Mala fide exercise of discretion
Mala fide Exercise of Discretion
What is Mala fide Exercise of Discretion?
Mala fide exercise of discretion means the improper, dishonest, or bad-faith exercise of discretionary power by a public authority or administrative officer. When discretion is exercised mala fide, it is done with an ulterior motive, for an irrelevant purpose, or with malice, rather than bona fide (in good faith).
Importance in Administrative Law
Administrative authorities are given discretionary powers to make decisions in various areas.
However, discretion must be exercised in good faith, within the scope of law, and for legitimate purposes.
Mala fide exercise of discretion violates the principle of fairness, legality, and justice.
Courts intervene when discretion is exercised mala fide to prevent abuse of power.
Indicators of Mala fide Exercise
Decision made for an improper or extraneous purpose.
Evidence of bias, corruption, or malice.
Failure to consider relevant factors or acting on irrelevant considerations.
Arbitrary or capricious decisions lacking reasonable basis.
Key Case Laws on Mala fide Exercise of Discretion
1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40 (UK)
Facts: A police officer was dismissed without a proper inquiry.
Issue: Whether dismissal was mala fide and thus invalid.
Holding: House of Lords held that discretion must be exercised fairly and in good faith; mala fide dismissal was unlawful.
Significance: Established the principle that administrative discretion must be exercised in good faith and with procedural fairness.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597
Facts: The passport of Maneka Gandhi was impounded without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Issue: Whether the discretionary power to impound a passport was exercised mala fide.
Holding: Supreme Court ruled that discretionary power must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and not arbitrarily or mala fide.
Significance: Expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing fair exercise of discretion.
3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) AIR 1628
Facts: The airport authority refused to grant a contract without justifiable reasons.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised mala fide or arbitrarily.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that discretion must be exercised reasonably and not mala fide; the decision was quashed.
Significance: Clarified that discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or with mala fide intent.
4. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 955
Facts: An employee was terminated based on allegations without proper inquiry.
Issue: Whether the decision was mala fide.
Holding: The Supreme Court held the exercise of discretion mala fide, emphasizing the need for fair procedure.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that mala fide exercise of discretion is invalid.
5. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) AIR 555
Facts: The dismissal of a government servant was challenged on grounds of mala fide exercise.
Holding: The Supreme Court held mala fide exercise of power is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Significance: Introduced the principle that mala fide is synonymous with arbitrariness, and arbitrary actions violate Article 14 (Right to Equality).
6. B. S. Joshi v. Union of India (1992) AIR 1986
Facts: Challenge to the selection process where discretion was allegedly exercised mala fide.
Holding: The Court struck down the decision for mala fide exercise of discretion.
Significance: Emphasized that discretionary power must be exercised fairly and without bias.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Issue | Holding/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ridge v. Baldwin | 1964 | UK | Fairness in dismissal | Discretion must be exercised fairly and mala fide action invalid |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | India | Passport impoundment | Discretion must be reasonable and not mala fide |
| Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAAI | 1979 | India | Contract denial | Discretion exercised arbitrarily/mala fide invalid |
| D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar | 1962 | India | Termination without inquiry | Mala fide exercise invalid |
| E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu | 1974 | India | Dismissal challenge | Mala fide = arbitrariness, unconstitutional |
| B.S. Joshi v. Union of India | 1992 | India | Selection process | Fair, unbiased discretion required |
Conclusion
Mala fide exercise of discretion undermines the rule of law and democratic governance.
Courts consistently intervene to ensure administrative discretion is exercised bona fide, fairly, and reasonably.
Acts done mala fide are considered arbitrary, unconstitutional, and subject to judicial review.
This doctrine protects citizens against abuse of administrative power and promotes transparency and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments