Judcial Review of Administrative Discretion
Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion is the power or authority given to administrative agencies or officers to make decisions within the framework of the law.
Discretion allows flexibility to make decisions based on circumstances, but it is not absolute.
What is Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion?
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the legality and propriety of administrative decisions.
When an administrative authority exercises discretion, the courts can intervene if discretion is exercised illegally, arbitrarily, unreasonably, or in bad faith.
The courts do not substitute their own decision but ensure the discretion is exercised within the bounds of law and fairness.
Why Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion?
To prevent misuse or abuse of power.
To ensure fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to principles of natural justice.
To protect fundamental rights and prevent arbitrariness.
To maintain accountability of administrative authorities.
Grounds on which Judicial Review is exercised
Illegality: If discretion is exercised without legal authority.
Irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness: Decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.
Violation of Natural Justice: No fair hearing, bias, or procedural impropriety.
Proportionality: Discretionary decision should be proportionate to the aim.
Malafide or Bad Faith: Decision motivated by ulterior motives.
Error of Fact or Law: Jurisdictional error.
Ignoring Relevant Material or Considering Irrelevant Material
Landmark Cases Explaining Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (English Case, Influential in India)
Fact: The Corporation refused to allow children under 15 to attend cinema on Sundays.
Principle: The court established the test of “Wednesbury unreasonableness”.
Holding: A decision would be overturned if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider it.
Significance: This test is widely adopted in India for reviewing administrative discretion.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: Discretion exercised in selecting candidates for a post, with biased members on the selection committee.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised fairly and free from bias.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that administrative discretion is subject to judicial review and principles of natural justice apply.
Significance: Established that discretionary decisions must be fair, and bias or partiality invalidates discretion.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Passport was impounded without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Issue: Whether discretion exercised by the government was legal and fair.
Judgment: The Court ruled that the “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable, ensuring procedural fairness.
Significance: Expanded judicial review by linking Article 21 with administrative discretion, emphasizing fair procedure.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts: Government employees dismissed without a fair hearing.
Issue: Whether principles of natural justice apply to administrative disciplinary actions.
Judgment: Court held that even in disciplinary matters, administrative discretion is subject to judicial review and natural justice applies.
Significance: Strengthened protection against arbitrary administrative action.
5. K. Shriram v. Union of India (1986)
Facts: Challenge to the discretionary power of the government to impose excise duty.
Issue: Whether discretion can be exercised arbitrarily.
Judgment: The Court held that discretion must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and not arbitrarily.
Significance: Clarified limits on discretionary powers in economic regulations.
6. Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (1963)
Facts: An applicant was rejected arbitrarily by the Public Service Commission.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion was exercised in violation of principles of fairness.
Judgment: The Court held that discretion must be exercised judicially, and administrative authorities cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously.
Significance: Reaffirmed the principle that discretion must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.
7. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Facts: The dismissal of a government employee was challenged for being arbitrary.
Issue: Whether arbitrariness is against the Constitution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that “arbitrariness” is antithetical to the constitutional guarantee of equality (Article 14).
Significance: This case marked a significant shift, holding that administrative discretion must not be arbitrary, connecting administrative law with fundamental rights.
Summary: How Courts Review Administrative Discretion
| Aspect | Judicial Attitude | Example Case |
|---|---|---|
| Bias or Malafide | Courts invalidate decisions tainted by bias | A.K. Kraipak |
| Unreasonableness | Decisions irrational or unreasonable can be struck down | Wednesbury case, E.P. Royappa |
| Natural Justice | Right to fair hearing and unbiased decision | Maneka Gandhi, Tulsiram Patel |
| Error of Law | Jurisdictional errors lead to invalid decisions | K. Shriram |
| Proportionality | Excessive or disproportionate action is reviewable | Maneka Gandhi (procedure fairness) |
In conclusion:
Judicial review of administrative discretion ensures that the exercise of discretionary power by administrative authorities is legal, fair, reasonable, and just.
The judiciary does not replace the discretion with its own, but ensures it is exercised within the rule of law.
This protects citizens from arbitrary or unfair administrative actions and upholds constitutional guarantees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments