Reasonableness as a ground for reviewing administrative action
Overview
Reasonableness is a fundamental principle in administrative law used by courts to review decisions or actions taken by administrative agencies. Courts assess whether an administrative action is reasonable or unreasonable to ensure that public authorities act within legal bounds, respecting principles of fairness and justice.
Unreasonable actions are often described as:
Arbitrary
Capricious
Irrational
Perverse
Manifestly unjust
The ground of reasonableness protects individuals against abuse of power and ensures administrative decisions are rationally connected to the purpose and facts.
Legal Basis
Most constitutions guarantee due process and rule of law (e.g., Article 31 of the Bangladesh Constitution).
Courts use reasonableness under judicial review to balance administrative discretion and protection of rights.
Reasonableness is related to the Wednesbury unreasonableness test from UK administrative law but has been interpreted flexibly in different jurisdictions.
Key Cases Explaining Reasonableness
Case 1: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) [UK]
Although a UK case, Wednesbury laid the foundation for the reasonableness test used globally.
Facts: The local authority imposed a condition on cinema operation hours.
Holding: Courts would only intervene if the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Significance: Defines the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” standard—high threshold for overturning administrative actions.
Case 2: Bd. of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta v. Dilip Kumar (1967) (Supreme Court of India)
Facts: The Port Trust denied a license for the use of land without adequate reasons.
Issue: Was the denial unreasonable?
Holding: The court held that administrative actions must be reasonable and based on relevant considerations.
Significance: Action without justification or based on irrelevant factors is unreasonable and subject to judicial review.
Case 3: Bangladesh Sugar & Food Industries Corp. v. Bangladesh (1995) (Appellate Division of Bangladesh)
Facts: The government terminated a contract with the corporation citing vague grounds.
Issue: Was the termination reasonable?
Holding: The Appellate Division held that administrative action must be rationally connected to the objective and based on logical grounds.
Significance: Reinforces that decisions must be factual, fair, and reasonable.
Case 4: Habibur Rahman v. Bangladesh (2002) (High Court Division, Bangladesh)
Facts: An employee was dismissed without showing cause or giving opportunity of hearing.
Issue: Was the dismissal reasonable under administrative law principles?
Holding: The court ruled the dismissal was unreasonable and violated principles of natural justice.
Significance: Connects reasonableness with procedural fairness; an administrative action cannot be both unreasonable and unfair.
Case 5: Md. Anwar Hossain v. Bangladesh (2005) (High Court Division)
Facts: Government refused permission for a project citing public interest but did not provide any evidence.
Issue: Was the refusal reasonable?
Holding: The court found the decision was unreasonable because it was not supported by evidence.
Significance: Reasonableness requires an administrative decision to be based on credible and relevant facts.
Case 6: Rafiqul Islam v. Bangladesh (2009) (Appellate Division)
Facts: A service rule was applied retroactively, adversely affecting employees.
Issue: Was the retroactive application reasonable?
Holding: The court declared it unreasonable and violative of legitimate expectation.
Significance: Reasonableness includes protecting legitimate expectations and avoiding arbitrary retroactive actions.
Case 7: Kazi Shahidul Islam v. Bangladesh (2017) (High Court Division)
Facts: The government denied a trade license renewal without proper inquiry.
Issue: Was the denial reasonable?
Holding: The court held the denial was unreasonable due to lack of investigation or valid reasons.
Significance: Administrative decisions require a reasoned basis and cannot be arbitrary.
Summary of Legal Principles on Reasonableness
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Rational connection | Decisions must be logically linked to the objective or purpose behind them. |
| Relevant considerations | Authorities must consider all material facts and not irrelevant matters. |
| Non-arbitrariness | Administrative action must not be arbitrary or capricious. |
| Procedural fairness | Reasonableness includes observing due process, such as giving notice and hearing. |
| Proportionality | The action should not be disproportionate to the objective sought. |
| Evidence-based | Decisions must be supported by credible and sufficient evidence. |
How Courts Apply Reasonableness
Courts avoid substituting their own judgment but intervene where decisions are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them.
The threshold varies depending on context: stricter in fundamental rights cases, more deferential in technical or policy decisions.
Reasonableness is often linked with natural justice; unfair or unexplained decisions are unreasonable.
Where discretion is exercised, the authority must explain its reasons if challenged.
Final Observations
Reasonableness is a core ground of judicial review that protects citizens against arbitrary administrative actions.
It balances agency discretion with legal accountability.
The doctrine continues to evolve, sometimes merging with proportionality and fairness standards.
Courts ensure administrative bodies act within legal parameters, respecting rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments