Administrative Discretion and Rule of Law
Administrative Discretion and the Rule of Law
1. Introduction
In modern governance, administrative authorities are vested with discretionary powers to make decisions and implement policies. However, administrative discretion must function within the bounds of the Rule of Law to prevent arbitrary or abusive use of power.
The Rule of Law, as propounded by A.V. Dicey and further developed by Indian courts, ensures that all administrative decisions are:
Made within legal authority (not ultra vires),
Free from arbitrariness or bias,
Based on reason, and
Subject to judicial review.
2. What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the freedom of choice that administrative authorities have in:
Policy formulation,
Granting licenses,
Imposing penalties,
Making appointments, etc.
However, such discretion must not be:
Arbitrary,
Unreasonable,
Irrational, or
Inconsistent with the Constitution or statutory guidelines.
3. Relation Between Administrative Discretion and Rule of Law
| Rule of Law Principle | Relevance to Discretion |
|---|---|
| Supremacy of law | Discretion must be within legal limits |
| Equality before law | No discrimination or favoritism |
| Reasoned decisions | Based on facts, not personal opinions |
| Judicial review | Courts ensure lawful use of discretion |
4. Key Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
1. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955) SCR 225
Facts:
The Punjab government took control of a printing press through an executive order, claiming administrative discretion.
Issue:
Was this action justified under the executive powers of the state?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot exercise discretion in violation of law.
Reasoning:
The executive is bound by constitutional and statutory limits.
Any administrative action must have legal backing.
Significance:
Established that discretionary power cannot override Rule of Law.
Reinforced the need for legal authority in administrative actions.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a chance to be heard, citing administrative reasons.
Issue:
Did this discretionary action violate Article 21 of the Constitution?
Holding:
Yes, the action was held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
Discretion must be exercised with procedural fairness and reasonableness.
Rule of Law demands just, fair, and non-arbitrary procedures.
Significance:
Landmark case linking administrative discretion to fundamental rights.
Reinforced that discretion must conform to due process.
3. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471
Facts:
The state acquired land for a public purpose but chose land belonging to certain individuals while ignoring more suitable alternatives.
Issue:
Was the discretion to choose the land exercised arbitrarily?
Holding:
Yes, the land acquisition was quashed as malafide and discriminatory.
Reasoning:
Discretion must be exercised for public interest, not for personal or political reasons.
Malafide use of discretion violates Rule of Law.
Significance:
Reinforced that abuse of discretionary power is subject to judicial review.
Introduced the concept of "malice in law".
4. EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
Facts:
A senior civil servant was transferred without justification, allegedly due to political bias.
Issue:
Was the administrative discretion to transfer the officer constitutional?
Holding:
The court held the action violated Article 14 (equality before the law).
Reasoning:
Discretion must not result in arbitrariness.
Arbitrary state action is the antithesis of equality.
Significance:
Pioneered the idea that arbitrariness equals inequality, and both violate Rule of Law.
Administrative discretion must be non-arbitrary, fair, and reasonable.
5. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600
Facts:
Delhi Transport Corporation had unregulated discretion to terminate employees without any reason.
Issue:
Was such unguided discretion valid?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held the provision as unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
Unfettered discretion violates natural justice and the Rule of Law.
Discretion must be guided by objective standards.
Significance:
Reinforced that “absolute discretion is antithetical to Rule of Law.”
Public authorities must act transparently and be accountable.
5. Principles Evolved from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legal Basis Required | Every discretionary action must be authorized by law. |
| Non-Arbitrariness | Decisions must be based on reason, not whims. |
| Equality and Fairness | No discriminatory use of discretion. |
| Reasoned Orders | Authorities must provide reasons for their decisions. |
| Judicial Review | Courts can invalidate improper use of discretion. |
6. Safeguards Against Abuse of Administrative Discretion
Laying down guidelines in statutes or rules.
Subjecting decisions to judicial review.
Ensuring procedural fairness (notice, hearing, reasons).
Constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 21.
Doctrine of proportionality — means must be appropriate to ends.
7. Conclusion
Administrative discretion is necessary in modern governance due to the complexity of public administration. However, it must operate within the framework of Rule of Law to ensure justice, fairness, and accountability. Courts play a critical role in reviewing and regulating this discretion to prevent abuse, bias, and arbitrariness.
Key Takeaway:
Discretion is not absolute power. It is bound by law, reason, and fairness — the essence of Rule of Law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments