Identify and analyse discretionary decision-making powers conferred by statute
Discretionary Decision-Making Powers Conferred by Statute
What are Discretionary Powers?
Discretionary powers are those granted to administrative authorities by statutes, allowing them to make decisions based on judgment rather than strict rules.
Unlike mandatory powers (where officials must act in a prescribed manner), discretionary powers permit flexibility to decide what is best in the circumstances.
Such powers are essential for practical governance because not every situation can be rigidly regulated by law.
Characteristics of Discretionary Powers:
Statutory Basis: Must be conferred explicitly or impliedly by law.
Judgment-Based: Decisions rely on consideration of relevant facts and circumstances.
Non-Arbitrary: Exercise must be reasonable, bona fide, and not whimsical.
Subject to Judicial Review: Courts ensure discretion is exercised within legal limits.
Importance in Administrative Law:
Discretion allows public authorities to tailor decisions to individual cases.
However, discretion is not unfettered; it is controlled by:
Statutory purpose: Must serve the object of the statute.
Principles of natural justice: Fair hearing where applicable.
Reasonableness: Avoid arbitrary or irrational decisions.
Prohibition of improper purpose or bad faith.
Case Law Illustrating Discretionary Powers and Their Judicial Review
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: The government exercised discretionary power to ban a newspaper.
Holding: The Court held that discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits.
Reasoning: Discretion cannot violate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech.
Significance: Discretionary power is subject to constitutional scrutiny and cannot be used arbitrarily.
2. Bangalore Development Authority v. K. Chandrasekhar (2012)
Facts: BDA exercised discretion in allotting land for public housing.
Holding: The Court upheld the exercise of discretion but stressed it must be reasonable and transparent.
Reasoning: While discretion allows flexibility, it must not be exercised oppressively or unfairly.
Significance: Established the balance between administrative flexibility and fairness.
3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Facts: Contract award decision challenged as arbitrary exercise of discretion.
Holding: The Court held discretion must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily.
Reasoning: Administrative decisions must comply with principles of reasonableness and fairness.
Significance: Laid down guidelines for judicial review of discretionary decisions.
4. Krishna Ramchandra Dhavale v. Union of India (1993)
Facts: Discretionary power to grant bail was exercised arbitrarily.
Holding: Court set aside the arbitrary denial of bail.
Reasoning: Discretion must be exercised based on relevant criteria and reasoned judgment.
Significance: Reinforced that discretionary power must be exercised judicially.
5. Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. (1968)
Facts: Exercise of discretionary power to regulate industrial licenses challenged.
Holding: The Court held that discretion must be guided by policy and reasons.
Reasoning: Discretionary decisions without clear guidelines are open to challenge.
Significance: Emphasized the need for reasoned decision-making in discretionary powers.
Summary Table of Case Laws:
| Case | Principle Established | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras | Discretion within constitutional limits | Discretion cannot violate fundamental rights |
| Bangalore Development Authority | Reasonableness and transparency | Discretion must be fair and not oppressive |
| Ramana Shetty v. IAAI | Fairness and non-arbitrariness | Judicial review ensures reasonable discretion |
| Krishna Ramchandra Dhavale | Exercise based on relevant criteria | Arbitrary discretion can be quashed |
| Union of India v. Cynamide Ltd. | Need for policy and reason in discretion | Encouraged reasoned and guided exercise |
Analysis and Key Takeaways:
Discretionary powers are necessary for flexible and responsive governance but come with the risk of misuse.
Courts act as a check by ensuring discretion is exercised within the bounds of law, fairness, and reasonableness.
Administrative authorities must provide reasons and follow fair procedures where discretion impacts rights.
Arbitrary, mala fide, or irrelevant considerations invalidate the exercise of discretion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments