E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court, 1973) — equality as a guarantee against arbitrariness

Until Royappa, Article 14 was tested only by reasonable classification. This case declared that arbitrariness is itself a denial of equality. Maneka Gandhi carried the idea into Article 21, and the striking down of section 303 of the Penal Code in Mithu, of the pregnancy rule in Nargesh Meerza and of the pension cut-off in Nakara all rest on it.

The petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the Tamil Nadu cadre, was in November 1969 selected as the best suited for the post of Chief Secretary and promoted to it. In April 1971 the State Government created a temporary post of Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission in the grade of Chief Secretary, with the same rank and emoluments, and appointed him to it; he did not join and went on leave. When the post was created again for a further year and he was again appointed, he represented that continuing it in the Chief Secretary's rank beyond a year would be invalid under rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The State then created a temporary post of Officer on Special Duty for streamlining and rationalising the sales-tax law, again "in the grade of Chief Secretary", and appointed him to it; he did not join that either. He petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32, contending that his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary to posts inferior in status and responsibility, while a junior was appointed and confirmed as Chief Secretary, violated Articles 14 and 16, and that the transfer was mala fide, made at the instance of the Chief Minister.

Ray C.J., Palekar, Chandrachud, Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer JJ. The Chief Justice delivered one judgment; Bhagwati J. delivered a separate judgment for himself, Chandrachud and Krishna Iyer JJ., agreeing "with the final conclusion reached in the judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice" but with a different approach and reasoning.

1. Were the posts of Deputy Chairman and Officer on Special Duty inferior in status and responsibility to that of Chief Secretary, so that the transfer denied the petitioner equality under Articles 14 and 16?
2. Was the transfer mala fide?

Dismissed on the facts. The petitioner had himself accepted the post of Deputy Chairman as of the same status and responsibility as that of Chief Secretary. As to the post of Officer on Special Duty, the Court was "not prepared to accept the thesis that the post of Officer on Special duty was equal in status and responsibility to the post of Chief.Secretary as claimed by the respondents", but equally the petitioner had not satisfactorily established that it was inferior: "What has to be seen for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties, attached to the two posts. Merely giving the salary of one post to the other does not make for equivalence." On mala fides the proof required was of a high degree; suspicion could not take the place of proof, and "We cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in up-holding the plea of mala fides has been placed before us in the present case." The petition was dismissed.

The new dimension of Article 14. Bhagwati J. said that equality is a founding faith and "must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach." "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, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Arts. 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action" and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.

Article 14 is not exhausted by the doctrine of reasonable classification. It embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness: State action that is arbitrary is for that reason unequal and violates Article 14, and, where public employment is concerned, Article 16 as well. On the facts the petitioner failed to prove either inequality of the posts or mala fides.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) applied the principle to Article 21, holding that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair and not arbitrary, and the compilations trace Mithu, Nargesh Meerza, Nakara and the "activist magnitude" of equality in Ramana Dayaram Shetty to this judgment.