Judicial control over administrative discretion
Judicial Control over Administrative Discretion
Introduction
Administrative discretion refers to the power granted to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of the law. However, this discretion is not absolute; courts exercise judicial control to ensure that discretion is exercised lawfully, reasonably, and fairly.
Judicial control is fundamental to administrative law, ensuring that discretion is not abused and that public authorities act within the limits of their powers.
Grounds for Judicial Control over Administrative Discretion
Illegality
Irrationality or Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Procedural Impropriety
Proportionality
Improper Purpose
Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations
1. Illegality
Discretion must be exercised within the limits set by the law.
Actions taken without legal authority or contrary to law are subject to review.
Case: Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
The House of Lords held that any decision made without jurisdiction or in breach of statutory requirements is a nullity.
Established that courts can intervene where discretion is exercised beyond legal limits.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
Introduced in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK).
A decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Courts will not substitute their own judgment but will intervene if discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
3. Procedural Impropriety
Discretion must be exercised following principles of natural justice.
Failure to provide a fair hearing or to observe required procedures may lead to invalidation.
Case: Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40 (UK)
The House of Lords ruled that denial of the right to a fair hearing in disciplinary action was a breach of natural justice.
Established procedural fairness as a limit on discretion.
4. Proportionality
Especially in human rights contexts, courts require that administrative decisions be proportionate to the aim pursued.
The measure taken should not be excessive.
Case: R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly, [2001] UKHL 26
The House of Lords applied proportionality to limit discretionary decisions affecting rights.
Marked a shift towards closer judicial scrutiny.
5. Improper Purpose
Discretion must be exercised for the purpose for which it was conferred.
Using discretion for an unrelated or improper purpose is unlawful.
Case: Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] AC 997 (UK)
The court held that discretion exercised to block an investigation was an abuse of power.
Courts can invalidate decisions taken for ulterior motives.
6. Consideration of Relevant and Irrelevant Factors
Administrative authorities must consider relevant factors and ignore irrelevant ones.
Failure to do so renders the decision unlawful.
Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
The court emphasized consideration of relevant matters as part of lawful discretion.
Summary Table of Cases
| Ground | Case Name & Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation (1969) | Decisions beyond jurisdiction are null and void. |
| Irrationality | Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury (1948) | Discretionary decisions must not be absurd or unreasonable. |
| Procedural Impropriety | Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) | Natural justice requires fair hearing before adverse decisions. |
| Proportionality | R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Daly (2001) | Discretion must be proportionate to legitimate aims. |
| Improper Purpose | Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture (1968) | Discretion cannot be exercised for improper motives. |
Additional Illustrative Cases
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ case): Recognized grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
R v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996): Courts scrutinized military discretion where human rights were implicated.
Conclusion
Judicial control over administrative discretion serves as a check and balance against abuse of power. Courts ensure that discretion is exercised:
Within the bounds of the law,
Rationally and not arbitrarily,
Following fair procedures,
For proper purposes, and
After considering relevant factors.
The balance struck by courts respects the need for administrative flexibility while protecting citizens against misuse of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments