Administrative discretion: meaning and scope
Administrative Discretion: Meaning and Scope
Meaning of Administrative Discretion
Administrative discretion refers to the power or authority granted to administrative agencies and officials to make decisions, choose among various courses of action, and interpret laws or policies within the framework set by the legislature.
It arises because statutes often cannot prescribe every detail, so agencies fill in gaps.
Discretion is essential for flexibility, expertise-based decision-making, and efficient administration.
However, discretion is not unlimited; it must be exercised within legal boundaries.
Scope of Administrative Discretion
Rulemaking: Agencies decide how to implement laws by creating regulations.
Adjudication: Agencies decide individual cases (e.g., benefits, licenses).
Enforcement: Agencies decide when and how to enforce laws or impose sanctions.
Policy formulation: Agencies set priorities based on resources, public interest, or other considerations.
Limitations on Administrative Discretion
Must be exercised within the limits of statutory authority.
Cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Must comply with constitutional principles and due process.
Subject to judicial review.
Cannot violate principles of natural justice.
š Key Case Laws on Administrative Discretion
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts:
The Supreme Court discussed the concept of discretion vested in administrative authorities.
Held:
Discretion must be legal and not arbitrary.
It should be exercised within the limits prescribed by law.
Courts can intervene if discretion is abused.
Significance:
Established that administrative discretion is not unfettered.
Highlighted the need for judicial control.
2. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 124
Facts:
The government exercised discretion to ban a newspaper.
Held:
Discretion must be exercised reasonably and consistent with fundamental rights.
Arbitrary use of discretion violates constitutional guarantees.
Significance:
Early case stressing that discretion cannot infringe upon fundamental rights arbitrarily.
Reinforces that discretion is subject to constitutional limits.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhiās passport was impounded by administrative authorities without adequate reasons.
Held:
Administrative discretion is subject to reasonableness and fairness.
Due process principles must be followed.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review over discretionary acts.
Strengthened protection against arbitrary administrative decisions.
4. E.C. John v. Income Tax Officer (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 890
Facts:
The tax authorities exercised discretion in assessment.
Held:
Discretion should be exercised on objective criteria and not on whim.
Discretion cannot be used to abuse or override law.
Significance:
Stressed the need for objective and fair exercise of discretion.
Reinforced judicial oversight on discretionary acts.
5. Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty (1961)
Citation: AIR 1961 SC 716
Facts:
Discretion exercised in the classification of goods for customs.
Held:
Administrative discretion must be based on relevant material.
Courts will interfere if discretion is wholly unreasonable or irrelevant.
Significance:
Clarifies that discretion is not immune from judicial scrutiny.
Courts check reasonableness and relevance in discretion.
6. Union of India v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1952)
Citation: AIR 1952 SC 16
Facts:
Discretion exercised in granting license to an applicant.
Held:
Discretion should be used to promote public interest and welfare.
Cannot be used for personal or irrelevant considerations.
Significance:
Emphasizes the public purpose doctrine in administrative discretion.
Ensures discretion promotes lawful and public objectives.
ā Summary:
Administrative discretion allows agencies flexibility to interpret and implement laws.
Discretion must be legal, reasonable, non-arbitrary, and within statutory limits.
Courts intervene when discretion is abused or exercised in violation of law or fundamental rights.
Judicial review protects against capricious or irrelevant use of discretion.
Discretion serves the public interest, but accountability is key.
RELATED Blog
0 comments