoral Bonds Case – Verdictum, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-association-for-democratic-reforms-and-anr-v-union-of-india-and-ors-manifest-arbitrariness-electoral-bonds-case-1521188
83. Manifest Arbitrariness and the Upholding of Constitutional Democracy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Shayara Bano v. Union Of India – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/manifest-arbitrariness-and-the-upholding-of-constitutional-democracy:-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-shayara-bano-v.-union-of-india/view
84. CAA: Drawing from Johar and Bano – II – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/caa-drawing-from-johar-and-bano-ii/
85. Manifest Arbitrariness and Plenary Legislation – Bar and Bench, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/manifest-arbitrariness-and-plenary-legislation
86. Article 14 and Arbitrariness vis-à-vis Legislative Action [Part II] – SCC Online, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/09/article-14-and-arbitrariness-vis-a-vis-legislative-action-part-ii/
87. Manifesting the Consistency in the Application of ‘Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine’ | Statute Law Review | Oxford Academic, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/slr/article-abstract/44/1/hmab001/6123696
88. manifest arbitrariness – Constitutional Law and Philosophy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/tag/manifest-arbitrariness/
89. Arbitrariness, subordination and unequal citizenship: Indian Law Review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24730580.2020.1761142