Non Exercise of Discretionary power as a ground for challenging dministrative discretion
Non-Exercise of Discretionary Power
Discretionary power in administrative law refers to the power vested in administrative authorities to make decisions based on their judgment within the limits of the law. The authority can choose whether or not to take a particular action or make a specific decision, and how to do so.
However, non-exercise of discretionary power occurs when the authority refuses or fails to exercise that discretion at all, even when required to do so. This non-exercise can be challenged as:
Illegality or unreasonableness: If the authority fails to act when the law requires it.
Abuse of discretion: When the discretion is deliberately withheld without reasonable justification.
Why is Non-Exercise of Discretion Challenged?
The law expects administrative authorities to act reasonably and not arbitrarily refuse to exercise discretion. If discretion is frozen or withheld, it leads to injustice and denial of rights. Courts intervene to ensure that discretionary power is exercised fairly and within legal bounds.
Case Laws on Non-Exercise of Discretionary Power
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: The Wednesbury Corporation imposed conditions on a cinema license, including restricting children from attending on Sundays. The cinema company challenged this.
Issue: Whether the discretionary power was exercised reasonably or arbitrarily.
Held: The court laid down the famous "Wednesbury Principle" – discretion must not be exercised in an unreasonable or irrational manner.
Relevance: If discretion is not exercised at all or exercised irrationally, courts can intervene. Non-exercise or fettering of discretion can be challenged.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
Facts: Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without a proper hearing, and the authority did not exercise its discretion fairly.
Issue: Whether non-exercise or unfair exercise of discretion violated natural justice.
Held: The court held that failure to exercise discretion properly (including not giving a fair hearing) was unlawful.
Relevance: The non-exercise or improper exercise of discretionary power can be challenged for violating principles of fairness.
3. Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983)
Facts: Immigration authorities refused to exercise their discretion to allow entry into Hong Kong to refugees.
Issue: Whether failure to exercise discretion was lawful.
Held: The Privy Council held that discretion must be exercised honestly and fairly; non-exercise or refusal to exercise discretion can be judicially reviewed.
Relevance: Administrative discretion must be exercised and not withheld arbitrarily.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing reasons or a hearing.
Issue: Whether the non-exercise of discretion violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Held: The court held that the exercise of administrative discretion must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Relevance: Courts can intervene if discretion is withheld or exercised without fairness.
5. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Facts: The authority refused to grant a passport without reasonable justification.
Issue: Whether non-exercise of discretion was lawful.
Held: The Supreme Court held that discretion cannot be withheld arbitrarily; refusal must be reasonable and subject to judicial review.
Relevance: Authorities must exercise discretion and cannot withhold it arbitrarily.
Summary of Key Points
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Discretionary power | Authority’s freedom to decide within legal limits |
| Non-exercise of discretion | Failure or refusal to act when discretion is mandated |
| Grounds for challenge | Illegality, unreasonableness, abuse of discretion |
| Judicial intervention | Courts can review to ensure discretion is exercised fairly |
| Principle from cases | Discretion should not be withheld arbitrarily or irrationally |
RELATED Blog
0 comments