Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 State of Maharashtra [Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 1] , this Court held that after passage of time, a law can become arbitrary, and, 25 (1996) 2 SCC 226 26 (1978) 1 SCC 248 therefore, the freezing of rents at a 1940 market value under the Bombay Rent Act would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (see paras 8 to 15 and 31). xx xx xx 99. However, in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. [State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 453] , SCC at para 22, in State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli [State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 481], SCC at paras 17 to 19, in Rajbala v. State of Haryana [Rajbala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 445], SCC at paras 53 to 65 and in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India [Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59], SCC at paras 80 to 82, McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] was read as being an absolute bar to the use of arbitrariness as a tool to strike down legislation under Article 14. As has been noted by us earlier in this judgment, McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] itself is per incuriam, not having noticed several judgments of Benches of equal or higher strength, its reasoning even otherwise being flawed. The judgments, following McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] are, therefore, no longer good law. 78) The historical development of the doctrine of arbitrariness has been noticed by the said Judges in Shayara Bano in detail. It would be suffice to reproduce paragraphs 67 to 69 of the said judgment as the discussion in these paras provide a sufficient guide as to how a doctrine of arbitrariness is to be applied while adjudging the constitutional validity of a legislation. 67. We now come to the development of the doctrine of arbitrariness 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. stated: (SCC p. 38, para 85) 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 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., a way of life, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all- embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 58