Control of Administrative Discreation- At the stage of delegation of discretion
Control of Administrative Discretion at the Stage of Delegation: Detailed Explanation
1. What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the power conferred on administrative authorities to make decisions within the limits set by law. Discretion allows flexibility in applying the law to varied factual situations.
2. Delegation of Discretion
Legislatures delegate discretionary powers to administrative agencies or officials to implement laws effectively.
Delegation involves transferring the authority to decide or act from a legislative body to an administrative authority.
3. Why Control Delegation?
Uncontrolled or improper delegation may lead to:
Abuse of power,
Arbitrary decisions,
Violation of constitutional principles.
Hence, courts impose limits on the delegation of discretionary power to ensure accountability and legality.
4. Principles Governing Delegation of Administrative Discretion
Non-Delegation Doctrine: The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative powers without proper guidelines.
Intelligible Principle: The statute delegating power must provide clear guidelines or principles to control discretion.
No Unfettered Discretion: Absolute or unfettered discretion is not permitted.
Reasonableness: Discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith.
Judicial Review: Courts can review if delegation violates constitutional limits or if discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
Key Case Laws on Control at the Delegation Stage
Case 1: A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) – India
Facts: Challenge to vague and broad discretionary powers given to administrative authorities.
Held: The Supreme Court held that delegation must be with clear guidelines and cannot be vague or unlimited.
Significance: Affirmed that discretionary powers must be exercised according to intelligible principles laid down by the legislature.
Case 2: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) – India
Facts: Legislation gave the government wide discretion to impose restrictions on freedom of speech.
Held: The Court held that the delegation was too wide and amounted to an abdication of legislative power.
Significance: Early articulation of the non-delegation doctrine in India.
Case 3: In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958) – India
Facts: The Kerala Education Act gave unlimited discretionary power to the executive to exempt schools from certain provisions.
Held: The court struck down the provision as it allowed unfettered discretion without standards or guidelines.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that legislative delegation must come with adequate safeguards.
Case 4: Delhi Laws Act Case (1951) – India
Facts: Challenge to delegation of law-making powers to subordinate authorities without clear limits.
Held: The Court said delegation must be accompanied by adequate standards to control discretion.
Significance: A foundational case on the “intelligible principle” test.
Case 5: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa (1953) – India
Facts: Discretionary powers were conferred on the government to acquire property without compensation in certain cases.
Held: The court held that the discretion was subject to judicial review and must be exercised in good faith.
Significance: Recognized limits to delegation through judicial supervision.
Case 6: R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) – India
Facts: Challenge against arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion in contract award.
Held: The Court held that discretion must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and not arbitrarily.
Significance: Established principles governing exercise of delegated discretion.
Summary Table
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| A.K. Roy (1982) | Discretion must follow intelligible principles. |
| Romesh Thappar (1950) | Non-delegation of essential legislative functions. |
| In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958) | No unfettered or unlimited discretion. |
| Delhi Laws Act (1951) | Delegation must include adequate standards/guidelines. |
| K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo (1953) | Discretion subject to good faith and judicial review. |
| R.D. Shetty (1979) | Discretion must be reasonable, fair, and non-arbitrary. |
Conclusion
The control of administrative discretion at the delegation stage ensures that discretionary powers are:
Properly defined,
Subject to legal safeguards,
Bound by intelligible principles,
Exercised in good faith and reasonableness.
Courts act as a check to prevent misuse or arbitrary delegation and ensure adherence to constitutional principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments