Malafide Exercise of Discretion
Malafide Exercise of Discretion
1. What is Malafide Exercise of Discretion?
Malafide exercise of discretion occurs when a public authority or official exercises their discretionary power with an improper purpose, dishonest intent, or bad faith, rather than for the reasons authorized by law.
It involves misuse or abuse of power, where discretion is exercised for ulterior motives such as personal gain, political vendetta, or prejudice.
Such exercise violates the principle of legality and fairness under administrative law.
2. Nature and Characteristics
The decision-maker acts not in good faith, but with a dishonest or wrongful intent.
The discretion is used to cause harm or injustice to an individual or group.
It falls outside the scope of lawful administrative action and is subject to judicial review.
Malafide discretion is a ground to quash administrative orders.
3. Judicial Recognition and Importance
Courts intervene when discretion is exercised malafidely because:
It undermines public trust in administration.
It violates natural justice and fundamental rights.
It defeats the purpose of lawful delegation of powers.
4. Key Case Laws on Malafide Exercise of Discretion
Case 1: Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), UK
Facts: Police officer was dismissed without proper inquiry; dismissal alleged to be malafide.
Held: Decision was malafide and invalid due to lack of fair procedure.
Significance: Established that discretion must be exercised in good faith and with fairness.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), India
Facts: Passport impounded without proper reasons; alleged arbitrariness and bad faith.
Held: Exercise of discretion must follow due process and fairness; arbitrary or malafide action violates Article 21.
Significance: Reinforced that discretion must not be exercised with malafide intent affecting personal liberty.
Case 3: Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Facts: Contract termination allegedly done on malafide grounds.
Held: Administrative discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or malafidely.
Significance: Stressed fairness and legitimate purpose in discretionary decisions.
Case 4: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), India
Facts: Transfer order challenged as malafide and discriminatory.
Held: Malafide exercise of power violates Article 14 (equality before law).
Significance: Introduced malafide as a facet of arbitrariness; bad faith invalidates administrative action.
Case 5: K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1962)
Facts: Removal from service alleged to be malafide.
Held: Court held that if malafide is established, the exercise of discretion is void.
Significance: Emphasized judicial intervention in cases of malafide exercise of administrative discretion.
5. How Courts Detect Malafide Exercise
Evidence of improper motive or ulterior purpose.
Departure from established procedure or failure to consider relevant factors.
Inconsistent or irrational decisions.
Use of power to harm or cause injustice.
Courts may look at:
Circumstances leading to the decision.
Statements or conduct of the decision-maker.
Procedural irregularities.
6. Critical Analysis
Need for Discretion: Administrative discretion is essential for flexible governance.
Risk of Abuse: Without checks, discretion can be misused for malafide purposes.
Judicial Review Role: Courts serve as watchdogs ensuring discretion is exercised lawfully.
Balance: Judicial intervention protects citizens, but excessive interference may hamper effective administration.
Challenges: Proving malafide intent is often difficult due to lack of direct evidence.
7. Conclusion
Malafide exercise of discretion represents one of the clearest grounds for judicial invalidation of administrative actions. It violates fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and rule of law. Courts remain vigilant in scrutinizing such cases to safeguard individuals against arbitrary, biased, or dishonest governmental actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments