The document discusses the need for judicial review of administrative discretion. It notes that most functions of modern administrations require discretion rather than being strictly ministerial. It provides reasons why discretion is conferred, including the complex nature of problems, lack of experience, and differing circumstances. The document outlines how Indian courts control administrative discretion both when powers are delegated and when they are exercised. Controls include reviewing constitutionality and examining if discretion was properly exercised or if relevant factors were ignored.
The document discusses the need for judicial review of administrative discretion. It notes that most functions of modern administrations require discretion rather than being strictly ministerial. It provides reasons why discretion is conferred, including the complex nature of problems, lack of experience, and differing circumstances. The document outlines how Indian courts control administrative discretion both when powers are delegated and when they are exercised. Controls include reviewing constitutionality and examining if discretion was properly exercised or if relevant factors were ignored.
The document discusses the need for judicial review of administrative discretion. It notes that most functions of modern administrations require discretion rather than being strictly ministerial. It provides reasons why discretion is conferred, including the complex nature of problems, lack of experience, and differing circumstances. The document outlines how Indian courts control administrative discretion both when powers are delegated and when they are exercised. Controls include reviewing constitutionality and examining if discretion was properly exercised or if relevant factors were ignored.
The document discusses the need for judicial review of administrative discretion. It notes that most functions of modern administrations require discretion rather than being strictly ministerial. It provides reasons why discretion is conferred, including the complex nature of problems, lack of experience, and differing circumstances. The document outlines how Indian courts control administrative discretion both when powers are delegated and when they are exercised. Controls include reviewing constitutionality and examining if discretion was properly exercised or if relevant factors were ignored.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 14
Need of Judicial review
Functions dischargeable by the administration may either be
ministerial or discretionary. A ministerial function is one where the relevant law prescribes the duty to be performed by the concerned authority in certain and specific terms leaving nothing to the discretion or judgment of the authority. It does not involve investigation into disputed facts or making of choices. The authority concerned acts in strict obedience to the law which imposes on it a simple and definite contd……. duty in respect of which it has no choice. Because of the complexity of socioeconomic conditions which the administration in modern times has to contend with the range of ministerial functions is very small and that of discretionary functions much larger. It is realised that a government having only ministerial duties with no discretionary functions will be extremely rigid and unworkable and that, to some extent, officials must be allowed a choice as to when, how and whether they will act. The reason for this attitude is that, more often than not, the administration is required to handle intricate problems which involve investigation of facts, making of choices and exercise of discretion before deciding upon what action to take. Discretion implies power to make a choice between alternative courses of action. Discretion is the all-pervading phenomenon of modern age. Discretion is conferred in the area of rule-making or delegated legislation, e.g., when the statutory formula says that the government may make rules which it thinks expedient to carry out the purposes of the Act, in effect, a broad discretion and choice are being conferred on the government to contd….. to make rules. The legislature hardly gives any guidance as to what rules are to be made. Similarly, discretion is conferred on adjudicatory and administrative authorities on a liberal basis, that is, the power is given to apply a vague statutory standard from case to case. Quite often, the legislature bestows more or less an unqualified or uncontrolled discretion on the executive. Administrative discretion may be denoted by such words or phrases as “public interest”, “Public Purpose”, “prejudicial to public safety or security”, “satisfaction”, “belief”, “efficient”, “reasonable” etc. There are at least 4 good reasons for conferring discretion on administrative authorities: (1) The present-day problems which the administration is called upon to deal with are of complex and varying nature and it is difficult to comprehend them all within the scope of general rules. (2) Most of the problems are new, practically of the first impression. Lack of any previous experience to deal with them does not warrant the adoption of general rules. (3) It is not always possible to foresee each and every problem but when a problem arises it must in any case be solved by the administration in spite of the absence of specific rules applicable to the situation. (4) Circumstances differ from case to case so that applying one rule mechanically to all cases may itself result in injustice. Though courts in India have developed a few effective parameters for the proper exercise of discretion it lacks the activism of the American Courts. Judicial control mechanism of administrative discretion is exercised at 2 stages: (i) Control at the stage of delegation of discretion (ii) Control at the stage of exercise of discretion The court exercises control over delegation of discretionary powers to the administration by adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the law under which such powers are delegated with reference to the fundamental rights enunciated in Part-III of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, if the law confers vague and wide discretionary power on any administrative authority, it may be declared ultra vires Article 14 and 19 and other provisions of the Constitution. In India, unlike the U S there is no Administrative Procedure Act providing for judicial review on the exercise of administrative discretion. Therefore, the power of judicial review arises from the constitutional configuration of Courts. Courts in India have always held the view that judge-proof discretion is a negation of the rule of law. Therefore they have developed various contd….. formulations to control the exercise of administrative discretion. These formulations may be conveniently grouped into 2 broad generalisations: (i) That the authority is deemed not to have exercised its discretion at all, or there is failure on its part to exercise discretion. (ii) That the authority has not exercised its discretion properly, or there is an excess or abuse of discretion. Under this general heading of judicial control, there fall quite a few specified and separate grounds which are as below- • Mala fides • Irrelevant considerations • Leaving out relevant considerations • non-application of mind • non-compliance with procedural requirements
Fred Baughman, As Parent and On Behalf of Lynne and Beth Baughman, Minors v. William Freienmuth, President, Montgomery County Board of Education, 439 F.2d 796, 4th Cir. (1971)