Prohibition of arbitrariness in administration
⚖️ Prohibition of Arbitrariness in Administration
✅ Meaning and Constitutional Basis
The prohibition of arbitrariness in administrative action means that government authorities must act fairly, reasonably, and justly while exercising power. Arbitrary decisions violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
📌 Key Constitutional Provisions:
Article 14: Forbids arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable state actions.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty must be protected through fair and non-arbitrary procedures.
Administrative Law: Also requires the use of reasoned decision-making, non-discrimination, and proportionality.
🏛️ Landmark Case Laws Prohibiting Arbitrariness in Administration
1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Facts:
Royappa, a senior civil servant, was transferred without a valid reason, allegedly as political retaliation.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to Article 14. Equality is not just about equal treatment but also freedom from arbitrariness.
Significance:
Introduced the concept that arbitrariness is itself a form of inequality.
Extended Article 14 beyond discrimination to include irrational administrative decisions.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her any reason or hearing.
Judgment:
The Court held that even executive action must be fair, just, and reasonable. Article 21 cannot be violated through arbitrary procedure.
Significance:
Connected Articles 14, 19, and 21 through the idea of non-arbitrariness.
Made fair procedure mandatory even for administrative decisions affecting liberty.
3. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)
Facts:
Admissions to a state-run engineering college were done in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
Judgment:
The Court held that any state or instrumentality of the state must act non-arbitrarily in all its functions, including admissions.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that Article 14 prohibits arbitrariness in all forms of state action.
Declared that even government-funded bodies must follow fair and transparent procedures.
4. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979)
Facts:
A contract for a canteen was awarded arbitrarily without following proper tendering norms.
Judgment:
The Court held that even contractual decisions of the state must be non-arbitrary and follow principles of fairness.
Significance:
Applied Article 14 to administrative contracts.
Introduced the concept of “public law obligations” in administrative functioning.
5. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (1991)
Facts:
DTC employees were dismissed from service using a regulation that allowed termination "without assigning reason."
Judgment:
The Court held such regulation violates Article 14 because it gives unchecked and arbitrary power to the administration.
Significance:
Asserted that state employers must act fairly and not arbitrarily.
Struck down “hire and fire” policies in public employment.
6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
Slum dwellers were evicted without any notice or hearing.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is part of Article 21, and eviction without hearing was arbitrary and illegal.
Significance:
Linked due process to prohibition of arbitrariness.
Ensured administrative decisions affecting life must follow fairness.
7. Om Kumar v. Union of India (2000)
Facts:
Concerned discriminatory punishment in a disciplinary proceeding.
Judgment:
SC held that administrative action must satisfy the test of reasonableness and proportionality.
Significance:
Introduced “proportionality test” as a part of non-arbitrariness.
Ensured that punishments must not be excessive or discriminatory.
8. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Facts:
Issue related to state interference in admission and administration of private educational institutions.
Judgment:
SC held that state actions must not be arbitrary and should be in accordance with legal norms even when regulating private bodies.
Significance:
Clarified limits of state power in regulating private administration.
Reinforced that all forms of authority are bound by non-arbitrariness.
🔍 Summary Table
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| E.P. Royappa (1974) | Arbitrariness violates Article 14 |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Procedure must be fair, just, and non-arbitrary |
| Ajay Hasia (1981) | State instrumentalities must act fairly |
| Ramana Shetty (1979) | Contracts by government must be non-arbitrary |
| DTC v. Mazdoor Congress (1991) | No arbitrary termination in public jobs |
| Olga Tellis (1985) | Livelihood can't be taken away arbitrarily |
| Om Kumar (2000) | Introduced proportionality as test of fairness |
| T.M.A. Pai (2002) | State regulation must avoid arbitrary interference |
📝 Conclusion
The prohibition of arbitrariness in administration is a fundamental principle of Indian constitutional law. Through a wide range of decisions, the Supreme Court has:
Expanded the scope of Article 14 to prohibit unfairness and irrationality.
Ensured that all state actions—executive, legislative, or contractual—must be reasonable and just.
Brought in tools like the proportionality test, natural justice, and due process to curb arbitrariness.
Thus, arbitrariness is treated as unconstitutional, regardless of whether the action relates to employment, eviction, contracting, or regulation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments