Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"87. The thread of reasonableness runs through the entire fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, would violate Article 14. Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three Judge Bench decision in McDowell (State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709) when it is said that a constitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable, yet such challenge would fail on the very ground of the law being unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted. The arbitrariness doctrine when applied to legislation obviously would not involve the latter challenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate, excessive or otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All the aforesaid grounds, therefore, do not seek to differentiate C/SCA/23321/2019 JUDGMENT between State action in its various forms, all of which are interdicted if they fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons and citizens in Part III of the Constitution.
88. We only need to point out that even after McDowell (State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709), this Court has in fact negated statutory law on the ground of it being arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya, this Court held that after passage of time, a law can become arbitrary, and, 25 (1996) 2 SCC 226 26 (1978) 1 SCC 248 therefore, the freezing of rents at a 1940 market value under the Bombay Rent Act would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (see paras 8 to 15 and
31).

xx xx xx

99. However, in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 453), SCC at para 22, in State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli (State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 481), SCC at paras 17 to 19, in Rajbala v. State of Haryana (Rajbala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 445), SCC at paras 53 to 65 and in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59), SCC at paras 80 to 82, McDowell (State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC

709) was read as being absolute bar to the use of arbitrariness as a tool to strike down legislation under Article

14. As has been noted by us earlier in this judgment, McDowell (State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC

709) itself is per incuriam, not having noticed several judgments of Benches of equal or higher strength, its reasoning even otherwise being flawed. The judgments, following McDowell (State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709) are, therefore, no longer good law."