Human rights and administrative discretion: a jurisprudential study
🧾 I. Introduction: Administrative Discretion and Human Rights
Administrative Discretion
Administrative discretion refers to the power or freedom granted to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of the law.
Examples: issuing licenses, granting parole, detaining persons, fixing prices, or terminating employment in public service.
Human Rights
Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that belong to every individual, often enshrined in:
Constitution (e.g., Fundamental Rights in India)
International law (e.g., UDHR, ICCPR)
National laws and judgments
🧠 II. Jurisprudential Conflict: Discretion vs. Rights
Administrative discretion can threaten human rights when:
It is exercised arbitrarily
Decisions are made without due process
There is no transparency or accountability
But discretion is also necessary for governance. The jurisprudential challenge lies in balancing discretion with human rights protections.
⚖️ III. Constitutional & Legal Safeguards
In India:
Article 14: Right to equality before the law → protects against arbitrary discretion
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty → requires fair procedure
Article 19: Protection of freedoms → limits on discretion to restrict these freedoms
In UK:
Human Rights Act, 1998 → incorporates ECHR
Judicial review under Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality
In USA:
Due Process Clause (5th and 14th Amendments)
Equal Protection Clause
Judicial review of administrative discretion under APA (Administrative Procedure Act)
🏛️ IV. Landmark Case Laws (More than 5) with Detailed Explanation
✅ 1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – India
Facts: Preventive detention law challenged under Article 21 (right to life and liberty).
Issue: Can the state detain someone merely based on executive discretion?
Holding: SC upheld the law, narrowly interpreting Article 21.
Significance: Initially, courts gave wide scope to administrative discretion, even over liberty.
🔄 Later Overruled by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
✅ 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – India
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion under the Passport Act violated Article 21.
Holding: SC held that procedure under Article 21 must be “just, fair and reasonable”.
Impact:
Introduced due process into Indian constitutional law.
Limited administrative discretion by requiring it to follow principles of natural justice.
✅ 3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – India
Facts: Rising incidents of custodial violence by police led to a PIL.
Issue: Can administrative discretion in arrests violate human rights?
Holding: SC laid down detailed procedural safeguards during arrest and detention.
Importance:
Recognized torture and illegal detention as violations of Article 21.
Held state functionaries accountable for misuse of discretion.
✅ 4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – India
Facts: Presidential rule imposed in various states, allegedly for political reasons.
Issue: Is the President’s discretion under Article 356 justiciable?
Holding: Supreme Court ruled that President's discretion is subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that even high-level administrative discretion is not above law.
Prevents abuse of power under the guise of "discretion."
✅ 5. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) – UK
Facts: A prison policy allowed officers to read prisoners' legal correspondence.
Issue: Did this discretionary prison policy violate human rights?
Holding: House of Lords held that blanket discretion infringed the right to private communication.
Significance:
Introduced proportionality as a standard of review for discretionary decisions.
Strengthened human rights protections under administrative law in the UK.
✅ 6. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985) – UK
Facts: Government banned employees at GCHQ from joining trade unions using executive discretion.
Issue: Could royal prerogative (executive discretion) be judicially reviewed?
Holding: Yes, but national security concerns limited judicial intervention.
Importance:
Established three grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety.
Balanced discretion with the rule of law.
✅ 7. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) – USA
Facts: Environmental regulations interpreted differently by EPA (an administrative agency).
Issue: Should courts defer to administrative agency's interpretation of law?
Holding: Yes — if the law is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Significance:
Gave broad discretionary power to US administrative agencies.
Also raised concerns about accountability and judicial oversight.
✅ 8. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) – India
Facts: Election Commission cancelled an election citing administrative grounds.
Issue: Was the discretion used fairly and in line with natural justice?
Holding: Supreme Court held that discretion must be exercised with transparency and fairness.
Principle: Administrative discretion must stand the test of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
📚 V. Jurisprudential Theories Behind Controlling Discretion
| Jurist | View |
|---|---|
| Dicey | Rule of law requires that no one is above the law; administrative discretion must be controlled |
| Davis (US) | Emphasized the need for standards and procedures to control discretion |
| Wade (UK) | Advocated for judicial review as the main safeguard against abuse of discretion |
| Dworkin | Human rights must act as trumps over policy discretion |
| Fuller | Law must be clear, prospective, and consistently applied — limiting arbitrary discretion |
🔎 VI. Tools to Control Administrative Discretion (Across Jurisdictions)
Judicial Review – Courts examine legality and fairness of administrative action.
Principles of Natural Justice – Right to be heard, unbiased decision-making.
Reasoned Decisions – Authorities must give reasons to justify decisions.
Proportionality Test – Discretion must not exceed what's necessary.
Human Rights Instruments – Domestic and international standards limit state power.
✅ VII. Conclusion: Human Rights as a Check on Administrative Discretion
Discretion is necessary, but unchecked discretion threatens democracy and liberty.
Judicial and legal mechanisms have evolved to ensure that administrative discretion is fair, reasonable, and just.
A human rights-based approach in administrative law ensures that:
Power is not absolute
Authorities are accountable
Citizens are protected from arbitrary action
🗂️ Optional Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Country | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi | India | Fair procedure limits administrative discretion |
| D.K. Basu | India | Arrest discretion must respect human dignity |
| GCHQ Case | UK | Executive discretion subject to review |
| Ex parte Daly | UK | Discretion must be proportional |
| Chevron USA | USA | Courts defer to reasonable agency discretion |
| S.R. Bommai | India | Presidential discretion is reviewable |
RELATED Blog
0 comments