legislative control over administratie dicretion
Legislative Control Over Administrative Discretion
What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the power given to administrative authorities or officials to make decisions within the framework of the law.
It allows officials to choose among various options when applying the law to specific situations.
Discretion is necessary due to the complexity and variety of administrative tasks.
Why is Legislative Control Necessary?
To prevent arbitrariness, abuse, or misuse of discretionary power.
To ensure that discretion is exercised within limits and according to law.
To maintain accountability and transparency in administration.
To protect individual rights from unfair administrative actions.
Methods of Legislative Control Over Administrative Discretion
1. By Defining the Scope and Limits
Legislature defines clear limits and guidelines within which discretion can be exercised.
It may specify objects, purposes, or conditions to guide discretion.
2. By Enacting Procedural Safeguards
Legislatures may prescribe procedural rules, such as:
Requirement of hearing affected parties.
Publication or notification of decisions.
Consultation requirements.
3. By Requiring Accountability
Legislatures often require administrative officers to record reasons for their decisions.
Some laws require that decisions be subject to review or appeal.
4. By Providing for Judicial Review
Although courts are not part of the legislature, legislatures empower courts to review administrative discretion.
Courts can strike down illegal, irrational, or unreasonable discretionary decisions.
5. By Enacting Statutory Controls
Statutes may impose checks and balances, such as:
Laying rules before the legislature.
Requiring periodic reports.
Setting up oversight bodies or tribunals.
Important Case Laws on Legislative Control Over Administrative Discretion
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: The local authority imposed unreasonable restrictions on cinema operation.
Held: The court can intervene if discretion is exercised in an irrational or unreasonable manner (the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” principle).
Significance: Set judicial standards to control administrative discretion by legislatures empowering courts to review for unreasonableness.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Passport was revoked without proper procedure.
Held: Administrative discretion affecting personal liberty must satisfy the test of reasonableness and fair procedure.
Significance: Expanded legislative control by requiring procedural fairness and reasonableness as conditions for discretion.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Facts: Challenged administrative discretion in appointments.
Held: The exercise of discretion must be guided by fair and reasonable standards.
Significance: Legislative intent requires that discretion be exercised within constitutional and statutory safeguards.
4. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)
Facts: Challenged a regulation made by the government regarding conditions on rice purchase.
Held: Discretionary powers must be exercised in accordance with the law and fairness.
Significance: Reinforced that legislatures control discretion by requiring compliance with legal standards.
5. Delhi Laws Act Case (1951)
Facts: Challenge to laws that delegated power to apply laws to states.
Held: Legislature can give discretion to apply laws conditionally but must set clear limits.
Significance: Legislature controls discretion by defining conditions and limits.
6. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
Facts: Discretionary power in deciding disqualification of elected members.
Held: Courts have a role to control abuse of discretion by legislative bodies and administrative authorities.
Significance: Legislature empowered judiciary to supervise discretionary decisions affecting public office.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Principle on Legislative Control of Discretion |
|---|---|
| Wednesbury (1948) | Courts control administrative discretion for unreasonableness. |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Discretion must follow reasonableness and fair procedure. |
| S.P. Gupta (1981) | Discretion must align with statutory and constitutional safeguards. |
| Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) | Discretion must comply with law and fairness. |
| Delhi Laws Act (1951) | Legislature defines conditions/limits to discretion. |
| Kihoto Hollohan (1992) | Judiciary controls abuse of discretion affecting public office. |
Conclusion
Legislatures exercise control over administrative discretion by:
Clearly defining the scope of discretion,
Imposing procedural safeguards,
Requiring accountability and transparency,
Empowering judicial review.
These controls prevent arbitrary or oppressive use of discretionary powers, thus safeguarding the rule of law and protecting individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments