Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Re : {Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India} VS . ...
Re : {Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India} VS . - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 671 : Government authority cannot act irrationally or arbitrarily. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the State''''s actions—whether in distributing largesse, granting contracts, or allotting land—must be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, and free from favouritism or nepotism. Arbitrary action is defined as irrational, unreasonable, not based on sound reason, or done at pleasure without adequate determining principle. The doctrine of arbitrariness is a key component of Article 14, and any action that is arbitrary or unreasonable falls foul of the right to equality. However, courts must not strike down laws or policies merely on the ground of arbitrariness without identifying a constitutional infirmity. The power of judicial review is limited to three grounds: unreasonableness (irrationality), illegality, and procedural impropriety. Thus, while government authority is prohibited from acting arbitrarily, such action must be evaluated against constitutional standards, not merely on the basis of judicial disapproval of policy wisdom.Checking relevance for Principal Chief Conservator of Forest VS Suresh Mathew...
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest VS Suresh Mathew - 2025 4 Supreme 692 : Government authorities must act reasonably and fairly, and their actions cannot be arbitrary or irrational. The law establishes that non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play, and State actions are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that they must be validly based on a discernible reason and not whimsically or for ulterior purposes. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness and in public interest, courts will not interfere, even if procedural errors or prejudice to a tenderer are present. The decision must not be so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached it.Checking relevance for East Coast Railway VS Mahadev Appa Rao...
East Coast Railway VS Mahadev Appa Rao - 2010 5 Supreme 556 : Government authorities cannot act irrationally or arbitrarily. An order passed by a public authority exercising administrative or statutory powers must be based on reasons, and the absence of reasons in such an order suggests a failure to apply mind, which renders the order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The principle of rule of law requires that all state actions be informed by reason, and any action uninformed by reason is considered arbitrary. This is reinforced by the requirement that official power must not be exercised arbitrarily, and that decisions must not lead to unfair discrimination. The courts have emphasized that governance must be by law, not by whim, caprice, or prejudice, and that every state action must be rational and based on discernible principles. Non-application of mind by an authority, especially in the absence of recorded reasons, is a clear manifestation of arbitrariness.Checking relevance for M. P. Power Management Company Limited VS Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited...
M. P. Power Management Company Limited VS Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1170 : Government authorities, including State instrumentalities, cannot act arbitrarily or irrationally, as such actions violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits arbitrariness and ensures that all State actions must be guided by reason, not by whim, caprice, or personal predilection. The principle of non-arbitrariness is fundamental to the rule of law, and any action by a public authority must be rational, based on evidence, and not driven by bad faith or lack of application of mind. A decision that betrays caprice, shows a total non-application of mind, or is otherwise unreasonable may be characterized as arbitrary and thus legally unsustainable.Checking relevance for Central Coalfields Limited VS SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium)...
Central Coalfields Limited VS SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium) - 2016 6 Supreme 353 : A government authority cannot act irrationally or arbitrarily in the decision-making process, particularly in matters relating to tender awards. Judicial review is limited to checking whether the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, or biased. If the decision is bona fide and in public interest, courts will not interfere, even if there is a procedural error or prejudice to a tenderer. This principle was affirmed in cases such as Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, which emphasize that courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the authority, but only ensure the decision is lawful, not merely sound.
