Control at the stage of the exercise of discretion
Control at the Stage of the Exercise of Discretion: Detailed Explanation
1. Meaning of Discretion in Administrative Law
Discretion refers to the power granted to administrative authorities by law to make choices or decisions among various options when the law does not prescribe a single mandatory course of action.
Discretion allows flexibility to adapt to facts and circumstances.
It is not arbitrary or unlimited but must be exercised according to law, reason, and justice.
It often applies in areas such as granting licenses, permits, sanctions, or policy decisions.
2. Importance of Control over Discretion
Since discretion involves choice and judgment, there is a risk of abuse, arbitrariness, or misuse. Therefore, judicial and administrative controls are imposed to ensure:
The discretion is exercised within the limits set by law.
It is exercised reasonably, fairly, and not arbitrarily.
It does not violate principles of natural justice.
It is exercised for public good and not for irrelevant or mala fide reasons.
3. Modes of Control at the Stage of Discretion
Judicial Review: Courts can review administrative discretion to ensure legality and reasonableness.
Statutory Limits: Laws may prescribe clear guidelines or standards.
Principles of Natural Justice: Right to be heard, no bias.
Administrative Supervision: Higher authorities may review decisions.
Reasoned Decisions: Mandate that discretion be exercised with reasons.
4. Grounds for Judicial Review of Discretionary Action
Judicial control limits discretion on grounds such as:
Illegality: Acting beyond powers (ultra vires).
Irrationality or Arbitrariness: No reasonable basis (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Improper Purpose: Exercising discretion for reasons other than those intended.
Relevant/Irrelevant Considerations: Ignoring relevant facts or considering irrelevant factors.
Violation of Natural Justice.
5. Important Case Laws on Control of Discretion
Case 1: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
This is the classic case defining judicial review of administrative discretion.
The Court held that discretion will be interfered with only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have acted like that (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
It set the standard for rationality and reasonableness in discretionary decisions.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law for exercising discretion must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary.
It extended the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include due process.
Administrative discretion must be subject to constitutional safeguards.
Case 3: Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
The Court ruled that discretion exercised in public contracts and tenders must be fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary.
It underscored the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in discretionary decisions.
Case 4: Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (1991)
The Court emphasized that discretion must not be exercised in bad faith or malafide.
Any discretion exercised with ulterior motives or corruption would be struck down.
Case 5: R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979)
The Court elaborated on relevant and irrelevant considerations.
It held that decision-makers must consider all relevant factors and exclude irrelevant ones in exercising discretion.
Failure to do so amounts to abuse of discretion.
6. Summary Table of Case Principles
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury | Judicial review for irrational/unreasonable discretion |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Discretion must observe due process and fairness |
| Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority | Fairness, transparency in discretionary public contracts |
| Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress | No mala fide or bad faith in discretion |
| R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India | Consider relevant factors and exclude irrelevant ones |
7. Conclusion
Discretion is essential for flexible and effective administration.
However, it is not absolute or unfettered; there must be control and oversight.
Courts intervene when discretion is exercised unreasonably, arbitrarily, or mala fide.
Principles of natural justice, transparency, fairness, and accountability govern the exercise of discretion.
The Wednesbury principle remains a cornerstone but modern courts increasingly emphasize reasoned and fair decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments