Administrative discretion: concept and limits
I. CONCEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION
Administrative discretion refers to the power or freedom given to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of the law. This discretion is often necessary because statutes cannot anticipate every possible situation, so officials are given some leeway to make decisions based on the facts and circumstances before them.
Types of Administrative Discretion:
Policy discretion: Choosing between different policy options.
Operational discretion: Day-to-day management decisions.
Licensing and regulatory discretion: Approving or denying licenses, permits, etc.
Need for Discretion:
Complexity of modern governance
Technical nature of decisions
Flexibility in implementation of laws
II. LIMITS ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION
Discretion must be exercised:
Within the bounds of law
Reasonably and not arbitrarily
Without discrimination
In accordance with principles of natural justice
Subject to judicial review
III. CASE LAWS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL
1. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980 AIR 319)
Facts:
The Punjab government sought to acquire land for a public purpose. The land selected belonged to Gurdial Singh, while other more suitable and less inconvenient plots were ignored. The landowners challenged the acquisition.
Issue:
Whether the government's selection of land was based on proper discretion or if it was arbitrary.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily. The government had acted with malice in law — meaning, there was no personal ill-will, but the decision was based on improper or irrelevant considerations.
Principle:
Even where discretion exists, it must be exercised reasonably and fairly, and any colorable or mala fide exercise can be struck down by courts.
2. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955 AIR 549)
Facts:
The Punjab Government took over the business of textbook publishing, which was previously done by private publishers. The petitioners, affected by this, challenged it on the grounds of violation of their fundamental rights.
Issue:
Whether the executive action without legislative backing was valid.
Held:
The Court upheld the government's action and explained the scope of executive power and administrative discretion. It stated that the executive has discretion in policy implementation, as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution or existing laws.
Principle:
Administrative discretion is valid unless it contravenes existing law or constitutional provisions. Executive power can be broad but not absolute.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Facts:
The petitioner’s passport was impounded by the government "in public interest" without giving her a chance to be heard. She challenged this action as arbitrary and against the right to personal liberty.
Issue:
Whether discretionary powers under the Passport Act could be used to restrict fundamental rights without due process.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that discretion must be exercised in conformity with Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty). The impounding without hearing was against principles of natural justice.
Principle:
Discretionary powers, even when granted by statute, cannot violate fundamental rights. Due process and fairness are essential even in administrative actions.
4. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969 AIR 150)
Facts:
A selection committee for Indian Forest Service included a member who was also a candidate. The selections made were challenged on the ground of bias.
Issue:
Whether the administrative action violated principles of natural justice.
Held:
The Court held that even administrative actions must adhere to natural justice. The involvement of an interested person in the selection process invalidated the decision.
Principle:
Discretion cannot be exercised in a manner that breaches natural justice. Administrative discretion is subject to judicial review when fairness is compromised.
5. Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India (1996 AIR 1356)
Facts:
The government granted licenses to private companies for telecom services. The decision was challenged for lack of transparency and fairness.
Issue:
Whether the grant of telecom licenses involved arbitrary exercise of discretion.
Held:
The Court held that though policy decisions involve discretion, such decisions must be transparent, non-arbitrary, and subject to judicial review if there is unfairness or mala fides.
Principle:
Discretion in policy matters is not beyond judicial scrutiny. Public interest, fairness, and transparency are necessary checks.
IV. CONCLUSION
Administrative discretion is essential for efficient governance, but it is not unlimited. Courts have laid down clear limits on how this power should be exercised:
Must be reasonable and fair
Subject to the Constitution and laws
Must uphold natural justice
Cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory
Subject to judicial review when abused
Judicial Review Grounds:
Illegality
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Procedural impropriety
Proportionality
These case laws illustrate how the courts have consistently held that discretion is a tool of justice, not a weapon of arbitrariness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments