Balancing administrative discretion and individual rights: recent developments
✅ Introduction: Administrative Discretion vs Individual Rights
In a welfare and regulatory state, administrative discretion is necessary for effective governance. However, when such discretion infringes upon individual rights, especially fundamental rights, a balance must be struck.
🔹 What is Administrative Discretion?
The power granted to administrative authorities to make decisions within the bounds of law, based on circumstances, expertise, or policy.
🔹 What are Individual Rights?
Primarily the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution—such as Article 14 (equality), Article 19 (freedoms), and Article 21 (life and personal liberty).
🧭 Why is Balancing Necessary?
To prevent abuse of power
To uphold the rule of law
To ensure that governance is fair and accountable
To protect the dignity and liberty of individuals
⚖️ Judicial Approach: Principles for Balancing
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Rule of Law | All administrative actions must be legal and within authority. |
| Non-arbitrariness | Discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. |
| Natural Justice | Fair hearing and absence of bias are mandatory. |
| Proportionality | Administrative actions must not be excessive or disproportionate. |
| Legitimate Expectation | Individuals may expect consistency and fairness from the administration. |
🏛️ Recent Landmark Cases (More Than 5 Explained in Detail)
1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (Triple Talaq Case) (2017)
Citation: (2017) 9 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to the practice of instant triple talaq.
Administrative Discretion Involved: Whether personal law (recognized by the state) can override individual rights.
Held: Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 and Article 21.
Significance: Reaffirmed that state-sanctioned discretion in religious matters cannot violate individual rights.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Right to Privacy Case) (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to Aadhaar and surveillance powers of the state.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion in collecting personal data violates individual privacy.
Held: Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. State action must meet legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Significance: Set the foundation for data protection and limited executive overreach.
3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing homosexuality.
Issue: Whether the state’s discretionary criminal law can infringe on private rights.
Held: Section 377 was struck down as it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Significance: Reinforced the primacy of individual dignity over state moral discretion.
4. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020)
Citation: (2020) 10 SCC 274
Facts: RBI had banned banks from providing services to cryptocurrency exchanges.
Issue: Was RBI's action arbitrary and disproportionate?
Held: The ban was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning and was disproportionate.
Significance: The court reiterated that economic discretion must also pass judicial scrutiny if it infringes individual rights.
5. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 637
Facts: Internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir after abrogation of Article 370.
Issue: Whether administrative decision to restrict internet access violates freedom of speech and livelihood.
Held: Indefinite internet suspension is unconstitutional. Right to internet is part of freedom of expression.
Significance: Limited the scope of administrative discretion during emergencies.
6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (Older but still relevant)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: Passport impounded without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion under the Passports Act violates Article 21.
Held: Any law or discretion affecting personal liberty must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Significance: One of the earliest cases to balance discretion with individual liberty.
7. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat (2020)
Citation: (2020) 10 SCC 459
Facts: Gujarat government exempted factories from compliance with labour laws during COVID-19.
Issue: Whether such administrative discretion could override labour rights.
Held: Such blanket exemptions were invalid and violative of right to dignity and equality.
Significance: States cannot use emergency powers to strip rights under the guise of administrative necessity.
🔍 Key Legal Doctrines in Balancing
| Doctrine | Function |
|---|---|
| Doctrine of Proportionality | Administrative measures must be necessary and least restrictive. |
| Legitimate Expectation | Protects reasonable expectations from public authorities. |
| Natural Justice | Prevents arbitrary use of discretion. |
| Ultra Vires Doctrine | Ensures administrative authorities do not exceed their powers. |
📈 Recent Developments in Judicial Thinking
Privacy as a Fundamental Right (Puttaswamy Case)
Freedom of Internet Access as a derivative of Article 19 (Anuradha Bhasin)
Recognition of LGBTQ+ Rights over state morality (Navtej Johar)
Review of Economic Policy for fairness and rationality (Cryptocurrency Case)
Scrutiny of Emergency Powers (COVID-era relaxations struck down)
🔄 Balancing Test Framework (Evolving Standard)
Courts increasingly apply a 3-part test to assess discretionary administrative actions:
Legality – Is the action supported by law?
Rationality – Is the decision reasonable and not arbitrary?
Proportionality – Is the impact on rights justified by the aim?
📌 Conclusion: Critical Assessment
✅ Positives:
Courts actively protect individual rights.
Introduced modern doctrines (like proportionality) to review discretion.
Ensured greater transparency in decision-making.
❌ Concerns:
Overuse of PILs can overburden courts.
Delays in litigation can nullify protection.
Risk of judicial overreach into policy domains.
⚖️ Final View:
Judicial review has been a critical tool in maintaining the balance between administrative discretion and individual rights. The courts have gradually evolved from a position of restraint to active guardianship of rights, particularly in the face of expanding executive powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments