Types of executive action, including the concept of discretion
Types of Executive Action and the Concept of Discretion
Overview
In administrative law, executive action refers to the acts performed by the executive branch or administrative authorities in implementing laws, policies, and regulations. These actions can be broadly categorized as:
Types of Executive Action
Ministerial Action
Routine, administrative, or mechanical tasks based on established rules or laws.
No room for personal judgment or discretion.
Example: Issuing a license once eligibility is verified.
Discretionary Action
Action taken by the executive where they have the power to make decisions based on personal judgment within legal limits.
Authorities can choose whether and how to act.
Example: Granting or refusing a license where the law allows discretion.
Quasi-judicial Action
Actions involving adjudication or decision-making in disputes.
Requires fair hearing, evidence, and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Example: An administrative tribunal deciding a license cancellation.
Administrative Action
General actions by government bodies that implement policies, administer services, or enforce regulations.
Includes both ministerial and discretionary acts.
Concept of Discretion
Discretion is the legal power or authority given to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of law.
It is not arbitrary power but guided by principles of reasonableness, fairness, and purpose of the law.
Discretion is necessary due to the complexity of administration where fixed rules may not fit all cases.
However, discretion must be exercised in good faith and subject to judicial review if abused.
Important Case Laws on Executive Action and Discretion
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 (The Wednesbury Case)
Background: The case involved a local authority imposing restrictions on cinema opening hours.
Issue: When can courts interfere with discretionary administrative decisions?
Decision: The Court held that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Judicial interference is warranted only if a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it (the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test).
Significance: Set the benchmark for judicial review of discretionary executive action.
2. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Background: The government revoked Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing reasons or hearing.
Issue: Whether the executive’s discretion violated the right to personal liberty and due process.
Decision: Supreme Court ruled that discretion must be exercised following the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law.
Significance: Expanded the scope of reasoned executive discretion and due process.
3. Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950) SCR 594
Background: The government banned a newspaper under discretionary powers.
Issue: Whether the discretionary power was exercised arbitrarily and violated freedom of speech.
Decision: Court held that discretionary powers must not be arbitrary or oppressive.
Significance: Established limits on executive discretion concerning fundamental rights.
4. Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Background: The case discussed disciplinary actions by executive authorities.
Issue: Whether discretion in disciplinary proceedings can be arbitrary.
Decision: Court ruled that discretion must be exercised reasonably and based on relevant considerations.
Significance: Emphasized reasoned decision-making in executive discretion.
5. Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489
Background: The case concerned the discretionary power to grant licenses or contracts.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised fairly and without bias.
Decision: The Court held discretion must be exercised fairly, and procedural fairness must be ensured.
Significance: Reinforced procedural safeguards in executive discretion.
Summary Table:
| Case | Issue | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wednesbury Case (1948) | Judicial review of discretion | Interference only if decision is unreasonable | Set reasonableness test for discretion |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Due process in executive action | Discretion requires fair procedure | Expanded natural justice principles |
| Romesh Thappar (1950) | Arbitrary use of discretion | Executive power must not be arbitrary | Protected fundamental rights |
| Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel (1985) | Reasonable exercise of disciplinary discretion | Discretion must be based on relevant factors | Checked arbitrary disciplinary action |
| Ramana Shetty (1979) | Fairness in granting licenses | Discretion must be fair and unbiased | Ensured procedural fairness |
To conclude:
Executive actions can be ministerial or discretionary.
Discretion is necessary but must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and within the law.
Courts intervene in discretionary actions only when decisions are irrational, arbitrary, or violate natural justice.
Principles from these case laws guide the limits and control of executive discretion in administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments