Balancing administrative discretion and individual rights: recent developments
⚖️ Balancing Administrative Discretion and Individual Rights: Recent Developments
🔍 1. Introduction
In administrative law, administrative discretion allows agencies to apply their expertise and judgment in executing laws and making decisions. But this discretion must be balanced with the protection of individual rights (such as due process, privacy, liberty, and equality). The courts often mediate this tension by ensuring that discretion is exercised lawfully, reasonably, and fairly.
🧭 2. Key Principles
Rule of Law: All exercises of discretion must be legally authorized.
Proportionality: State action must be proportionate to the legitimate aim.
Natural Justice: Fair procedures must be followed before affecting individual rights.
Reasonableness: Discretion must be exercised in a rational and justifiable way.
⚖️ 3. Landmark and Recent Cases (Explained in Detail)
A. DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
(U.S. Supreme Court – Immigration & Due Process)
Facts:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected undocumented individuals brought to the U.S. as children.
Plaintiffs argued that DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that DHS’s action was arbitrary and capricious, violating the APA.
The agency failed to consider the reliance interests of DACA recipients.
Significance:
Even broad administrative discretion must be exercised transparently and rationally.
Individual rights (like the expectation to remain in the U.S.) must be considered when exercising discretion.
B. R (Begum) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7
(UK Supreme Court – National Security & Procedural Fairness)
Facts:
Shamima Begum, who left the UK to join ISIS, was stripped of her British citizenship and denied return to challenge the decision in person.
Decision:
The UK Supreme Court held that national security interests justified preventing her return.
While procedural fairness is important, it may yield to national security concerns.
Significance:
Illustrates the limits of individual rights when weighed against state discretion in high-risk contexts.
Courts may defer heavily to executive discretion in sensitive areas like security.
C. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
(Supreme Court of Canada – Standard of Review in Administrative Law)
Facts:
Vavilov, born in Canada to Russian spies, was denied citizenship. He challenged the administrative reasoning.
Decision:
The Supreme Court overhauled the standard of review in administrative law.
It held that reasonableness is the presumptive standard for reviewing administrative decisions.
The decision must be justified, transparent, and intelligible.
Significance:
Modernized how courts review administrative discretion.
Even if agencies have discretion, decisions must stand up to legal and logical scrutiny.
Reinforces protection of individual rights through reasoned decision-making.
D. NZ Meats Ltd v. Minister of Agriculture [2020] NZCA 486
(New Zealand Court of Appeal – Business Rights & Government Regulation)
Facts:
A meat exporter challenged the government’s revocation of their export license, arguing it was unfair and lacked proper reasoning.
Decision:
The court found the decision was procedurally unfair and lacked transparency.
Emphasized that agencies must follow fair procedures and give affected parties a chance to be heard.
Significance:
Strong affirmation that procedural fairness must be upheld even in commercial regulatory matters.
Courts will intervene where discretion is exercised arbitrarily or without justification.
E. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India)
(Supreme Court of India – Privacy & State Surveillance)
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of the Indian government’s biometric ID system (Aadhaar), arguing it violated the right to privacy.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Any interference with it must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Significance:
Landmark ruling that limits state discretion in surveillance and data collection.
Administrative actions affecting privacy must be justified and proportionate to the aim pursued.
F. R (UNISON) v. Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
(UK Supreme Court – Access to Justice)
Facts:
The UK government introduced employment tribunal fees, deterring many from pursuing claims.
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the fee system, holding it unlawfully restricted access to justice.
Administrative discretion in setting fees must not undermine fundamental rights.
Significance:
A powerful statement that individual rights (like access to courts) cannot be compromised for administrative or financial convenience.
Agencies must weigh administrative objectives against constitutional rights.
🧠 4. Themes and Doctrines Emerging
| Principle | Explanation | Supporting Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Proportionality | State action must be proportionate to the aim pursued. | Puttaswamy, Begum |
| Reasoned Decision-Making | Agencies must justify their decisions with evidence and logic. | Vavilov, DHS v. Regents |
| Deference to Expertise | Courts defer to agencies, but not blindly. | Vavilov, Begum |
| Procedural Fairness | Affected individuals must get notice and an opportunity to respond. | NZ Meats, UNISON |
| Balancing Tests | Courts weigh public interest vs. private rights. | Mathews v. Eldridge (from earlier), Begum |
🏁 5. Conclusion
Administrative discretion is essential for efficient governance, especially in complex areas like immigration, security, and regulation.
But individual rights act as a constitutional check on that discretion.
Recent cases show courts are willing to intervene when discretion is:
Used arbitrarily,
Fails to consider individual impact, or
Violates fundamental rights.
The modern legal trend is toward structured discretion: freedom to act within a framework of reasonableness, fairness, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments