Constitutional Dilemma in the Delhi High Court Order The recent order of…

Introduction – The Constitutional Framework of Judicial Review in India The question…

Abstract
From Article 14’s principle of equal treatment, emerged a doctrine named ‘manifest arbitrariness’ crafted by courts to overturn unchecked government actions and sweeping laws.
This article examines the concept of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ as applied by the Supreme Court of India under Article 14 of the Constitution. Though the term is absent from the Constitution, judicial decisions have used it to invalidate legislation and executive action that appear capricious, disproportionate, or lacking a determinative principle. Starting with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu in 1974, moving through Shayara Bano v. Union of India in 2017, then Joseph Shine v. Union of India in 2018, followed by the Association for Democratic Reforms case on electoral bonds in 2024, and recent arbitration rulings in 2025, this doctrine evolves from philosophical principle to stylistic weapon. Far from a formal test, manifest arbitrariness operates as an interpretive style where tone and principle carry more force than rigid logic. Its expressive weight invokes deeper constitutional values when laws lack determinative clarity. While enabling vital oversight, predictability concerns persist; hybrid standards could ensure clearer application. From constitutional silence to modern judgments’ rhetorical core, it reveals Article 14’s evolving grammar.