Judicial review of administrative discretion
Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
1. Introduction: What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the power granted to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of the law. It involves:
Choice among various courses of action.
Application of judgment in matters where the law does not prescribe a single outcome.
Discretion is essential for flexible, efficient governance but can lead to arbitrariness, abuse, or unfairness if unchecked.
2. What is Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion?
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine administrative decisions to ensure they comply with law, fairness, and reasonableness.
Judicial review of discretion does not mean courts substitute their own judgment but ensures discretion is exercised:
Within the limits of the law.
According to relevant considerations.
Without arbitrariness or malafide intentions.
With procedural fairness.
In a reasonable manner (Wednesbury principle).
3. Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Courts may intervene if discretion is exercised:
Ultra vires (beyond legal power).
In bad faith or for irrelevant considerations.
In a manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary way.
Ignoring relevant factors or considering irrelevant ones.
Violating principles of natural justice.
Discriminatory or violating fundamental rights.
4. Tests for Judicial Review of Discretion
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (UK): Decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Proportionality Test: Whether the decision is proportionate to the aim.
Reasonableness (India): Balancing flexibility and legal limits.
5. Detailed Case Laws on Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Case 1: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (UK)
Facts: Local authority imposed conditions on cinema license.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised unreasonably.
Holding: Court held discretion can be reviewed if decisions are “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider it.”
Impact: Introduced “Wednesbury unreasonableness” as a standard for reviewing administrative discretion.
Significance: Landmark for reasonableness as a limit to discretion.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (India)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without reasons.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion violated right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Holding: Court held that administrative discretion is subject to procedural fairness and reasonableness.
Impact: Expanded scope of judicial review, emphasizing due process and reasonableness.
Significance: Judicial review ensures administrative discretion complies with fundamental rights.
Case 3: Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) (India)
Facts: Contract awarded arbitrarily by Airport Authority.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised arbitrarily.
Holding: Court held discretion must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily.
Impact: Courts emphasized fair play and non-arbitrariness.
Significance: Discretion must comply with standards of fairness and non-discrimination.
Case 4: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) (India)
Facts: Administrative orders with arbitrary effect.
Issue: Whether orders infringe fundamental rights.
Holding: Courts held judicial review protects citizens against arbitrary administrative discretion.
Impact: Affirmed supremacy of Constitution over administrative discretion.
Significance: Judicial review is essential for constitutional governance.
Case 5: CCTV Camera Case - Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2017) (India)
Facts: Government decision to install CCTV in courts challenged.
Issue: Whether discretion violated privacy rights.
Holding: Court held discretion must balance interests and respect fundamental rights.
Impact: Judicial review includes scrutiny of administrative discretion affecting privacy.
Significance: Showcases evolving judicial oversight in light of fundamental rights.
Case 6: Secretary of State for Education v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977) (UK)
Facts: Government challenged local education authority’s decision.
Issue: Whether Secretary of State’s discretion was unreasonable.
Holding: Court held discretion must be exercised on relevant considerations and with reasonable basis.
Impact: Reinforced relevance of rationality and evidence in discretion.
Significance: Strengthened procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
Case 7: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (India)
Facts: Discretion in judicial appointments challenged.
Issue: Whether discretion exercised arbitrarily.
Holding: Court held that discretion is subject to judicial review to ensure no arbitrariness.
Impact: Affirmed reviewability of discretionary powers in sensitive areas.
Significance: Judicial control extends to discretionary administrative appointments.
6. Principles Emerging from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Non-arbitrariness | Discretion cannot be exercised capriciously or unfairly. |
| Relevant Considerations | Only relevant facts may be considered; irrelevant ignored. |
| Reasonableness / Proportionality | Decisions must be reasonable and proportionate to aims. |
| Due Process and Fair Hearing | Parties affected must be heard before adverse decisions. |
| No delegation beyond power | Discretion must remain within legal limits. |
| Accountability | Administrative decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny. |
7. Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative discretion is a vital safeguard in democratic governance. It maintains the balance between necessary administrative flexibility and protection against abuse.
Courts intervene when discretion is exercised illegally, arbitrarily, or unreasonably, but they do not replace administrative judgment with their own. This ensures administrative agencies retain efficiency while respecting legality, fairness, and fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments