Home | Legal Advice | Case Law | E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu: A Landmark Judgement on Equality

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu: A Landmark Judgement on Equality


The E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu case is a seminal judgment in the constitutional jurisprudence of India, known for its innovative interpretation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. It opened new vistas in understanding the essence of equality in India and set a precedent for subsequent cases.


  1. Facts of the Case: E.P. Royappa was the Chief Secretary of the state of Tamil Nadu. He was transferred and posted as Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. He challenged his transfer on the ground that it was mala fide (with bad intentions) and arbitrary.
  2. Ground of Challenge: Royappa contended that his transfer was malicious, made without reasonable cause, and was thus a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

  1. Is the transfer of E.P. Royappa arbitrary and mala fide?
  2. What is the true scope and ambit of Article 14 concerning administrative actions?

Judgement and Key Takeaways

  1. Arbitrariness as Violation of Article 14: Justice Bhagwati, in his judgment, made an iconic observation: “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits.” He further stated that arbitrariness itself is antithetical to equality. If any state action is arbitrary, it inherently implies unequal treatment and is thus violative of Article 14.
  2. Mala Fide Action: The court observed that if any administrative action is based on mala fide intentions, it would be invalid. However, in Royappa’s case, the court did not find sufficient evidence to establish mala fides for the transfer.
  3. Interplay of Article 14 & 16: The court highlighted that Articles 14 and 16 are facets of the principle of equality. Thus, if an action violates Article 14, it would inherently lead to a violation of Article 16, which ensures equality of opportunity in public employment.

Implications and Importance

  1. Arbitrariness as a Ground: Prior to this case, “classification test” was the primary tool under Article 14. However, post-Royappa, the introduction of ‘arbitrariness’ as a ground to challenge state actions expanded the scope of judicial review and provided an additional layer of protection against arbitrary administrative actions.
  2. Modern Approach to Equality: By linking arbitrariness to inequality, the court shifted from a traditional approach, giving a more extensive and dynamic interpretation to the concept of equality.
  3. Precedent for Future Cases: The principle laid down in Royappa became a foundation for future judgments, especially the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the concept of non-arbitrariness was further elaborated.


E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu stands as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. By equating arbitrariness with inequality, the Supreme Court not only expanded the scope of Article 14 but also equipped the common citizen with a potent tool against arbitrary state actions. The case remains a testament to the evolving and progressive nature of Indian jurisprudence on equality.

Kanoonirai has been advising in legal issues since October 2014. You can consult a lawyer through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.