AL Module-5
AL Module-5
AL Module-5
Meaning of Discretion
In simple terms, discretion means the ability to choose an option from the various, or at least
two alternatives available. In the administrative law sense, it can be simply said to be the ability
of the administrative authority to pick and choose from the alternatives available before it.
Sir Edward Coke defined discretion as the knowledge to distinguish between falsity and
truth, or right and wrong, without resorting to any personal reasons.
In the case of Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield, Lord Halsbury opined that when something is
left to administrative discretion, it means that it has to be done in accordance with the
principles of justice and reason and not on the basis of the private opinion of the authority
concerned.
It can be said that in pursuance of administrative discretion, the authority in question has to
take decisions not only on the basis of the evidence and is also bound to consider the policy
and expediency.
2) Complexity of Issues: Many administrative matters involve complex and multifaceted issues
that cannot be addressed through rigid rules or procedures alone. Discretionary powers
enable authorities to exercise judgment and expertise in navigating these complexities and
arriving at informed decisions that best serve the public interest.
Statutory Control
Control Over Its Mis-Exercise at the Stage of Conferment and Exercise
There are three main heads under which the control over administrative discretion exercised.
1. Parliamentary Control over administrative discretion
2. Judicial Control over administrative discretion
3. Procedural and Executive Control
There is Control over the potential mis-exercise of administrative discretion at both the stage
of- conferment and exercise under the above heads.
o Delegation Limits: Legislatures can impose limits on the delegation of discretionary powers,
ensuring that only necessary and appropriate powers are delegated to administrative
authorities. This helps prevent the overreach of executive authority and maintains the
separation of powers.
o Judicial Review: Courts can review the constitutionality and legality of laws delegating
discretionary powers to administrative authorities. Judicial review ensures that laws are
consistent with constitutional principles, including fundamental rights and the rule of law,
and that they do not confer excessive or arbitrary discretion.
In P.B. Samant v. State of Maharashtra, the court held the distribution of cement against the law and the
circulars or guidelines issued by the Government on that behalf as bad. The distribution of cement was in favour
of certain builders in return for the donations given by them to certain foundations of which the Chief Minister
was a trustee. It was a clear case of mala fide exercise of power. The power to control the distribution of an
essential commodity like cement is given to the Government with a view to ensuring its equitable distribution.
When this power is used for obtaining donations for a trust, it is a clear case of abuse of power.
o Judicial Review: Courts play a crucial role in reviewing the exercise of discretionary powers
by administrative authorities. Judicial review ensures that decisions are made within the
scope of authority conferred by law, are consistent with legal standards and principles, and
do not violate fundamental rights or principles of fairness and reasonableness.
o Public Accountability: Administrative authorities are ultimately accountable to the public for
the exercise of discretionary powers. Transparency, public consultation, and reporting
requirements can help promote accountability and public confidence in the integrity and
fairness of administrative decision-making processes.
By implementing these control mechanisms, governments can mitigate the risk of mis-exercise
of administrative discretion, uphold the rule of law, and safeguard the rights and interests of
citizens.
[For more information regarding this topic- https://lawbhoomi.com/grounds-of-control-on-administrative-discretion/ ]
Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Though the courts won’t ordinarily interfere with the decisions of administrative authority taken
in the exercise of its discretion, yet, the legislature must refrain from giving unfettered
discretionary powers to administrative authorities, in which case the courts will have to
intervene.
In India, courts interfere with the discretionary powers of administrative authority in following
two situations-
- Firstly, failure of the authority to exercise the discretion given to it and
- Secondly, abuse of discretion by the authority.
Case Laws:
In the case of Darshan Lal Mehra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of ‘theatre tax’ which was imposed by Lucknow Mahanagar Palika, at the
rate of Rs. 5 per cinema show held in a building which had a rental value of Rs. 10,000 or
more and Rs. 3 per show in other cases, under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959
which allowed the Mahapalikas to impose a tax “for the purposes of this Act” and rejected
the contention that the use of this expression was a case of excessive delegation, holding that
the obligations and functions of Mahapalikas are well defined and tax can be imposed only
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, the classification of cinema houses on
the basis of rental value was also upheld as, the Court observed, the rental value reflected the
seating capacity, quality, and locality of cinema houses, all factors which affect the
entertainment value and the tax is imposed on entertainment, meaning that the classification
is based on intelligible differentia (difference in rental value) and has a rational nexus with
the object (tax on entertainment).
In the case of Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, a notice of re-entry upon
forfeiture was issued by the Government to the Indian Express newspaper. The newspaper
alleged that the notice was mala fide and was based on extraneous consideration – critical
commentary on the Congress government by the Indian Express. The government did not
deny the allegations but dubbed them irrelevant. The Court quashed the notice for being
mala fide and also opined that it is for the Court to decide what is relevant or not. The parties
are not supposed to tell it.
In the case of Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab, a surgeon’s preparatory leave to
retirement was canceled after being granted and then he was suspended. Finally, he was
dismissed. The dismissal was set aside as his allegation that the actions were mala fide as he
did not yield to illegal demands of the CM were accepted by the Court. In the case of the
State of Bihar v. Ganguly, it was held that the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari filed
mandamus in relation to an order of reference issued by the appropriate government under
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By certiorari, the order of the appropriate
government can be corrected and by mandamus, the appropriate government can be directed
to consider the matter afresh.
Non-Statutory Control
Wednesbury Principle:
The Wednesbury principle, derived from the famous case Associated Provincial Picture Houses
Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), is a cornerstone of administrative law that sets a
standard for judicial review of administrative decisions. Though originating from a UK case, the
principle has influenced administrative law doctrines in various common law jurisdictions,
including India.
The essence of the Wednesbury principle lies in assessing the legality of administrative
decisions by scrutinizing whether they are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could
ever have arrived at them. In simpler terms, it establishes a high threshold for courts to interfere
with administrative decisions, intervening only if a decision is found to be irrational or
unreasonable in the extreme.
The action of the administrative authorities would be declared unconstitutional if it meets the
following circumstances:
If the action has no backing of the law;
There is no evidence to back the action of the authority;
The action is based on irrelevant and extraneous consideration;
The action is so outrageous and is so unreasonable that no reasonable person in their
wildest of dreams would reach that particular conclusion.
For example, a ration distribution authority comes up with criteria that only people with black hair will receive
their rations, it would be considered highly outrageous and unreasonable. Such an order would be struck down
using the Wednesbury principles.
o Judicial Restraint: Embodying a doctrine of judicial restraint, the principle acknowledges the
expertise and authority vested in administrative bodies. Courts are cautious about overruling
administrative decisions and generally defer to the specialized knowledge and judgment of
these bodies, intervening only in cases of egregious unreasonableness.
In the Indian legal context, the Wednesbury principle has been widely adopted and applied in
cases involving judicial review of administrative actions. Courts in India rely on this principle
to assess the reasonableness of administrative decisions, particularly those involving exercises
of discretionary powers or the interpretation of laws. By maintaining a balance between
administrative autonomy and judicial oversight, the Wednesbury principle ensures that
administrative decisions are subject to scrutiny while safeguarding the legitimate authority of
administrative bodies.
Doctrine of Proportionality:
Doctrine of proportionality is a principle that is used as a ground for judicial review in cases
of administrative action.
While exercising administrative action, the body should keep in mind the purpose it seeks to
obtain and the means it is using to achieve it, and if its actions deviate from the object or are
discriminatory or disproportionate then they would be quashed by the court by using the
doctrine of proportionality.
The doctrine of proportionality requires a body to maintain balance between its action and
purpose for which the powers have been conferred.
o Rational Connection: There must be a rational connection between the action taken by the
public authority and the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. In other words, the means
employed must be suitable and conducive to achieving the intended objective. The action
should not be arbitrary or irrational but must be based on logical reasoning and evidence.
o Necessity: The action taken must be necessary to achieve the legitimate aim, meaning that
no less intrusive or restrictive measures are available to attain the same objective. The
authority must demonstrate that the action is proportionate to the gravity of the issue at hand
and that less restrictive alternatives have been considered and found inadequate.
o Proportionality in Strict Sense: This aspect of proportionality requires that the benefits of the
action outweigh its potential negative impact or infringement on the rights or interests of
individuals. The authority must carefully balance the competing interests involved and
ensure that the action is not disproportionate or excessive in relation to the intended
objective.
Doctrine of Estoppel:
The Doctrine of Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from asserting a claim or
right that contradicts what they have previously stated or agreed upon, especially when such
assertion would be unfair or unjust. It is based on the principle of equity and fairness and aims
to prevent individuals from acting in a manner that is contrary to their prior representations or
conduct.
In administrative law, the Doctrine of Estoppel plays a significant role in ensuring fairness,
consistency, and the rule of law in the actions of government agencies and officials.
o Estoppel as a Shield and Sword: In administrative law, estoppel can operate both as a shield
and a sword. As a shield, it prevents the government from enforcing its strict legal rights
against individuals or entities who have reasonably relied on its representations. As a sword,
it allows individuals or entities to enforce the representations made by the government
against it.
o Equitable and Promissory Estoppel: Administrative estoppel may take the form of equitable
estoppel, where preventing the government from acting inconsistently with its
representations would prevent unconscionable conduct or injustice. It may also manifest as
promissory estoppel when individuals or entities have relied on clear and unequivocal
promises made by government officials.
o Limits and Exceptions: While estoppel is a powerful equitable doctrine, its application in
administrative law is subject to certain limits and exceptions. For instance, estoppel cannot
override statutory provisions, public policy considerations, or legitimate administrative
discretion exercised in the public interest.
o Judicial Review: Courts may review administrative actions involving estoppel to ensure that
they are consistent with principles of fairness, reasonableness, and the rule of law. Judicial
review provides a mechanism for holding government agencies and officials accountable for
their representations and actions.
Overall, the Doctrine of Estoppel in administrative law serves to promote fairness, consistency, and
accountability in the actions of government agencies and officials. It ensures that individuals and entities are not
unfairly prejudiced by relying on representations made by the government and helps maintain public trust and
confidence in the administrative process.
One notable example of the Doctrine of Estoppel in administrative law is the case of Union
of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies [1968 AIR 718]. In this case, the Union of India entered
into a contract with Anglo Afghan Agencies for the purchase of certain goods. However, due
to a shortage of foreign exchange, the government issued an order prohibiting the
importation of the goods covered by the contract.
- Anglo Afghan Agencies argued that the government was estopped from relying on the order
prohibiting importation because it had previously given assurances that the necessary import
licenses would be issued. The company claimed that it had relied on these assurances to its
detriment by entering into contracts and making arrangements for the importation of the
goods.
- The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, recognized the principle of estoppel against the
government in appropriate cases. It held that if the government makes a representation,
promise, or assurance to induce action and someone acts on it to their detriment, the
government cannot later act inconsistently with that representation, promise, or assurance.
The court found that the government was estopped from relying on the order prohibiting
importation because Anglo Afghan Agencies had relied on the assurances given by the
government to its detriment.