Ombudsman review of administrative discretion
Ombudsman Review of Administrative Discretion
What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion is the power given to administrative authorities to make decisions within the framework of law, where the law does not prescribe a strict rule but leaves room for judgment based on facts and circumstances.
Discretion must be exercised:
Reasonably and in good faith,
Within the limits of authority,
Following principles of natural justice,
Without arbitrariness or malafide intentions.
Role of the Ombudsman in Reviewing Administrative Discretion
An Ombudsman is an independent public official appointed to investigate complaints against maladministration, including misuse or abuse of administrative discretion.
The Ombudsman’s review includes:
Examining whether discretion was exercised within legal bounds.
Investigating arbitrary, biased, or corrupt use of discretionary powers.
Ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in administrative actions.
Recommending corrective measures, though usually without binding powers.
Acting as a check on executive power and protecting citizens’ rights.
Ombudsman review complements judicial review but is usually more accessible, informal, and speedy.
Case Laws Illustrating Ombudsman Review of Administrative Discretion
1. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (India) – Foundational Context
Although not a case, the Act establishes ombudsman-like institutions at the national and state levels.
It provides mechanisms for investigating corruption and abuse of discretionary powers by public officials.
Demonstrates statutory recognition of the Ombudsman’s role in overseeing administrative discretion.
2. R.K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1362
Facts: Complaint about arbitrary transfer of government employees.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily or in mala fide.
Ombudsman relevance: Ombudsman institutions often investigate similar complaints about misuse of discretion.
Explanation: This judgment reinforced that discretion must be reasoned and free from personal bias, grounds on which Ombudsman reviews administrative decisions.
3. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
Facts: Abuse of discretion in a quasi-judicial inquiry.
Principle: Court declared that discretionary powers are subject to judicial and administrative scrutiny.
Ombudsman role: Acts as a quasi-judicial body ensuring discretion is exercised lawfully.
Explanation: Demonstrates that discretionary power is not absolute and Ombudsman can question maladministration.
4. The Ombudsman Act, 1973 (UK) – Classic Example
The UK Ombudsman Act gave the Ombudsman the power to investigate complaints about maladministration including improper exercise of discretion.
Ombudsman reports, though non-binding, have influenced reforms and administrative accountability.
This model inspired many countries to empower Ombudsmen to review discretionary administrative actions.
5. State of Maharashtra v. S.K. Barve, AIR 1965 SC 745
Facts: Challenge against arbitrary exercise of power by state authorities.
Principle: The Court held that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.
Ombudsman oversight: Such cases often form the basis of Ombudsman investigations.
Explanation: Emphasizes that Ombudsmen help ensure discretionary powers are used fairly and lawfully.
6. Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1469
Facts: Complaint related to misuse of discretionary powers in public appointments.
Principle: The Court held that discretion must follow the rule of law and equal opportunity.
Ombudsman relevance: Ombudsman investigations often check fairness in appointments and transfers.
Explanation: The case reiterates that discretionary power should promote fairness, a key Ombudsman concern.
Summary of Ombudsman Review Principles
Discretion must be reasonable, lawful, and non-arbitrary.
Ombudsman investigations focus on abuse, bias, or corruption in discretion.
Ombudsman provides an accessible forum to check executive discretion without resorting to courts.
While non-binding, Ombudsman reports influence administrative reforms and accountability.
Judicial cases emphasize limits on discretion that Ombudsmen help enforce in practice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments