Judicial review of administrative discretion
Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the power or authority granted to administrative agencies or officials to make decisions within the framework of the law. It allows them to choose among different courses of action where the law is not prescriptive or rigid.
Need for Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Discretion can lead to arbitrary or unfair decisions if unchecked.
Judicial review ensures discretion is exercised within the limits of law.
Protects citizens from abuse of power, bias, or irrationality.
Ensures accountability and transparency in administration.
Grounds for Judicial Review of Discretion
Courts may review administrative discretion if:
Illegality: The discretion is exercised beyond the legal power granted (ultra vires).
Irrationality/Unreasonableness: The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedures (natural justice).
Proportionality: The action is disproportionate to the objective sought.
Bias or Malafide: Decision made with prejudice or bad faith.
Key Case Laws on Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: The Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition prohibiting children under 15 from attending Sunday film shows.
Issue: Whether the condition was an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
Holding: The court held that a decision would be overturned only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance: Established the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard as a threshold for judicial review.
Impact: Created a high bar for courts to interfere with administrative discretion, ensuring respect for administrative expertise.
2. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968)
Facts: The Minister refused to refer a complaint against a marketing board despite statutory power to do so.
Issue: Whether refusal to exercise discretion was reviewable.
Holding: The court held that discretion must be exercised to promote the policy and purpose of the statute.
Significance: Discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily or for improper purposes.
Impact: Expanded judicial control to ensure discretion furthers legislative intent.
3. Ridge v Baldwin (1964)
Facts: A chief constable was dismissed without a fair hearing.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion could be reviewed for procedural fairness.
Holding: The House of Lords ruled that failure to afford a fair hearing was a breach of natural justice.
Significance: Procedural fairness is a vital part of judicial review of discretion.
Impact: Emphasized that discretion must be exercised following due process.
4. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985)
Facts: Government banned GCHQ employees from joining trade unions citing national security.
Issue: Whether the exercise of discretion was justiciable.
Holding: The court held that discretion is reviewable for illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, but national security matters have special considerations.
Significance: Clarified that even high-level executive discretion is subject to judicial review except on national security grounds.
Impact: Balanced respect for executive discretion and protection of individual rights.
5. Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council (1956)
Facts: A decision to refuse planning permission was challenged.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised with improper purposes.
Holding: Courts will interfere if discretion is exercised for irrelevant or improper considerations.
Significance: Reinforced that discretion must be exercised for proper purposes only.
Impact: Prevented abuse of discretionary powers for extraneous reasons.
6. Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977)
Facts: The Secretary of State overruled a local education authority’s decision on education.
Issue: Whether the Secretary’s discretion was reviewable.
Holding: Court held that discretion must be based on relevant considerations and evidence.
Significance: Judicial review includes checking whether relevant factors were taken into account.
Impact: Emphasized the requirement for reasoned decision-making in exercising discretion.
Summary Table: Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
| Case | Year | Ground for Review | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury (Wednesbury Case) | 1948 | Irrationality | Established ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ test |
| Padfield v Minister of Agriculture | 1968 | Illegality | Discretion must be exercised to fulfill statutory purpose |
| Ridge v Baldwin | 1964 | Procedural Impropriety | Procedural fairness (natural justice) is mandatory |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister (GCHQ Case) | 1985 | Justiciability & Rationality | Even executive discretion is reviewable except in national security |
| Smith v East Elloe RDC | 1956 | Improper Purpose | Discretion must be exercised for relevant and proper purposes |
| Secretary of State v Tameside MBC | 1977 | Relevant Considerations | Decision must be based on relevant facts and evidence |
Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative discretion ensures that such discretion is exercised within legal bounds, fairly, rationally, and for proper purposes. While courts generally respect administrative expertise and do not interfere lightly, they act as a crucial check against arbitrariness, bias, or abuse of power.
This balance maintains the rule of law and protects individual rights without undermining administrative efficiency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments