Holding

The 2015 Act is manifestly arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 300A, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Summary

The appellant, a descendant and trustee of the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library, challenged the Bihar State Legislature's 2015 Act that compulsorily acquired the Institute and dissolved its trust. The High Court had upheld the Act, but the Supreme Court examined whether the legislation was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act extinguished long‑standing trust rights, provided only a nominal compensation of up to one rupee, and was enacted without any inquiry, justification or proportionality to the stated objective of better management. Relying on a line of precedents establishing arbitrariness as a ground to strike down legislation, the Court found the Act to be unreasonable, excessive and confiscatory. Consequently, the Act was declared unconstitutional, the High Court order set aside, and the trust restored to its pre‑Act position.

Issues considered

Whether the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the Act effects compulsory acquisition and extinguishment of rights in a confiscatory manner, thereby offending Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India
Indian Trust Act, 1882
Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015s. 3, s. 4(2), s. 5, s. 6, s. 7

Headnote

Issue for Consideration i) Whether the Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; ii) Whether the impugned Act effects compulsory acquisition and thereby offending Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.14 – Validity of Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 (impugned Act) – The

Subjects

TrustPublic trustCompulsory acquisitionTakeoverArbitraryFairnessArt.300A of the Constitution of IndiaArt.14 of the Constitution of IndiaLegislative enactmentExtinguishment of rightsDeprivation of propertyRights of management and administrationLaw must be fair, reasonable and non-confiscatory

Judgment

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 465 : 2026 INSC 219

Anurag Krishna Sinha
v.
State of Bihar & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 13581 of 2025)
10 March 2026
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
i) Whether the Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand
Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
ii) Whether the impugned Act effects compulsory acquisition and
extinguishment of rights in a confiscatory manner, thereby offending
Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Validity of Srimati Radhika
Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition &
Management) Act, 2015 (impugned Act) – The Institute & Library
were established in the year 1924 – A formal Deed of Trust was
executed on 10.03.1926 – On 24.11.1955, an agreement was
entered into between the Government of Bihar and the Trust,
whereby the Institute & Library were accorded the status of
a State Central Library – It was expressly agreed that control
and management of the institution and its property would
continue to vest in the trustees, while the State Government
would provide financial assistance – The State promulgated the
Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachichidanand Sinha Library
(Acquisition and Management) Ordinance, 1983, by which the
Trust was sought to be acquired and vested in the State – Writ
petition – The Ordinance was challenged – Ordinances lapsed –
The High Court rejected the writ petition – The Bihar State
Legislature enacted the impugned Act – Again, writ petition
was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed and the
validity of the Act was upheld – Correctness:
Held: The impugned Act authorises the State to take over
the Institute & Library in its entirety, dissolving existing legal
arrangements and divesting long-standing rights, without any

* Author
466 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

demonstrated necessity, objective criteria, or prior inquiry – The
manner in which this power is exercised is excessive, unreasoned
and disproportionate to the stated object of “better management
and development” – This Court is of the view that Srimati Radhika
Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition &
Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of
Art.14 of the Constitution of India – Further, the scheme of the
Act permits deprivation of property without adherence to basic
requirements of fairness and due process – The absence of any
principled or meaningful framework for compensation underscores
the arbitrary character of the legislative measure – While Art.300A
permits deprivation of property by authority of law, such law must
be fair, reasonable and non-confiscatory – The impugned Act
fails to meet this standard – The Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute
and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management)
Act, 2015 is unconstitutional and is accordingly struck down –
Accordingly, the Trust governing the Institute & Library, together
with its rights of management and administration, shall stand
restored to its pre-existing legal position prior to the enactment of
the impugned Act – This shall not preclude the State Government
from providing financial assistance, administrative support or
regulatory oversight in accordance with law. [Paras 50-53]

Trust – Public Trust – Determination of legal character:
Held: The fact that an institution is intended to serve a public
purpose or is open to public use does not, by itself, conclusively
determine that the trust is a public trust in law – The legal character
of a trust depends on several factors, including the manner in
which the dedication is made, the structure of the trust, the nature
of control and management, and the rights reserved by the Settlor
and his successors under the trust deed – A public-facing object,
standing alone, is not determinative. [Para 19]
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Principle of equality – Evolution
of – Discussed. [Paras 23-34]

Constitution of India – Art.14 – Equality before the law is not
a mere formal concept:
Held: The guarantee by Art.14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action
and ensures that the exercise of legislative power is informed by
reason, fairness and non-discrimination – Equality before the law
is not a mere formal concept; it embodies the principle that State
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 467

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

action, whether legislative or executive, must be based on rational
criteria and must not operate in an arbitrary or capricious manner –
From an early stage, this Court has interpreted this guarantee not
merely as a prohibition against formal discrimination, but as a
constitutional injunction against arbitrariness in State action – The
evolution of this principle is traceable through a consistent line of
authorities. [Para 23]

Constitution of India – Art.14 – Arbitrariness – A ground to
strike down legislation:
Held: The principle that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality now
operates as a firm substantive constitutional limitation on legislative
power – Manifest arbitrariness is a ground available to this Court
to strike down legislation under the judicial review of Art.14 – It is
acknowledged that this power must be exercised with care and
restraint, so as to maintain the constitutional balance between the
legislature and the judiciary – However, where clear and substantive
unreasonableness is embedded in a legislative enactment, the
Court is not only empowered but obliged to intervene. [Para 32]

Constitution of India – Art.14 – Arbitrariness is not confined
to discriminatory classification:
Held: As the jurisprudence u/Art.14 makes clear, arbitrariness
is not confined to discriminatory classification – A law which
proceeds on unreasoned assumptions, adopts excessive means,
or operates without adequate determining principles equally attracts
constitutional censure – The impugned Act, by extinguishing long-
standing rights and arrangements without cogent justification,
departs from the discipline of reason that Art.14 mandates. [Para 43]

Constitution of India – Art.300A – Deprivation of property by
authority of law cannot be arbitrary:
Held: While Art.300A of the Constitution permits deprivation of
property by authority of law, such law must nevertheless be just,
fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary or confiscatory in effect –
A statutory provision that enables acquisition of property while
reducing compensation to a token amount lacks the basic attributes
of fairness – The confiscatory nature of the vesting contemplated
under the impugned Act therefore reinforces the conclusion that the
enactment is manifestly arbitrary and fails constitutional scrutiny.
[Para 45]
468 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Law Cited
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [1967] 2 SCR 703 : AIR 1967
SC 1427; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 :
(1978) 1 SCC 248; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [1981] 2
SCR 79 : (1981)1 SCC 722; Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017]
9 SCR 797 : (2017) 9 SCC 1; Mithu v. State of Punjab [1983] 2
SCR 690 : (1983) 2 SCC 277; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
[1979] 1 SCR 392 : (1978) 4 SCC 494; Joseph Shine v. Union
of India [2018] 11 SCR 765 : AIR 2018 SC 4898; Association for
Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113 : [2024]
2 SCR 420; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974] 2 SCR
34 : (1974) 4 SCC 3 – followed.
Tika Ramji v. State of U.P. [1956] 1 SCR 393 : AIR 1956 SC 676;
Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [2017] 8 SCR 33 : (2018)
1 SCC 407; In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under Section 138
of the N.I.Act, 1881 [2021] 4 SCR 257 : (2021) 16 SCC 116;
Saregama (India) Ltd v. Next Radio Ltd. [2021] 9 SCR 137 :
(2022) 1 SCC 701; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal [2008] 14
SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491; Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [1956]
1 SCR 756 : AIR 1957 SC 133; State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram
[1968] 1 SCR 349; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt.
Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 2 SCR 287 : (1985) 1 SCC 641; K.R.
Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu [1996] 1 SCR 395 : (1996)
2 SCC 226; A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B.
Narasimha Reddy [2011] 14 SCR 1 : (2011) 9 SCC 286; State of
Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co. [1996] 3 SCR 721 : (1996) 3
SCC 709 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and
Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act,
2015; Trust Act, 1882.

List of Keywords
Trust; Public trust; Compulsory acquisition; Takeover; Arbitrary;
Fairness; Art.300A of Constitution of India; Art.14 of the
Constitution of India; Legislative enactment; Extinguishment
of rights; Deprivation of property; Rights of management and
administration; Law must be fair, reasonable and non-confiscatory;
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 469

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Legal character of a trust; Principle of equality; Smt. Radhika
Sinha Institute and Sachichidanand Sinha Library (Acquisition and
Management) Ordinance, 1983; Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute
and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management)
Act, 2015.

Case Arising From
C I V I L A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N : C i v i l A p p e a l N o .
13581 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 7940 of 2015

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rohini Prasad, Ms. Ashika Ranjan.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Manish Kumar, Divyansh Mishra, Kumar
Saurav, Akash Dikshit, Mrigank Prabhakar, Siddharth Sahu, Ms.
Astha Singh, N.R. Shwetabh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 29th
February 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7940 of 2015 whereby the appellant’s
writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court while upholding
the validity of the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand
Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 20151.

A. Background
2. The case before us concerns the Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute
and Sachchidanand Sinha Library2, an institution that has been in

1 Hereinafter, “The Act”.
2 Hereinafter, “Institute & Library”.
470 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

existence for nearly a century. To appreciate the controversy, it is
necessary to briefly trace the history of the Institute & Library and
the circumstances in which it was established.
3. The Institute & Library were established in the year 1924 by Shri
Sachichidanand Sinha3, a distinguished public figure of his time
and a prominent son of the State of Bihar, who served as the first
President of the Constituent Assembly for an interim period. The
Institute & Library was founded in memory of his wife, Smt. Radhika
Sinha. For this purpose, Shri Sachichidanand Sinha addressed a
letter to the then Governor of Bihar and Orissa, offering a sum of
₹50,000 from the sale proceeds of ancestral property belonging to
Smt. Radhika Sinha. The offer was accepted, and the foundation
stone was laid on 28th March 1922. The construction of the buildings
for the Institute and Library was completed using the said amount.
4. Shri Sachichidanand Sinha also donated a substantial collection of
books, numbering approximately 10,000 volumes, to the Library. On
9th February 1924, the Institute & Library were formally declared open
by the Governor. Dr. Sinha made an oral declaration constituting a
trust, appointed trustees, and assumed the role of Trustee, Honorary
Secretary and Chief Executive Officer. An additional sum of ₹50,000
was also provided for the maintenance and upkeep of the institution.
5. A formal Deed of Trust was executed on 10th March 1926 and signed
by all the trustees, including the then Chief Justice of the Patna
High Court as an ex officio trustee. The Trust Deed provided that
the eldest male member of the family would serve as the Honorary
Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, and further stipulated that,
in the event of failure of the Trust, the entire trust property would
revert to the family members of the Settlor.
6. The appellant before this Court is the great-grandson of Shri
Sachichidanand Sinha and Smt. Radhika Sinha, and presently serves
as the Trustee, Honorary Secretary and Chief Executive Officer of
the Institute.
7. On 24 November 1955, an agreement was entered into between
the Government of Bihar and the Trust, whereby the Institute &
Library were accorded the status of a State Central Library. It was

3 The “Settlor”.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 471

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

expressly agreed that control and management of the institution and
its property would continue to vest in the trustees, while the State
Government would provide financial assistance to meet its expenses
in accordance with budgetary allocations.
8. Notably, in 1983, the State Government promulgated the Smt. Radhika
Sinha Institute and Sachichidanand Sinha Library (Acquisition and
Management) Ordinance, 1983, by which the Trust was sought to
be acquired and vested in the State. This was communicated to
Shri Gopal Krishna Sinha, the then Honorary Secretary of the Trust
and father of the present appellant, by a letter dated 21 May 1983
issued by the Education Department. The ordinance was challenged
before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.2458 of 1983, wherein
an interim stay was granted. The ordinance was to lapse on 14
August 1983, but a second ordinance promulgated on 12 August
1983 sought to validate actions taken under the first. The second
ordinance also lapsed thereafter. The High Court ultimately rejected
the writ petition, upholding the letters and orders vide which the trust
stood acquired by the State and held that despite the ordinances
lapsing, their effect must continue. However, this Court, in Civil Appeal
No.2208 of 1984, by order dated 20 February 1996, held that the
lapsing of the ordinances rendered all actions thereunder non est,
and allowed the appeal.
9. More than three decades later, the Bihar State Legislature enacted
the impugned Act. The Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on
6th May 2015 and provided for the takeover of the Institute & Library
by the State Government.
10. The appellant challenged the Act by filing C.W.J.C. No.7940 of 2015
before the Patna High Court. By an interim order dated 22nd May
2015, the operation of the Act was stayed. A special leave petition
filed by the State against the interim order was dismissed by this
Court on 13th July 2015.
11. The High Court heard the matter and passed the present impugned
order dated 29th February 2024. The High Court was of the view
that the Trust governing the Institute & Library was in fact not a
private Trust, observing that the dedication made by the settlor
was in favour of the public of Patna and its neighbourhood being
the general public. Therefore, there is no application of the Indian
472 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Trust Act, 18824. The public interest was found to be clear from the
recitals ‘for better management and development’ in the preamble
of the enactment. It was held that for all purposes, the Institute &
Library was financed by the State Government and the State Librarian
was acting as the ex-officio Chief Librarian of the Library who was
entrusted with the responsibility of general supervision of the working
and administration of the Institute & Library subject to the general
direction of the Trustees.
12. The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition and upheld the
validity of the Act, while observing that the State Government was
obliged to carry on the objects of the Trust.
13. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant is before us.

B. Issues
14. The present appeal gives rise to the following issues:
i. Whether the Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand
Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
ii. Whether the impugned Act effects compulsory acquisition and
extinguishment of rights in a confiscatory manner, thereby
offending Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.

C. Submissions
I. Appellant’s submissions
15. Learned senior advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar made the following
submissions:
i. On Legislative Competence: The impugned Act is an exercise
of legislative power by the State Legislature in respect of a
Private Trust which had the overall control over management
and administration of the said Institute & Library as defined
under Section 2(a) and (b) of the Act.

4 Hereinafter, “Trust Act”.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 473

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

a) The Deed of Trust, the Deed of Agreement, the Deed of
Lease of Land, the Trust and all its committees and sub-
committees stand dissolved under Section 4(2) of the Act.
b) The right, title and interest of the Trustees in the Institute
& Library stands transferred to and vested in the State
Government from the commencement of the said Act
under Section 3 thereof.
c) The Trustees including the appellant are put under a
duty to hand over possession of all assets and furnish
complete particulars, agreements and other instruments
of the Institute & Library to the State Government under
Section 5 and 6 of the said Act.
d) The impugned Act relates to Trust and Trustees i.e. Entry
10 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of
India, which is a field occupied by a Federal Legislation,
namely, the Indian Trusts Act,1882. The Preamble of the
Indian Trusts Act makes it abundantly clear that the object
is to codify the law regarding Trusts and to occupy the
entire field of legislation. Hence, the Trusts Act shall prevail
and the impugned State Act whose subject matter directly
relates to the Trust and its Trustees would be void under
Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
e) The provisions of the impugned Act are in conflict with the
provisions of the Trusts Act. One cannot be obeyed without
disobeying the other. Therefore, the impugned State Act
is repugnant to the Federal Legislation.
f) In this regard, reliance was placed on Tika Ramji vs.
State of U.P5 wherein it was reiterated by this Court in the
case of Innoventive Industries Ltd vs. ICICI Bank6 that
repugnancy may be in three ways – (1) Where the Federal
Legislation expressly or implicitly evinces its intention to
cover the whole field, (2) even in absence of intention,
where the Federal Legislation and State Legislation seek
to exercise their powers over the same subject matter,

5 AIR 1956 SC 676
6 (2018) 1 SCC 407
474 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and (c) where there is a direct conflict between two or
more provisions of the competing Statutes. In any of these
situations, the Federal Legislation prevails and the State
Legislation would be void to the extent of repugnancy.
ii. On the High Court’s Findings on Legislative Competency:
a) The High Court decided the question of repugnancy in
paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. It acknowledged
that the impugned Act and the Trusts Act, both relate to
Entries in List III of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution
of India, however, by applying the doctrine of pith and
substance, the High Court has gone on to hold that the
impugned Act “does not even incidentally trench upon the
Indian Trusts Act”.
b) As was held by this Court in Tika Ramji (supra) and
reiterated in the case of Innoventive Industries (supra),
the doctrine of pith and substance cannot be referred to
while determining questions of repugnancy, once it is found
that both the Federal Legislation and State Legislation are
referable to the Concurrent list.
c) The impugned Act clearly states in its Preamble that the
aim is for the better management of the said Institute
& Library and one of the consequences of vesting as
contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act is that the
Trust would be deemed to be dissolved from the date of
the commencement of the Act. However, the High Court
holds in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that even
if there was acquisition of the property, as in the present
case, it was for better administration of the Trust. Further,
the High Court holds in paragraph 36 that the impugned
Act was to vest the Trust and its properties in the State
Government for better functioning and for furtherance of
the objects of the Trust.
d) The impugned Act clearly lays down in Section 3 that
what vests is the right, title and interest of the Institute &
Library. The definition of Trust in Section 3 of the Trusts
Act is that it is an obligation annexed to the ownership of
property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and
accepted by the owner. The High Court holds in paragraph
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 475

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

18 of the impugned judgment that the obligation travels
with the ownership of the property. However, the High
Court omitted to consider that the obligation has to arise
out of a confidence reposed by the Settlor which cannot
be transferred to anyone. Neither the impugned Act nor
the Trusts Act, even remotely talk about any obligation
dealing with the acquisition of the property.
e) This Court in In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act, 18817 as quoted and followed
in Saregama (India) Ltd vs. Next Radio Ltd.8 has held that
“…Conferring power on the court by reading certain words
into provisions is impermissible. A judge must not rewrite
a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever
temptations the statesmanship of policy-making might
wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation
and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation.
The Judge’s duty is to interpret and apply the law, not to
change it to meet the Judge’s idea of what justice requires.
The court cannot add words to a statute or read words
into it which are not there.”
iii. On “Public Trust”: the parties before the High Court were ad idem
that the Trust in question was a Private Trust and arguments
were advanced accordingly.
a) In the impugned judgment, the High Court records in
paragraph 17 that “…The arguments were addressed on
an assumption that the institution which is a Trust is a
private trust governed by the Indian Trust Act. We have
our own reservations about such assumption, looking at
the deed of Trust authored by the Settlor…” Thereafter,
the High Court went on to make out a third case that the
Trust in question was a Public Trust.
b) In the present appeal, specific grounds are raised by the
appellant regarding the High Court dismissing the writ
petition on facts and grounds neither pleaded nor argued

7 (2021) 16 SCC 116
8 (2022) 1 SCC 701
476 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

before it, thereby denying the appellant the opportunity to
rebut the same and hence being a nullity in the eyes of the
law as it is impermissible for the High Court in exercise of
its power of judicial review to make out a case which was
not the stand taken by the State in their Counter Affidavit,
has not been adverted to by the Respondent-State, much
less denied by them.
c) This Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima
Mandal9 has held that when neither party puts forth a
contention, the Court cannot make out such a case not
pleaded, suo moto.
d) In the present case, neither parties pleaded nor was it
argued that the Trust in question was a Public Trust. In
these circumstances, the High Court could not have made
out a third case that the Trust in question was a Public Trust.
iv. The main point of distinction between a Private Trust and a
Public Trust is; a Private Trust may fail but a Public Trust does
not fail. In the instant case, the Trust Deed itself visualised that
the Trust may fail and also spelled out the consequences of
such a failing.
v. On the impugned Act being confiscatory and violative of Article
300A of the Constitution of India: Section 7 of the impugned
Act states that if any question arises for compensation for the
acquisition, the State Government may pay only maximin one
rupee after examining the claims.
a) Acquisition of property which has devolved on the appellant
by inheritance, without payment of just and adequate
compensation renders the impugned Act confiscatory and
violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
vi. On manifest arbitrariness: for more than a hundred years, the
Trustees, including the appellant and his ancestors as the Chief
Executive Officer and Secretary, have controlled and managed
the Institute & Library which has continued to be open, except
during the Covid pandemic, to the public who have been
permitted reasonable use and enjoyment thereof.

9 (2008) 17 SCC 491.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 477

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

a) There was no allegation of any mismanagement against the
Trustees in any correspondence by the State Government
or in the pleadings before the High Court, or during the
course of arguments before the High Court.
b) The rank arbitrariness of the impugned Act manifests when
one considers the latest Survey of Libraries in the State of
Bihar which shows that there were 540 public libraries in
the State in the 1960’s, out of which only 51 now survive,
and that too in poor condition.
c) The impugned Act is liable to be invalidated on the sole
ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

II. Respondent-State of Bihar’s submissions:
16. Learned senior advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar made the following
submissions:
i. The impugned Act: The preamble of the Act expressly notes that
its object is to provide for the acquisition, transfer and better
management of the Act.
ii. As per the petition, the appellant is the legal heir of the Settlor
of the Trust, member-secretary of the Board of Trustees and
its Chief Executive Officer. The Trust itself has not challenged
the impugned Act. The appellant has no locus or authority to
act on behalf of the Trust.
iii. The Trust is a Public Trust and not a Private Trust: The
appellant has argued before this Court that the High Court
erred by recording a finding that the Trust is public in nature
when the State did not contest this in its pleadings. However,
the appellant specifically argued before the High Court that the
Trust is a Private Trust governed by the Trusts Act. In such
circumstances, it was open to the High Court to hold that the
appellant’s contentions were not correct in law and facts. It is
a settled position as held by this Court in Deoki Nandan vs.
Murlidhar10 and relied upon by the High Court that whether a
Trust is a public or private trust is a mixed question of law and

10 AIR 1957 SC 133
478 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

fact. The factual foundation for the findings of the High Court
were the admitted facts discernible from the Lease Deed.
iv. The appellant has relied on Clause 12 of the Trust Deed, i.e,
the reversal of property to the Settlor in the event the Trust fails,
to contend that the Trust is private. However, that contention
is without merit and it is not the appellant’s case that the Trust
has failed. The Trust Deed clearly envisages the creation of a
Public Trust.
v. The appellant’s challenge to legislative competence is wholly
misconceived. Since the Trust is a Public Trust and Public
Trusts are expressly excluded from the application of the Trusts
Act; consequently, no conflict can arise between the impugned
Act and the Indian Trusts Act. Even on a contrary assumption,
there is no repugnancy because the Trusts Act governs the
creation, administration, duties, rights and revocation of trusts
but does not regulate or prohibit the acquisition of trust property
by the State, which is the subject matter of the impugned Act.
A legislation whose pith and substance is the acquisition of
property is traceable to Entry 42 of List III and the impugned
Act squarely falls within this entry, furnishing an independent
constitutional source of legislative power.
vi. The proposal for nationalisation of the Institute & Library
arose only due to the persistent and undeniable failure of the
Trust to discharges its responsibilities, despite substantial aid,
support and oversight extended by the State Government
over several decades. The State Legislature, in the exercise
of its legislative wisdom and in furtherance of public interest,
deemed it appropriate and necessary to acquire the Institute
& Library and ensure its proper administration, development
and preservation.
vii. The appellant has alleged that the impugned Act is in
contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This
contention is ex facie untenable. The Institute & Library
constitutes a class by itself. It is the appellant’s own case that
the Settlor was an instrumental figure in the State’s history
and the Institute & Library embody his vision and legacy. The
State Government is equally interested in the preservation and
advancement of the legacy of Shri Sachichidananda Sinha. The
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 479

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

impugned Act was enacted to revitalise the Library, safeguard
and honour the Settlor’s legacy and ensure the provision of
improved facilities to the public. The Act, therefore, validly
singles out the Institute & Library as a distinct class and the
classification bears a rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved.
viii. Therefore, the Impugned Act, being constitutionally sound in
its object, scheme and source of legislative power, warrants
no interference.

D. Analysis
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to recall
the genesis and founding purpose of the Institute & Library. The
Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library was
conceived not as a commercial or administrative enterprise, but as
a voluntary act of public beneficence by Shri Sachchidanand Sinha,
a distinguished public figure of his time and a prominent son of the
State of Bihar. Established in the memory of his wife, Smt. Radhika
Sinha, the Institute & Library was founded through the personal
contribution of the Settlor’s property and his own extensive collection
of books, with the avowed object of promoting learning, scholarship
and public access to knowledge. For nearly a century thereafter,
the Institute & Library has continued to function in furtherance of
this founding vision, preserving both a cultural legacy and a public
institution of learning. It is this historical context, and the continuity
of purpose with which the Institute & Library has been managed, that
must inform the constitutional scrutiny of the impugned enactment.
18. Before examining the challenge under Article 14, it is necessary to
briefly address the premise on which the High Court proceeded,
namely the characterisation of the Trust governing the Institute &
Library as a public trust. The High Court has held that the Trust
governing the Institute & Library is a public trust, relying primarily
on the language used in the Deed of Trust executed by the Settlor.
The Deed records the wish of Smt. Radhika Sinha to establish an
institution for “providing the public of Patna and its neighbourhood
with a place for intellectual and social intercourse,” including a library,
reading room and facilities for public meetings. On this basis, the
High Court concluded that the dedication was in favour of the general
public and that the Trust must therefore be treated as a public trust.
480 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

19. In our view, this approach is flawed. The fact that an institution is
intended to serve a public purpose or is open to public use does
not, by itself, conclusively determine that the trust is a public trust
in law. The legal character of a trust depends on several factors,
including the manner in which the dedication is made, the structure
of the trust, the nature of control and management, and the rights
reserved by the Settlor and his successors under the trust deed. A
public-facing object, standing alone, is not determinative.
20. Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act defines a trust as “an obligation
attached to the ownership of property, arising from a confidence
reposed by the Settlor and accepted by the trustee”. In the present
case, Shri Sachchidanand Sinha clearly reposed such confidence
in identified trustees through a formal Deed of Trust. The Deed also
provided for succession to the office of Honorary Secretary and Chief
Executive Officer, and for reversion of the trust property in the event
of failure of the Trust. These provisions are material and cannot be
disregarded merely because the Institute & Library was intended to
benefit the public.
21. It is also significant that neither party before the High Court pleaded
or argued that the Trust was a public trust. The case was argued on
the common assumption that the Trust was a private trust governed
by the Indian Trusts Act. In such circumstances, the High Court could
not have proceeded to decide the case on an entirely different basis
without affording an opportunity to address that issue.
22. In any event, even if it were assumed that the Trust has a public
character, that fact alone does not legitimise the State’s action
in acquiring the Institute & Library or dissolving the existing trust
arrangements. Whether the Trust is public or private, any legislative
measure resulting in compulsory acquisition and vesting must
satisfy constitutional requirements, particularly those flowing from
Article 14. The question of public or private character, therefore, is
not determinative of the validity of the impugned Act.

Issues I & II
23. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates that “the State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India.” This guarantee strikes at arbitrariness
in State action and ensures that the exercise of legislative power is
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 481

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

informed by reason, fairness and non-discrimination. Equality before
the law is not a mere formal concept; it embodies the principle that
State action, whether legislative or executive, must be based on rational
criteria and must not operate in an arbitrary or capricious manner. From
an early stage, this Court has interpreted this guarantee not merely
as a prohibition against formal discrimination, but as a constitutional
injunction against arbitrariness in State action. The evolution of this
principle is traceable through a consistent line of authorities.
24. In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India,11 a Constitution Bench of
this Court emphasised the centrality of non-arbitrariness to the rule
of law. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the Court observed:
“14.In this context it is important to emphasise that the
absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the
rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is
based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion,
when conferred upon executive authorities, must be
confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from
this point of view means that decisions should be made
by the application of known principles and rules and, in
general, such decisions 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.”
Therefore, this description makes it clear that arbitrariness is
fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance, as it
replaces reasoned decision-making with uncertainty and unfettered
discretion. The absence of arbitrary power was thus recognised as
the first essential of the rule of law upon which the constitutional
system rests.
25. In State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram,12 Rule 9(2) of the Mysore
Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers’ Rules, 1959 was challenged
and struck down by a Constitution Bench as violative of Article 14
read with Article 16(1), on the ground that it conferred arbitrary and
uncanalised power on the government without any guiding principles.

11 AIR 1967 SC 1427
12 [1968] 1 SCR 349.
482 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

26. A landmark development in this line of jurisprudence came with
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,13 where arbitrariness was
recognised as a distinct and independent facet of Article 14, alongside
unjustness and unfairness; establishing three standards against which
State action may be tested when assailed on the touchstone of Article
14. The Constitution Bench categorically stated in paragraph 85:
“85 … From a positivistic point of view, equality
is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the
rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim
and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act
is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and
is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it effects any
matter relating to public employment, it is also violative
of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in
State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.
They require that State action must be based on valid
relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly
situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous
or irrelevant considerations because that would be
denial of equality. Where the operative reason for
State action, as distinguished from motive inducing
from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate
and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of
permissible considerations, it would amount to mala
fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14
and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness
are different lethal radiations emanating from the same
vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both
are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.”
(emphasis supplied)

27. This ratio was followed by a larger Seven-Judge Bench in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India,14 where the Court, while testing provisions

13 (1974) 4 SCC 3
14 (1978) 1 SCC 248
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 483

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

of the Passports Act, reaffirmed that equality and arbitrariness
are antithetical, and that Article 14 infuses the requirement of
reasonableness across all State action. It was observed:
“equality is antithetical to arbitrariness…… Article 14 strikes
at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness,
which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential
element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article
14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure
contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of
reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.
It must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive; otherwise, it .would be no procedure at all
and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.”
28. Thereafter, in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi,15 a Constitution
Bench of this Court affirmed and consolidated the above line of
decisions. In paragraph 16, this Court held:
“16… Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State
action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive
or of an ‘authority’ under Article 12, Article 14 immediately
springs into action and strikes down such State action. In
fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness
pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden
thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the
Constitution.”
The significance of Ajay Hasia lies in its explicit clarification that the
doctrine of arbitrariness operates as a check on legislative action no
less than on executive action and that Article 14 springs into action
wherever arbitrariness is found.
29. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India,16 the constitutionality of import duty imposed on newsprint
imported from abroad under sections of the Custom Act, 1962,
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and levy of auxiliary duty under the Finance
Act, 1981 as modified by notifications issued under Section 25 of

15 (1981) 1 SCC 722.
16 (1985) 1 SCC 641
484 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Customs Act, 1962 was tested. In this decision, the Court further
propounded the test of manifest arbitrariness. The Court observed:
“75. In India arbitrariness is not a separate ground
since it will come within the embargo of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In India any enquiry into the vires of delegated
legislation must be confined to the grounds on which
plenary legislation may be questioned, to the ground that
it is contrary to the statute under which it is made, to the
ground that it is contrary to other statutory provisions or
that it is so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in
conformity with the statute or that it offends Article
14 of the Constitution.”
(emphasis supplied)

30. In K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu,17 the Court struck down
the Tamil Nadu Act, 1986 on the ground of arbitrariness, holding that
the vice of arbitrariness was writ large on the face of the statutory
provisions of the said Act.
31. The application of this doctrine to legislative action was reiterated in
A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha
Reddy.18 In paragraph 29, this Court observed:
“29.It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the
Constitution strikes at arbitrariness because an action that
is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.
This doctrine of arbitrariness is not restricted only to
executive actions, but also applies to the legislature. Thus,
a party has to satisfy that the action was reasonable, not
done in unreasonable manner or capriciously or at pleasure
without adequate determining principle, rational, and has
been done according to reason or judgment, and certainly
does not depend on the will alone. However, the action of
the legislature, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,
should ordinarily be manifestly arbitrary. There must be a
case of substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself
for declaring the act ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.”

17 (1996) 2 SCC 226
18 (2011) 9 SCC 286
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 485

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

32. The doctrine of arbitrariness as a facet of Article 14, capable of being
used to test and strike down legislation, received its most authoritative
affirmation in Shayara Bano v. Union of India.19A Constitution Bench
of this Court held that Triple Talaq was manifestly arbitrary, and in
doing so, brought to rest any remaining divergence or controversy
about whether manifest arbitrariness is a valid ground to invalidate
legislation. In paragraph 84, the Court observed:
“84…Arbitrariness in legislation is very much a facet of
unreasonableness in Articles 19(2) to (6), as has been laid
down in several judgements of this Court…therefore, there
is no reason why arbitrariness cannot be used in aforesaid
sense to strike down legislation under Article 14 as well”
In paragraph 101, the Court further held:
“101…Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something
done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/
or without adequate determining principle. Also, when
something is done which is excessive and disproportionate,
such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are,
therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of
manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would
apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.”
Shayara Bano relied on the Constitution Bench judgments in Mithu v.
State of Punjab20 and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration21, which
were both cases where statutes were struck down on grounds
of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and which drew upon the
sustained line of authority traced above. Significantly, Shayara Bano
(supra) held that State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.22,
which had taken the position that arbitrariness is not a ground on
which plenary legislation may be struck down, to be per incuriam
and bad in law, on the ground that it had failed to consider at least
two binding precedents; a Constitution Bench decision in Ajay
Hasia (supra), a three-Judge decision in K.R. Lakshmanan (supra).
Further, it did not acknowledge another Constitution Bench decision
in Maneka Gandhi (supra).

19 (2017) 9 SCC 1
20 (1983) 2 SCC 277
21 (1978) 4 SCC 494
22 (1996) 3 SCC 709
486 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Hence, it was affirmed that the principle that arbitrariness is antithetical
to equality now operates as a firm substantive constitutional limitation
on legislative power.
33. Post Shayara Bano (supra), the doctrine was applied in Joseph
Shine v. Union of India,23 by a Constitution Bench of this Court where
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was challenged and
struck down as being manifestly arbitrary. The relevant observation
reads thus:
“103…What is clear, therefore, is that this archaic law has
long outlived its purpose and does not square with today’s
constitutional morality, in that the very object with which it
was made has since become manifestly arbitrary, having
lost its rationale long ago and having become in today’s
day and age, utterly irrational. On this basis alone, the law
deserves to be struck down, for with the passage of time,
Article 14 springs into action and interdicts such law
as being manifestly arbitrary. That legislation can be
struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness
is no longer open to any doubt, as had been held by
this Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India [Shayara
Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 : (2017) 4 SCC
(Civ) 277].”
(emphasis supplied)

34. Most recently, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union
of India,24 the validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme and provisions
of the Finance Act, 2017 were challenged. A Constitution Bench of
this Court held them to be unconstitutional and struck them down,
reaffirming that manifest arbitrariness remains a ground available to
Courts to invalidate legislation under Article 14.
35. It is therefore well settled that manifest arbitrariness is a ground
available to this Court to strike down legislation under the judicial
review of Article 14. It is acknowledged that this power must be
exercised with care and restraint, so as to maintain the constitutional

23 AIR 2018 SC 4898
24 2024 INSC 113
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 487

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

balance between the legislature and the judiciary. However, where
clear and substantive unreasonableness is embedded in a legislative
enactment, the Court is not only empowered but obliged to intervene.
36. The arc traced through these decisions, from Jaisinghani (supra) to
Shayara Bano (supra) and beyond, reflects a coherent and settled
constitutional principle being that State action, whether executive or
legislative, must be structured by reason, guided by discernible and
adequate determining principles, and proportionate in its operation
and effect. Arbitrariness, in whatever form it manifests, whether in
the conferral of uncanalised power, the adoption of excessive means,
the absence of rational nexus, or the imposition of consequences
wholly disproportionate to the stated object, is antithetical to the
constitutional guarantee of equality and invites the intervention of
this Court. A law which departs from these requirements attracts
the vice of manifest arbitrariness and is liable to be struck down
as violative of Article 14. These are not abstract propositions; they
are the tested and authoritative foundations on which the present
challenge falls to be adjudicated.
37. Tested against these settled principles, the impugned Act discloses
multiple features of manifest arbitrariness. While the stated object
of the Act is “better management and development” of the Institute
& Library, the means adopted by the legislature bear no rational or
proportionate nexus to that object.
38. Section 3 of the impugned Act effects a complete vesting of the
Institute & Library, together with all rights, title and interest therein,
in the State Government. Section 4(2) simultaneously dissolves the
Deed of Trust, the Agreement, the Lease of land, and all committees
and sub-committees constituted thereunder. The cumulative effect of
these provisions is not regulatory supervision, but total displacement
of a legal and institutional framework that has governed the Institute
& Library for nearly a century.
39. Such a drastic assumption of control represents the most intrusive
form of State intervention. Yet, the record before this Court discloses
no finding of abandonment, failure of purpose, or established
mismanagement of the Institute & Library. No inquiry appears to
have preceded the enactment. No contemporaneous material has
been placed to demonstrate that the objectives of the Trust were
being defeated or that lesser measures were inadequate. In the
488 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

absence of demonstrated necessity, compulsory acquisition coupled
with dissolution of trust arrangements is plainly disproportionate.
40. This Court, in the course of hearing the present appeal, summoned
the original records pertaining to the impugned Act. These records,
which included the correspondence exchanged between the State
Government and the Trust, were produced and examined by this
Court. The examination reveals a significant and telling gap as
there is not a single communication from the State Government to
the Trust or its Trustees bringing to their notice any allegation of
mismanagement, financial irregularity, neglect, or failure to discharge
the objects of the Trust. The record contains no correspondence to
the effect that the Institute & Library was non-functional, that its affairs
were being conducted improperly, or that the funds of the Trust were
being misused. Before the passing of the impugned Act, the State
Government neither intimated the Trust of any such concern, nor
afforded it any opportunity to respond or to take corrective steps,
nor furnished any reasons for the proposed acquisition. A measure
of such sweeping consequence including complete divestiture of an
institution that has functioned for nearly a century, cannot rest on
assumptions that were never put to the very persons sought to be
displaced. This itself is a powerful indicator of the arbitrary character
of the legislative action.
41. There is a further circumstance which bears directly on the State’s
claim of mismanagement. Under the arrangement governing the
Institute & Library, the State Librarian functioned as the ex-officio
Chief Librarian of the Library and was entrusted with the responsibility
of general supervision over its working and administration, subject
to the overall direction of the Trustees. The day-to-day management
of the Institute & Library thus fell squarely within the domain of a
government-appointed functionary. It necessarily follows that any
mismanagement in the functioning of the Institute & Library, which
the State now invokes as the justification for a complete legislative
takeover, would, at least in part, have fallen within the supervisory
responsibility of this very official. Yet, the record does not disclose
that any notice was ever issued to the State Librarian, that any
inquiry was ever initiated against him, or that any action of any kind
was taken in respect of discharge of duties, by the said official. The
State, therefore, is not in a position to rely on mismanagement as
the basis for the acquisition when it failed to act against its own
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 489

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

appointee, who was charged with the general administration of the
very institution whose management it now seeks to impugn. This
inconsistency further reinforces that the stated rationale of the Act
does not withstand scrutiny.
42. The State has placed on record that, following the enactment of the
impugned Act, a sum of Rs. 72,89,88,640/- (Rupees Seventy-Two
Crores Eighty-Nine Lakhs Eighty-Eight Thousand Six-Hundred and
Forty only) has been sanctioned towards construction, renovation
and infrastructure enhancement of the Institute & Library, of which
an amount of Rs. 16,24,12,840/- (Rupees Sixteen-Crores Twenty-
Four Lakhs Twelve-Thousand Eight-Hundred and Forty only) has
already been released; that dedicated funds have been sanctioned
for the rejuvenation of the heritage building; that modern technology
and digital tools have been introduced; and that approval has been
granted for the construction of a new multi-storeyed library building.
This Court does not doubt that such investment reflects a genuine
commitment to the preservation and development of a historically
significant institution. However, the question that this Court must
ask is whether a complete legislative acquisition of the Institute &
Library by dissolving its Trust, extinguishing long-standing rights, and
displacing a century-old institutional framework, was a necessary
precondition for such investment. The answer is in the negative. The
State is well equipped, through constitutional and statutory means,
to extend financial assistance to trust institutions and to ensure that
such assistance is applied to its intended purpose, without resorting
to outright acquisition. Grant-in-aid, conditional funding, statutory
audit, and supervisory oversight are all established mechanisms
that serve this purpose without displacing existing management. The
scale of post-takeover investment does not validate the takeover; it
demonstrates, if anything, that the State’s objective could have been
achieved through far less drastic means. That the legislature chose
the most extreme measure available, when less invasive alternatives
were plainly at hand, is itself a manifestation of the arbitrariness that
the impugned Act discloses.
43. As the jurisprudence under Article 14 makes clear, arbitrariness is
not confined to discriminatory classification. A law which proceeds
on unreasoned assumptions, adopts excessive means, or operates
without adequate determining principles equally attracts constitutional
censure. The impugned Act, by extinguishing long-standing rights and
490 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

arrangements without cogent justification, departs from the discipline
of reason that Article 14 mandates.
44. The arbitrariness of the statutory scheme is further aggravated by
the compensation provision contained in Section 7. The provision
authorises the State Government to pay compensation, if any, up to
a maximum of one rupee, after examining claims, without prescribing
any principles, criteria, or procedural safeguards. Such a scheme
vests unguided discretion in the legislature and reduces compensation
to a nominal and illusory figure.
45. While Article 300A of the Constitution permits deprivation of property
by authority of law, such law must nevertheless be just, fair and
reasonable, and not arbitrary or confiscatory in effect. A statutory
provision that enables acquisition of property while reducing
compensation to a token amount lacks the basic attributes of fairness.
The confiscatory nature of the vesting contemplated under the
impugned Act therefore reinforces the conclusion that the enactment
is manifestly arbitrary and fails constitutional scrutiny.
46. The legislative history preceding the impugned enactment also bears
relevance. An earlier attempt by the State to take over the Institute
& Library through ordinances in 1983 did not pass muster of judicial
scrutiny, and the consequences of those ordinances were set aside
by this Court in 1996 upon their lapse, restoring the Trust to its prior
legal position. The legislature is, of course, competent to enact a fresh
law. However, the impugned Act, enacted more than three decades
later, seeks to achieve substantially the same outcome as the failed
ordinance of 1983, without any intervening change in circumstances
and without any fresh material justifying acquisition being placed on
record. The mere passage of time does not supply any justification.
When a legislature re-enacts substantially the same measure that
has previously failed, without placing any new or cogent material
before the Court to justify the same, the legislative history becomes
a relevant consideration. Viewed in light of this, the history of this
enactment reinforces the findings of manifest arbitrariness in the
impugned Act.
47. It is also material that the impugned Act targets a single institution
for complete takeover, without disclosing any intelligible basis for
such exclusive treatment. The State’s own material indicates that
several public libraries in the State have ceased to function or are in
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 491

Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

a state of disrepair. The selective application of an extreme legislative
measure to a functioning institution, without objective criteria, further
underscores the absence of a rational and principled approach.
48. Viewed cumulatively, the scheme of the impugned Act reveals a
pattern of arbitrariness: complete vesting of property in the State,
dissolution of long-standing trust arrangements, absence of any
finding of necessity or mismanagement, provision for illusory
compensation, and lack of guiding principles or safeguards. Each of
these features, taken individually, raise serious constitutional concern;
taken together, they render the enactment manifestly arbitrary in its
conception and operation.
49. In light of the settled jurisprudence under Article 14, as traced in
the decisions of this Court referred to above, the impugned Act
cannot be sustained. The legislation fails the test of reasonableness,
proportionality and non-arbitrariness, and consequently violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of this conclusion, it
is unnecessary to examine the remaining contentions relating to
legislative competence and repugnancy in further detail.

E. Conclusion
50. The impugned Act authorises the State to take over the Institute
& Library in its entirety, dissolving existing legal arrangements and
divesting long-standing rights, without any demonstrated necessity,
objective criteria, or prior inquiry. The manner in which this power is
exercised is excessive, unreasoned and disproportionate to the stated
object of “better management and development”. We are therefore
satisfied that the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand
Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
51. Further, the scheme of the Act permits deprivation of property without
adherence to basic requirements of fairness and due process. The
absence of any principled or meaningful framework for compensation
underscores the arbitrary character of the legislative measure. While
Article 300A permits deprivation of property by authority of law, such
law must be fair, reasonable and non-confiscatory. The impugned
Act fails to meet this standard.
52. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 29th February
2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ
492 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Jurisdiction Case No.7940 of 2015 is set aside. The Srimati Radhika
Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition &
Management) Act, 2015 is declared unconstitutional and is accordingly
struck down.
53. Accordingly, the Trust governing the Institute & Library, together with
its rights of management and administration, shall stand restored to
its pre-existing legal position prior to the enactment of the impugned
Act. This shall not preclude the State Government from providing
financial assistance, administrative support or regulatory oversight
in accordance with law.
54. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
55. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan