Page:Joseph Shine vs Union of India (Adultery Judgement).pdf/24

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

24

should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. (See Dicey — “Law of the Constitution” — 10th Edn., Introduction cx). “Law has reached its finest moments”, stated Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderlick [342 US 98],

“9.....when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler…. Where discretion, is absolute, man has always suffered”. It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes [(1770) 4 Burr. 2528 at 2539],
“.....means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour: it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful......”.”

This was in the context of service rules being seniority rules, which applied to the Income Tax Department, being held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

19.   Thereafter, our learned brother referred to the authorities in State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram[1], Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[2], E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[3], Maneka


  1. (1968) 1 SCR 349
  2. (1975) Supp SCC 1
  3. (1974) 3 SCC 3