Judcial control over Administrative Discretion
🔹 Judicial Control Over Administrative Discretion: Detailed Explanation
1. What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the power vested in administrative authorities or officers to make decisions within the limits of law. This discretion allows flexibility to deal with complex situations and apply rules practically.
2. Why is Judicial Control Necessary?
To prevent misuse or abuse of discretionary powers.
To ensure that discretion is exercised within legal limits.
To uphold rule of law and fairness.
To protect citizens from arbitrary, biased, or mala fide decisions.
To maintain accountability and transparency in administration.
3. Scope of Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Judicial review scrutinizes whether discretion:
Has been exercised within the scope of authority granted by law.
Was exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously.
Followed principles of natural justice.
Is based on relevant considerations and not irrelevant or extraneous factors.
Does not violate fundamental rights.
4. Tests for Judicial Review of Discretion
Illegality: Whether discretion was exercised without legal authority or contrary to law.
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): Whether the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Procedural impropriety: Whether proper procedure and fair hearing were followed.
Proportionality: Whether the decision is proportionate to the objective sought.
🔹 Key Case Laws on Judicial Control Over Administrative Discretion
Case 1: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 129
Facts:
The case involved alleged bias by members of a selection committee exercising discretionary powers.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that discretion must be exercised fairly and without bias. Administrative action is subject to judicial review if there is violation of principles of natural justice.
Significance:
Emphasizes that discretion is not unfettered and courts can intervene if natural justice is violated.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without providing reasons or hearing.
Held:
The Court held that any administrative discretion affecting personal liberty must comply with Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and the principles of fair procedure.
Significance:
Expanded scope of judicial review to include procedural fairness in discretionary decisions.
Case 3: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555
Facts:
The case concerned arbitrary dismissal of a government servant.
Held:
Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law. Administrative discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily.
Significance:
Introduced the principle that arbitrariness is subject to judicial review.
Case 4: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
Facts:
The case challenged detention orders under the Preventive Detention Act as being based on irrelevant considerations.
Held:
The Court ruled that discretion cannot be based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds.
Significance:
Judicial control ensures relevant factors only guide discretionary decisions.
Case 5: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
Facts:
Involved dismissal of government employees without giving reasons.
Held:
The Court mandated that discretionary power to impose penalty must be exercised with procedural fairness, including the right to be heard.
Significance:
Reinforces procedural safeguards in exercising discretion.
Case 6: R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts:
Discretionary contract award was challenged on grounds of arbitrariness.
Held:
The Court held that administrative discretion must conform to principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.
Significance:
Affirms judicial power to review discretion in public contracts.
🔹 Summary Table: Judicial Control of Administrative Discretion
| Aspect | Explanation | Leading Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Natural Justice | Discretion must be free from bias and follow fair hearing | A.K. Kraipak, Tulsiram Patel |
| Non-Arbitrariness | Decision must not be arbitrary or capricious | E.P. Royappa, R.D. Shetty |
| Relevant Consideration | Must consider relevant facts only | Anwar Ali Sarkar |
| Procedural Fairness | Right to be heard and reasons must be given | Maneka Gandhi, Tulsiram Patel |
| Legal Authority | Discretion exercised within legal limits | Multiple judgments |
🔹 Conclusion
Judicial control over administrative discretion is essential to ensure that public authorities exercise their powers fairly, reasonably, and lawfully. The courts have consistently held that discretion is not unfettered and is subject to the rule of law, fairness, and constitutional safeguards. Judicial review acts as a check against arbitrariness, bias, and abuse of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments