Mala fide exercise of power
I. Meaning of Mala Fide Exercise of Power
Mala fide is a Latin term that means "in bad faith." A mala fide exercise of power refers to the misuse or abuse of power by an authority for purposes other than what the law intended. It implies a dishonest or corrupt intention behind an administrative or governmental act.
II. Key Elements of Mala Fide Exercise of Power
Improper Motive: Power is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was conferred.
Lack of Good Faith: Action is taken with dishonest intention or ulterior motive.
Misuse for Personal or Political Gain.
Violation of Legal or Constitutional Limits.
III. Leading Case Laws Explaining Mala Fide Exercise of Power
Below are five detailed case laws from Indian jurisprudence that explain the doctrine of mala fide exercise of power.
1. Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 133
Facts:
The Government attempted to evict Express Newspapers from its premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act.
The petitioners claimed that this was a retaliatory action because their newspaper had been critical of the ruling government.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the eviction notice was issued mala fide and with ulterior political motives.
It emphasized that power must be exercised for public purpose, not to suppress dissent or retaliate.
Significance:
Established that even if the government has the power to act, using that power for a collateral purpose (e.g., silencing critics) makes the action unconstitutional.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471
Facts:
Land was acquired allegedly for a public purpose, but the petitioner claimed it was a camouflage to favor private individuals and settle political scores.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the land acquisition was vitiated by mala fides.
Acquisition for a collateral purpose, or at the behest of private parties, is not permissible under Article 300A.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that misuse of public power for private gain or political vendetta constitutes mala fide.
Public power must be used only for the public interest.
3. S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 72)
Facts:
A civil servant was suspended allegedly due to administrative reasons.
The officer claimed that the action was taken out of personal grudge by the Chief Minister.
Held:
The Supreme Court accepted that the dominant motive behind the suspension was personal animosity.
The suspension was declared mala fide and illegal.
Significance:
Introduced the principle that even discretionary administrative actions can be struck down if motivated by malice or vengeance.
Subjective satisfaction of authority is reviewable if mala fide is proven.
4. Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (AIR 1967 SC 295)
Facts:
The Company Law Board initiated an investigation into the affairs of Barium Chemicals Ltd. under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act.
The petitioners argued that the investigation was not based on genuine material and had an ulterior motive.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that subjective satisfaction must be based on objective facts.
If an authority acts arbitrarily or with ill-intent, the action is vitiated by mala fides.
Significance:
This case is a milestone in administrative law.
It clarified that “subjective satisfaction” is not beyond judicial review when mala fides or arbitrariness are alleged.
5. Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab (AIR 1974 SC 2161)
Facts:
A government employee was dismissed from service allegedly for misconduct.
It was revealed that the action was taken due to political rivalry and pressure, not based on actual misconduct.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the dismissal, holding that it was not in good faith and was the result of political vendetta.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that disciplinary action must be based on genuine misconduct, not political or personal bias.
IV. Summary of Legal Position
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mala fide intent vitiates administrative action | Even if the law permits the action, the intent behind it matters. |
| Subjective power ≠ unchecked power | Discretionary power must be exercised in good faith and for the right purpose. |
| Burden of proof lies on the person alleging mala fides | Strong evidence is required, including motive, timing, and inconsistencies. |
| Judicial Review applies | Courts can strike down actions if mala fides is established. |
V. Conclusion
The concept of mala fide exercise of power is a powerful check on arbitrary, vindictive, or corrupt governance. It ensures that public authorities act with integrity, fairness, and within their legal bounds. Indian courts have time and again intervened to prevent abuse of discretionary powers, thereby upholding constitutional morality and the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments