Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. A legislation can be challenged on the ground of legislative arbitrariness. Such an arbitrariness as found by the Court should be palpable and apparent. It should rather be seen on the face of it. It cannot be done on the basis of hardship caused to a party, but on a total unreasonableness. The Court must satisfy that the statute contains substantive unreasonableness. The conclusion arrived by us is fortified by the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Transport and Dock Workers Union and others Vs. Mumbai Port Trust and another, ((2011) 2 SCC 575), Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur, ((2012) 3 SCC 784), Joginder alis Jindi Vs. State of Haryana, ((2008) (10) SCC 138), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Sunil Bansal ((2009) 10 SCC 446) and Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.B.I. ((2014) 8 SCC 682).

53. In support of the proposition that a statute can be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it is arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14, the petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, ((2014) 8 SCC 682), Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India, ((1995) 1 SCC 732), B. Prabhakar Rao & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (1985 (Supp) SCC 432) and D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, ((1983) 1 SCC 305) and certain observations made by Justice A.C. Gupta in his dissenting judgment in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, ((1981) 4 SCC 675).

54. In our opinion, none of the abovementioned cases is an authority for the proposition that an enactment could be declared unconstitutional on the ground it is arbitrary.

55. In Subramanian Swamy case, ((2014) 8 SCC 682)), the dispute revolved around the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, which was introduced by an amendment in the year 2003. It stipulated that the Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any enquiry or investigation into any offence falling under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, alleged to have been committed by certain classes of employees of the Central Government, etc. The said provision was challenged on the ground it was arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore violative of Article 14. The submission was resisted by the respondent (Union of India) on the ground that such a challenge is impermissible in view of the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., ((1996) 3 SCC 709). But the Constitution Bench eventually declared the impugned provision unconstitutional not on the ground of it being arbitrary but on the ground it makes an unreasonable classification of an otherwise homogeneous group of officers accused of committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without there being reasonable nexus between the classification and the object of the Act.