Doctrine of arbitrariness under Article 14
Doctrine of Arbitrariness under Article 14: Overview
Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973):
States that "the dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable."
Implicitly guarantees the right to due process, fairness, and protection from arbitrary actions by the state.
The Doctrine of Arbitrariness is a judicially created principle that prohibits government actions that are irrational, unjust, unfair, or lacking in due process.
What is Arbitrariness?
Arbitrariness means action taken without adequate reasoning, consistency, or fairness.
An arbitrary act violates the rule of law and fundamental rights.
Under Article 14, any executive or administrative action must not be arbitrary or whimsical.
Role of the Doctrine
To check abuse of power by administrative and executive authorities.
To ensure that state actions conform to principles of reasonableness and fairness.
Acts as a foundation for judicial review of administrative decisions.
Safeguards the right to life, dignity, and personal liberty.
Key Cases on Doctrine of Arbitrariness under Article 14
1. Dossani v. Federation of Pakistan (1977)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the arbitrary confiscation of property by the government without following due process.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that any executive action must not be arbitrary and must be supported by law.
Significance: Early affirmation that arbitrary government action violates Article 14’s guarantee of dignity and due process.
2. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (1988)
Facts: Challenge to the dissolution of the National Assembly by the President under Article 58(2)(b).
Holding: The Supreme Court declared that arbitrary dissolution violates constitutional principles, including Article 14.
Significance: The Court emphasized that the exercise of discretionary power must not be arbitrary or mala fide.
3. Zaheer-ud-Din v. Pakistan (PLD 1978 SC 1)
Facts: Detention under preventive detention laws without sufficient cause.
Holding: The Court ruled that detention without adequate justification is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14.
Significance: Strengthened safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
4. Habib Bank Ltd. v. Pakistan (1994)
Facts: The government nationalized a bank without providing clear justification or compensation.
Holding: The Court struck down the action as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 rights.
Significance: Expanded the scope of arbitrariness doctrine to economic rights and property.
5. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (1994)
Facts: Public interest litigation about environmental hazards and negligence by the Water and Power Development Authority.
Holding: The Court held that administrative negligence causing harm violates the doctrine of arbitrariness.
Significance: Applied the doctrine to protect environmental rights and public safety.
6. Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 1067)
Facts: Challenge against executive orders undermining judicial independence.
Holding: The Supreme Court reiterated that any arbitrary interference with judicial independence violates Article 14 and constitutional guarantees.
Significance: Reinforced that arbitrariness cannot undermine fundamental institutional principles.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Dossani v. Federation (1977) | Arbitrary confiscation of property | Executive action must not be arbitrary |
| Benazir Bhutto v. Federation (1988) | Arbitrary dissolution of Assembly | Discretionary powers must not be arbitrary |
| Zaheer-ud-Din v. Pakistan (1978) | Preventive detention without cause | Detention without justification is arbitrary |
| Habib Bank Ltd. v. Pakistan (1994) | Arbitrary nationalization | Arbitrary economic/state actions violate Article 14 |
| Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (1994) | Administrative negligence/environmental harm | Negligence causing harm is arbitrary and unconstitutional |
| SHC Bar Assoc. v. Federation (2016) | Arbitrary interference in judiciary | Arbitrary acts undermine judicial independence |
Key Takeaways
Arbitrariness under Article 14 is a broad principle protecting citizens from unjust, irrational, or unfair state actions.
It extends beyond physical liberty to property, environmental rights, and institutional independence.
Courts use this doctrine to ensure fairness, accountability, and respect for constitutional rights.
It is an essential tool for judicial review of administrative and executive actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments