Justice Nariman's Revival of Manifest Arbitrariness Doctrine

Source: livelaw.in

TL;DR

• Justice Nariman revived the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness in Shayara Bano (2017) to strike down triple talaq as violative of Article 14.
• The doctrine tests if legislation is capricious, irrational, or lacks adequate determining principle, extended to plenary laws.
• It equips courts to invalidate drastically unreasonable statutes, upholding equality under the Constitution.[[1]](https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/justice-narimans-revival-of-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness-to-strike-down-legislation-150312)

The story at a glance

The article examines how Justice R.F. Nariman advanced the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness to challenge legislation under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It credits him for applying it in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) and notes subsequent uses in cases like Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine. Published on LiveLaw in late 2019 amid evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence on equality, it reflects ongoing debates on judicial review of laws.[[1]](https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/justice-narimans-revival-of-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness-to-strike-down-legislation-150312)[[2]](https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/justice-narimans-revival-of-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness-to-strike-down-legislation-150312#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20manifest%20arbitrariness%20is%20a,Irrational%20*%20Without%20an%20adequate%20determining%20principle)

Key points

• Manifest arbitrariness allows courts to strike down laws that are drastically unreasonable, capricious, irrational, or without adequate determining principle, as defined by Justice Nariman.[[1]](https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/justice-narimans-revival-of-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness-to-strike-down-legislation-150312)
• Originated in Shayara Bano (2017), where the Court invalidated instant triple talaq under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, by a 3:2 majority.[[3]](https://clsnluo.com/2025/11/04/doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness-moving-towards-a-wider-reasonableness-review-part-i)
• Affirmed in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019), upholding the Insolvency Code but confirming the doctrine's scope against plenary legislation.[[4]](https://www.livelaw.in/columns/justice-rohinton-narimans-legacy-notable-judgments-on-liberties-orientation-to-ibc-arbitration-nrc-179422)
• Applied in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) to decriminalize consensual same-sex acts under Section 377 IPC, deeming it capricious.[[5]](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544)
• Used in Joseph Shine (2018) to strike down adultery provisions (Section 497 IPC) as arbitrary and outdated.[[6]](https://lawjurist.com/index.php/2024/08/14/the-evolving-landscape-of-article-14-recent-interpretations-and-applications)
• The article highlights a "latest example" of the doctrine striking down a provision, though specifics are not detailed in available excerpts.[[1]](https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/justice-narimans-revival-of-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness-to-strike-down-legislation-150312)

Details and context

Justice Nariman first elaborated the doctrine in his concurring opinion in Shayara Bano, overruling prior hesitations like in State of A.P. v. McDowell (1996) that limited arbitrariness challenges to executive actions. He argued it applies to legislation if "manifest," distinguishing it from mere unreasonableness to respect legislative deference.[[7]](https://www.livelaw.in/columns/justice-rf-nariman-tripletalaq-constitutionalty-of-section-377-ipc-state-of-ap-v-mcdowell-co-180291)

Post-Shayara Bano, the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine in Swiss Ribbons while validating the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, clarifying it targets only glaring flaws without usurping policy choices. Cases like Navtej Johar and Joseph Shine show its use against discriminatory personal laws rooted in patriarchal norms, prioritizing constitutional morality over social stereotypes.[[8]](https://ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Revival-of-Doctrine-of-Manifest-Arbitrariness.pdf)

The doctrine balances judicial restraint with robust Article 14 review, but draws criticism for vagueness and potential overreach into legislative domain.

Key quotes

"Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle."

— Justice R.F. Nariman in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[[4]](https://www.livelaw.in/columns/justice-rohinton-narimans-legacy-notable-judgments-on-liberties-orientation-to-ibc-arbitration-nrc-179422)

Why it matters

The doctrine strengthens Article 14 as a tool against discriminatory or irrational laws, promoting substantive equality in India's constitutional framework. For lawyers, judges, and citizens challenging statutes, it offers a direct test beyond traditional classification, as seen in personal law reforms. Watch how future benches refine its boundaries amid debates on judicial activism, especially in politically sensitive legislation.[[9]](https://www.barandbench.com/columns/manifest-arbitrariness-and-plenary-legislation)