Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N

4 SCC 3Reported decision1974#1105 most cited

What is Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N authority for?

Arbitrary State action, particularly in matters of public employment, violates the fundamental rights to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, as arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Also referred to as

E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. · 4 SCC 3 · doctrine of arbitrariness · Article 14 · Article 16 · State action · public employment · equality · fundamental rights · rule of law · Bhagwati J.

Judgments citing Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

…R 1969 Guj 74 36. (2013) 9 SCC 659 37. (1986) 2 SCC 68 38. AIR 1955 SC 549 2 39. ILR 1975 Delhi 634 40. AIR 1957 SC 699 41. AIR 1958 SC 468 42. AIR 1955 SC 540 43. AIR 1958 SC 956 44. (2018) 6 SCC 363 45. (2003) 5 SCC 298 46. (2003) 4 SCC 399 47. 1993 Supp (1) 96 (II) 48. (1995) 5 SCC 96 49. (1987) 1 SCC 362 50. (1978) 2 SCC 50 51. (1970) 2 SCC 280 52. (1969) 2 SCC 283 53. (1992) 1 Kar LJ 1 54. (2004) 11 SCC 672 55. (2005) 11 SCC 45 56. (2005) 5 SCC 91 57. (2016) 11 SCC 356 58. 2003 5 SCC 568 59. (2012) 1 SCC 619 60. (2014) 12 SCC 696 61. (2014) 4 SCC 434…

B T KANTHARAJ vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27680/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

NANJUNDAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/47827/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

THARIQ KHAN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8585/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SMT JANAKI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/28215/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6960/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SRI SHIVALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6376/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SRI H K BASAVEGOWDA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/28214/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SMT. PRIYADARSHINI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/35277/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

MOOSAVEER @ IBRAHIM SAB vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/13029/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

N SANTHOSH KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/22667/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SRI C GOVARDHAN REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36459/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SRI RAJANNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/18646/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SMT. MOTAMMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/25219/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

K T THIPPERUDRAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/50828/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SRI A M NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8210/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SRI M B DEVAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/18327/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SMT UMA BALAGAVI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/23800/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

MR G PULLA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/56168/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

SMT. B.C.DHARMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31322/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…rariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctrine on which State action may be struck down as being violative of the rule of law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage, Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38): “85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodie…

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

Bhagwati, J., in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N (4 SCC 3) — Cited in 100 Judgments | BharatTax