“Government Cannot Act Contrary to Its Own Policy”: Constitutional Discipline, Administrative Fairness, and the Supreme Court’s Intervention in Rajasthan Village Naming

Introduction

The idea’s pretty basic: if the government sets a policy, it has to follow it. That’s kind of the backbone of the Constitution in India. Sure, the executive has a lot of wiggle room when it comes to making and carrying out policy, but that freedom isn’t unlimited. The courts can step in, especially if the government suddenly ignores its own rules without a proper reason or any transparency. That’s not just bad form, it’s unfair, and Article 14 of the Constitution doesn’t allow for that kind of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court’s recent move in Rajasthan’s village naming dispute of scrapping the decision to name some revenue villages after certain people, drives this point home.

What the judgment really gets at is this: being consistent isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s a constitutional must. Even if the government ticks all the boxes on the paperwork, it can still mess up if it goes against its own declared policies. And the Court didn’t stop there. It put the whole thing in a bigger frame, talking about equality, public interest, and making sure the system stays accountable.

Policy as a Binding Constraint on Executive Power

In India, even though executive policies aren’t laws in the strictest sense, they’re still a big deal. Once the government puts a policy out there, it has to stick to it unless it changes it openly and legally. If officials start ignoring their own policies for no good reason, it just isn’t fair, and it chips away at the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of India has, on multiple occasions, reiterated that administrative authorities are bound by the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and adherence to self-imposed policies. In Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation¹ and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga², the Court underscored that governmental discretion is not unfettered; it must be exercised in a manner that is transparent, reasonable, and consistent with established norms. These decisions firmly establish that deviation from declared policy without rational justification invites judicial scrutiny. The recent developments in Rajasthan serve as yet another reminder that administrative power must operate within the contours defined by policy and law.

Rajasthan’s own policy framework, articulated in a 2009 circular, leaves little room for ambiguity. It expressly prohibits naming revenue villages after individuals, religions, or castes, mandating instead the adoption of neutral nomenclature preferably one reflecting broad community consensus. This directive was not merely advisory in nature; it constituted a binding administrative standard intended to safeguard fairness, inclusivity, and institutional neutrality in local governance.

When the Government Breaks Its Own Rules

Notwithstanding the existence of a clear and unequivocal policy, the State proceeded to name newly constituted villages after individuals who had donated land. While such donations are undoubtedly acts of public generosity and contribute to community development, the Supreme Court of India categorically rejected the notion that expressions of gratitude can supersede established policy norms. Administrative discretion, the Court emphasized, cannot be exercised on the basis of benevolence or goodwill if doing so results in a departure from binding guidelines. Fairness and institutional neutrality cannot be compromised, irrespective of the perceived nobility of the underlying act.

The State sought to justify its action by contending that it had acted within the four corners of statutory authority under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. However, the Court made it clear that statutory competence alone does not immunize executive action from scrutiny. The lawful exercise of power requires not only compliance with the enabling statute but also fidelity to self-imposed policy constraints. Legal authority and policy discipline operate in tandem; adherence to one cannot excuse disregard of the other.

Court’s Held On The Policy Stance

The judgment was not confined to the immediate controversy; rather, it articulated broader constitutional principles with implications extending well beyond Rajasthan. The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed several foundational doctrines governing administrative action:

• Once the government formulates and adopts a policy, it is bound to adhere to it unless and until it is validly amended or withdrawn through a lawful process. Selective application or “cherry-picking” is impermissible.
• A departure from established policy without cogent and rational justification constitutes arbitrariness, which is antithetical to the equality mandate under Constitution of India, particularly Article 14.
• The mere fact that an action has already been implemented does not insulate it from judicial correction. If an executive decision is found to be unconstitutional or legally infirm, it may be set aside notwithstanding its prior execution.
• In matters concerning public institutions, public spaces, or civic nomenclature, considerations of collective welfare and institutional neutrality must prevail over individual recognition or private benefaction.

At its core, the ruling reiterates a simple yet fundamental proposition: executive convenience cannot override constitutional discipline. The issue was not merely about the naming of villages, but about the larger principles of fairness, equality, and integrity in public administration. By restoring the Single Judge’s decision and setting aside the contrary order of the High Court, the Supreme Court clarified that judicial scrutiny must focus on the substance of executive action whether it conforms to law and declared policy rather than being confined to procedural technicalities or subsequent developments.

The implications of the judgment resonate across India, where disputes over naming public roads, statues, welfare schemes, and institutions frequently arise, often influenced by political considerations or assertions of legacy. The Court’s message is unambiguous: constitutional values and sound policy governance take precedence over administrative expediency.

For government authorities, the decision serves as a pointed reminder:

• A duly adopted policy is binding in character and cannot be disregarded at will.
• Any proposed deviation or modification must follow a transparent and reasoned process.
• Even decisions perceived as symbolic may carry significant constitutional consequences.

For citizens, the ruling highlights that governmental accountability does not end with policy formulation; rather, it begins there.

Importantly, the Court’s intervention cannot be characterized as judicial overreach. The judges did not opine on the desirability of creating new villages or on the merits of accepting land donations. Their role was confined to ensuring that executive authorities acted within the framework of the law and their own declared policies. Judicial review, in this context, is not an exercise in policy-making but a constitutional safeguard—one that preserves public trust and prevents the erosion of institutional norms through arbitrary departures from established standards.

Conclusion

 The Supreme Court said the government can’t just brush aside its own policies. That’s a basic rule of constitutional and administrative law. In a democracy, governance isn’t just about wielding power, it’s about being consistent, accountable, and fair. By striking down the naming of villages that ignored the declared policy, the Court didn’t just enforce a piece of paper. It stood up for bigger ideas, equality, neutrality, and the rule of law.

The message is clear: public power is a trust, and it only works when the State holds itself to the standards it sets. These days, when officials have more and more leeway, this judgment brings things back in balance. Policies have to mean something, and the Constitution isn’t just for show, it’s supposed to guide how we’re governed.

1. 1990 SCR (1) 818 ↩︎
2. 1998 AIR SC 1703 ↩︎