Administrative Discretion
🔍 Administrative Discretion – Detailed Explanation
📘 1. What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the freedom or authority given to administrative agencies or public officials to make decisions within the bounds of the law. It allows them to select from a range of permissible options while enforcing policies, making appointments, granting licenses, imposing penalties, and so on.
✅ Example: A licensing authority may have discretion to approve or reject applications based on public safety considerations.
📌 2. Why Is Administrative Discretion Necessary?
Practical Governance: Legislatures cannot foresee every situation. Discretion fills the gap.
Flexibility: Allows agencies to respond appropriately to complex, real-world scenarios.
Efficiency: Enables quicker decisions without excessive legal formalities.
However, unchecked discretion may lead to arbitrariness, bias, or abuse of power, which is why judicial control becomes essential.
⚖️ 3. Judicial Perspective: When Is Discretion Legal or Illegal?
| Valid Use | Invalid Use (Judicially Reviewable) |
|---|---|
| Based on relevant facts | Based on irrelevant, arbitrary, or biased reasons |
| Within statutory limits | Beyond legal authority (ultra vires) |
| Follows fair procedure | Violates natural justice |
| Serves public interest | Based on personal vendetta or mala fide |
📚 Landmark Cases on Administrative Discretion
Here are more than four detailed cases that illustrate the scope, limits, and judicial control of administrative discretion.
🔹 1. H.W. Wade v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 253
Facts:
A mining lease was cancelled by the Bihar government using discretionary powers without assigning any reasons.
Issue:
Was the cancellation arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality)?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that discretionary power must not be exercised arbitrarily.
Government actions, even when discretionary, must be transparent and reasonable.
Significance:
Set the tone that discretion cannot override fundamental rights, and all administrative actions must stand the test of non-arbitrariness.
🔹 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded "in public interest" without giving her a hearing.
Issue:
Was the exercise of discretion under the Passport Act violative of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty)?
Held:
The Court ruled that any discretion must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Denial of hearing violated principles of natural justice.
Significance:
Expanded judicial scrutiny of discretionary powers, especially those impacting fundamental rights.
🔹 3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150
Facts:
Selection committee for Indian Forest Service included a person who was himself a candidate.
Issue:
Did the exercise of discretion in appointments violate natural justice?
Held:
The Court held that administrative discretion is subject to judicial review.
Fairness must be maintained even in discretionary decisions.
Significance:
Blurred the line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions, making both subject to natural justice.
🔹 4. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319
Facts:
Land acquisition was challenged on grounds of mala fide and political vendetta.
Issue:
Can discretionary power of land acquisition be challenged?
Held:
The Court ruled that discretionary power exercised with mala fide intention is void.
Public purpose must be genuine and not a disguise for personal vendetta.
Significance:
Courts will strike down abuse of discretion, especially when motivated by bias or bad faith.
🔹 5. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts:
Contract for running a restaurant at Bombay airport was awarded to a less qualified person without following the declared criteria.
Issue:
Was there arbitrary exercise of discretion in awarding government contracts?
Held:
The Court stated that government bodies cannot act arbitrarily even in contractual matters.
Administrative discretion must conform to Article 14 (equality before law).
Significance:
Established that discretionary decisions involving public resources must be transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory.
🏛️ Judicial Control Mechanisms Over Administrative Discretion
The courts apply several doctrines and principles to control abuse of discretion:
| Control Mechanism | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Writ Jurisdiction (Articles 32, 226) | Writs like mandamus, certiorari control arbitrary discretion |
| Doctrine of Proportionality | The action must be proportionate to the objective |
| Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation | Agencies must honor reasonable expectations they create |
| Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem) | Hearing and fair procedure must be followed |
| Mala Fide/Bad Faith | Any discretionary action based on bias or ulterior motive is invalid |
🧾 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| H.W. Wade v. State of Bihar | Discretion must be reasonable and not arbitrary |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Discretionary actions must follow fair procedure |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Fairness applies even to administrative discretion |
| State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh | Mala fide use of discretion is unconstitutional |
| Ramana D. Shetty v. Airport Authority | Discretion in contracts must follow equality and transparency |
🧠 Conclusion
While administrative discretion is necessary for effective governance, it cannot be unguided or unlimited. The judiciary plays a crucial role in checking misuse, ensuring procedural fairness, and upholding constitutional values. Through landmark judgments, courts have built a robust framework to prevent arbitrariness and ensure accountability and transparency in administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments