Judicial review of discretion
Judicial Review of Discretion
I. What is Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion?
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions or decisions of administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the law. When administrative discretion is exercised, courts can review that discretion to ensure it is not:
Arbitrary or capricious
Illegal or beyond powers (ultra vires)
Procedurally improper or unfair
Unreasonable or irrational
Purpose of Judicial Review
Prevent abuse of power
Protect individual rights
Ensure accountability and fairness
Maintain rule of law
II. Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Illegality: When discretion is exercised beyond legal powers or contrary to law.
Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness): When decisions are so unreasonable no reasonable authority would make them.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow due process or principles of natural justice.
Proportionality: Decision must not be excessive or disproportionate to the objective.
III. Case Laws Explaining Judicial Review of Discretion
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
Facts:
Wednesbury Corporation, a local authority, imposed a condition on a cinema license that no children under 15 would be admitted on Sundays.
Issue:
Whether the condition imposed was unreasonable and thus subject to judicial review.
Held:
The court held that a decision would only be set aside if it was "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it."
Principle:
This case established the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness — a very high threshold for courts to interfere with administrative discretion.
2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979 AIR 1628)
Facts:
The International Airport Authority awarded a contract without following proper tender procedures.
Issue:
Whether the failure to follow tender procedures and selection process was amenable to judicial review.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that administrative decisions involving discretion must follow fairness and transparency. The decision was set aside due to arbitrariness.
Principle:
Judicial review can step in when discretion is exercised arbitrarily or unfairly, violating principles of natural justice.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving a hearing.
Issue:
Whether the exercise of discretion violated fundamental rights and was reviewable.
Held:
The Court expanded the scope of judicial review stating that administrative discretion must comply with Article 14 (equality), Article 19 (freedom), and Article 21 (life and liberty).
Principle:
Discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or violate fundamental rights, and courts will review such discretion to protect constitutional guarantees.
4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 AIR 149) (The Judges’ Transfer Case)
Facts:
The government transferred judges without following proper procedures or consultation.
Issue:
Whether such executive discretion in transfers is subject to judicial review.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that while the executive has discretion, it must be exercised fairly and in good faith. Judicial review can intervene if discretion is exercised arbitrarily or mala fide.
Principle:
Judicial review applies to discretionary decisions affecting service conditions or fundamental rights, ensuring fair process and absence of bias.
5. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 AIR 555)
Facts:
A government servant was removed from service without sufficient reason.
Issue:
Whether the discretionary power to remove was subject to judicial review for arbitrariness.
Held:
The Supreme Court laid down the principle that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality and ruled that any arbitrary exercise of discretion is unconstitutional.
Principle:
Judicial review is a tool to check arbitrariness in administrative discretion, protecting the right to equality under Article 14.
IV. Summary of Judicial Review Principles from These Cases
| Case | Principle of Judicial Review |
|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Wednesbury unreasonableness: only extreme unreasonableness reviewed |
| Ramana Dayaram Shetty | Discretion must be fair and transparent |
| Maneka Gandhi | Discretion must respect fundamental rights and due process |
| S.P. Gupta | Discretion in service matters must be exercised fairly and not mala fide |
| E.P. Royappa | No arbitrary exercise of discretion allowed (equality principle) |
V. Conclusion
Judicial review ensures that administrative discretion is not exercised in a vacuum or in violation of legal and constitutional principles. Courts act as a check on abuse of discretion by ensuring:
Decisions are within legal limits
Not arbitrary or irrational
Procedural fairness is followed
Fundamental rights are protected
Judicial review does not substitute the decision but ensures discretion is exercised responsibly and fairly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments