Latitude Given By Constitution Cannot Be Caged In Form Of Inflexible Guidelines: SC
Latitude Given By Constitution Cannot Be Caged in Form of Inflexible Guidelines: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Introduction
The Constitution of India provides a framework that empowers authorities with certain discretionary powers or latitude to act within the law, especially in matters involving governance, administration, and justice. However, sometimes courts or statutory bodies attempt to fix rigid, inflexible guidelines that may restrict this constitutional latitude.
The Supreme Court has firmly stated that such latitude or discretionary power must not be fettered by inflexible rules or guidelines that destroy the essence of discretion. Instead, flexibility, reasonableness, and adaptability are essential for the functioning of constitutional powers.
2. Legal Principle
Constitutional provisions often grant discretionary powers to authorities for effective functioning.
These powers cannot be “caged” or confined rigidly by inflexible rules or guidelines.
Such rigidity may defeat the purpose of constitutional or statutory provisions.
Courts emphasize the need for balanced discretion guided by principles of fairness, justice, and reasonableness.
Excessive procedural formalism or inflexible guidelines undermine the spirit of the Constitution.
3. Relevant Supreme Court Case Law
3.1. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gupta (2006) 2 SCC 397
The Court observed that when a statute confers discretion, the same cannot be restricted or curtailed by mechanical or rigid guidelines.
Held that discretion must be exercised reasonably and flexibly considering facts and circumstances.
The latitude given by the Constitution or statute should not be transformed into “strait-jacket formula”.
3.2. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217
While upholding certain guidelines for reservation, the Court held that excessive rigidity in applying constitutional provisions must be avoided.
The Court underscored that flexibility and contextual application are essential in exercising constitutional powers.
The judgment emphasized that absolute or mechanical application of rules may negate constitutional goals.
3.3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
The Court laid down principles related to constitutional powers of dismissal of state governments.
It held that latitude given to constitutional authorities must be exercised judiciously, not fettered by rigid guidelines.
The decision stressed that constitutional discretion must be subject to judicial review but with flexibility to deal with diverse situations.
3.4. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
The Court highlighted the importance of discretion in educational institutions under constitutional guarantees.
It warned against fixing rigid guidelines that restrict constitutional latitude and autonomy.
Emphasized that such latitude must be exercised in accordance with constitutional values but not caged in inflexible norms.
4. Importance of This Principle
Ensures administrative and judicial flexibility to meet diverse and dynamic situations.
Prevents bureaucratic or judicial overreach through mechanical application of rules.
Safeguards the spirit and purpose of constitutional provisions.
Promotes justice and fairness by allowing discretionary powers to be exercised contextually.
Avoids unintended consequences of rigid formalism.
5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that:
“Latitude given by the Constitution or statute cannot be caged in the form of inflexible guidelines.”
This principle protects the constitutional and statutory discretion that is essential for effective governance, fair administration, and just adjudication. While guidelines help bring uniformity, they must be applied with flexibility, reasonableness, and sensitivity to facts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments