Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 third stage. If the offending portion of the statute is severable, it is severed and the Court strikes down the impugned provision declaring the same as unconstitutional. 76) In support of the aforesaid proposition that an Act of the Parliament can be invalidated only on the aforesaid two grounds, passages from various judgments were extracted 21. The Court also noted the observations from State of A.P. & Ors. v. MCDOWELL & Co. & Ors.22 wherein it was held that apart from the aforesaid two grounds, no third ground is available to validate any piece of legislation. In the process, it was further noted that in Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.23 (which followed MCDOWELL & Co. case), the Court held that a legislation cannot be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it is arbitrary inasmuch as examining as to whether a particular Act is arbitrary or not implies a value judgment and courts do not examine the wisdom of legislative choices, and, therefore, cannot undertake this exercise. 77) The issue whether law can be declared unconstitutional on the ground of arbitrariness has received the attention of this Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors.24. R.F. Nariman and U.U. Lalit, JJ. 21 State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 22 (1996) 3 SCC 709 23 (2016) 2 SCC 445 24 (2017) 9 SCC 1 discredited the ratio of the aforesaid judgments wherein the Court had held that a law cannot be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it is arbitrary. The Judges pointed out the larger Bench judgment in the case of Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N. & Anr.25 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.26 where manifest arbitrariness is recognised as the third ground on which the legislative Act can be invalidated. Following discussion in this behalf is worthy of note: 87. The thread of reasonableness runs through the entire fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, would violate Article 14. Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] when it is said that a constitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable, yet such challenge would fail on the very ground of the law being unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted. The arbitrariness doctrine when applied to legislation obviously would not involve the latter challenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate, excessive or otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All the aforesaid grounds, therefore, do not seek to differentiate between State action in its various forms, all of which are interdicted if they fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons and citizens in Part III of the Constitution. 88. We only need to point out that even after McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] , this Court has in fact negated statutory law on the ground of it being arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 57