“Arbitrariness is the antithesis to Article 14 of the Constitution of India”, Elaborate.

Questions: “Arbitrariness is the antithesis to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” Elaborate. [RJS 2015]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [“Arbitrariness is the antithesis to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” Elaborate.

Answer

It has been enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India. Its meaning is that no person is above the law and he will be within the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts, irrespective of his position or designation.

No person shall be denied equal legal protection before the law. “Equal protection of the law” has been taken from the Constitution of the U.S.A., according to which, every person in similar circumstances shall be equally dealt with and while giving protection to any person, there shall not be any discrimination. It is undisputed that in India, there is a “Rule of law” whose main principle is that where the law is supreme and the absence of arbitrariness.

In Jaisingh Bhai v. Union of India, it has been held by the Supreme Court of India that it is the first essential ingredient of the Rule of law that there is the absence of arbitrariness. It is the basis of our democratic system. Prof. Dicey makes this doctrine more clear. According to him, whether he is Prime Minister or Police Constable, everyone is amenable to the jurisdiction of one and the same ordinary Court.

Further, none can be made to suffer in person, property, or reputation, except it is proved in ordinary Courts of law and that too by ordinary legal procedure and manner, considering that all persons are equal before the law. Reasonable opportunity of hearing must be given to the affected person. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of law within the territory of India. There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, and not by any other mode or arbitrariness. The Supreme court in the D.S Nakara v. Union of India (1983 AIR 130) case said that Rule 34 of the Central Services (pension) Rules, 1972 was unconstitutional on the ground that the classification made by it between pensioners retiring before a certain date and retiring after that date did not depend upon any rational principle it was arbitrary and the infringement of article 14 of Indian constitution law. Conclusively, in welfare, developing, and democratic States like India, experience shows that the Indian judiciary is very well applying the equality principles.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X