Abuse of power and improper purpose
Abuse of Power and Improper Purpose
What is Abuse of Power?
Abuse of power occurs when a public authority exercises a power for an ulterior or improper purpose, rather than for the purpose for which the power was granted by law.
Even if the decision falls within the authority’s formal powers, it can be challenged if the decision-maker acted with an improper motive.
The doctrine safeguards against arbitrary or malicious use of administrative discretion.
What is Improper Purpose?
Improper purpose means using statutory powers not in accordance with the object or intent of the legislation.
The authority must exercise power solely for the purpose intended by the law, not for collateral or irrelevant reasons.
If the purpose is improper, the action is ultra vires (beyond power) and void.
How Courts Assess Abuse of Power?
Courts look at the purpose for which the power was exercised.
They examine evidence about the decision-maker’s motive.
They check whether the exercise of power aligns with statutory objectives.
Important Case Laws on Abuse of Power and Improper Purpose
1. R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore (1957) UK
Context: Tribunal exercised power regarding medical appeals.
Significance:
The court held that if the tribunal uses its power for a purpose other than the one intended by statute, the exercise is unlawful.
Established that an improper purpose invalidates the action, even if within power.
Lesson: The purpose of statutory power is crucial; misuse equals abuse.
2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) AIR SC
Context: Authority denied contract for irrelevant or discriminatory reasons.
Significance:
The Supreme Court struck down the decision for being made on an improper purpose—bias and irrelevant considerations.
The case set a precedent that administrative power must be exercised fairly and for relevant reasons only.
Lesson: Administrative decisions must be free from extraneous or improper motives.
3. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968) UK
Context: Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee, allegedly to protect the government.
Significance:
The House of Lords held the minister acted for an improper purpose by trying to avoid scrutiny.
Emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised to promote the statute’s purpose, not for personal or political ends.
Lesson: Abuse of power arises when discretion is used to frustrate legislative intent.
4. S. P. Gupta v Union of India (1981) AIR SC
Context: Appointment of judges and misuse of executive power questioned.
Significance:
The Supreme Court recognized abuse of power in appointment processes when improper considerations influenced decisions.
Highlighted that powers related to appointments must be exercised transparently and objectively.
Lesson: Abuse of discretionary power undermines fairness and public confidence.
5. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) AIR SC
Context: Cancellation of a licence allegedly for political reasons.
Significance:
The Court held cancellation was invalid because it was motivated by an improper purpose unrelated to public interest.
Stressed that administrative power must be exercised bona fide for lawful purposes.
Lesson: Administrative actions with improper motives are void.
Summary
Abuse of power/improper purpose occurs when authorities misuse their powers for irrelevant, collateral, or personal reasons.
Courts closely examine the motive and purpose behind decisions to ensure they align with statutory intent.
Cases like Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Padfield, and Khatri are cornerstones showing how improper purpose vitiates administrative actions.
The doctrine protects citizens from arbitrary, biased, or malicious exercise of public power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments