Judicial control at the stage of Exercise of Administartive Discretion
⚖️ Judicial Control at the Stage of Exercise of Administrative Discretion
1. Introduction
Administrative discretion refers to the power granted to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of law. However, unchecked discretion may lead to arbitrariness, bias, or abuse of power.
Judicial control ensures that administrative discretion is exercised lawfully, fairly, and reasonably. Courts intervene to prevent misuse and uphold principles of natural justice and rule of law.
2. Scope of Judicial Control
Judicial review of administrative discretion typically examines whether:
The discretion is exercised within the limits of the statute (not ultra vires).
The decision is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide.
The decision follows due process and principles of natural justice.
There is relevant material to justify the decision.
There is no abuse or non-exercise of discretion.
3. Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Illegality | Discretion exercised outside the legal authority. |
| Irrationality | Decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it (Wednesbury principle). |
| Procedural Impropriety | Failure to follow fair procedures or natural justice. |
| Proportionality | Discretion must be proportionate to the aim sought. |
| Bad faith or bias | Decision influenced by improper motives or prejudice. |
4. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts:
The local authority imposed a condition that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays to a cinema.
Holding:
The House of Lords ruled that a court can interfere with administrative discretion only if the decision is “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.”
Significance:
Established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test as a standard for judicial control of discretion.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the passport authority without reasons.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that administrative discretion must be exercised following the principles of natural justice, and any action affecting life or liberty requires fair procedure.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review to include due process and reasonableness in administrative actions.
Case 3: R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts:
The Home Secretary changed a compensation scheme through executive discretion, contrary to a statutory scheme.
Holding:
The court held that the exercise of discretion must be consistent with the statutory purpose and cannot frustrate Parliament’s intent.
Significance:
Emphasized that discretion must be exercised in line with legislative intent and not arbitrarily.
Case 4: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts:
The government dismissed a government servant without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that administrative discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must observe the audi alteram partem (right to be heard) principle.
Significance:
Reiterated natural justice safeguards in administrative decisions involving discretion.
Case 5: E.C. Council v. Campbell (1924) (UK case)
Facts:
The Electrical Council made a decision affecting the rights of an individual.
Holding:
Courts ruled that discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.
Significance:
Further confirms the universal principle of reasonableness in administrative discretion.
5. Judicial Remedies Available
When judicial control finds fault with the exercise of discretion, the remedies include:
Quashing orders (certiorari) invalidating the decision.
Mandatory orders (mandamus) compelling authorities to act within discretion.
Prohibitory orders (prohibition) stopping illegal exercise of discretion.
Injunctions to prevent enforcement of unlawful decisions.
Declaration stating the rights or wrongs.
6. Conclusion
Judicial control over administrative discretion is essential to maintain the rule of law and prevent arbitrary governance. The courts ensure that discretion is exercised:
Within legal bounds
Fairly and justly
With proper reasoning
Without bias or malafide intention
Through the principles of natural justice, Wednesbury unreasonableness, and proportionality, courts provide a robust check on executive power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments