Judicial control of Administrative Discretion

Discretion means to act according to desire or choose from given options. Administrative discretion means choosing from amongst the various available alternatives but with reference to the rules of reason and justice and not according to personal whims and fancies. The exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. In India, while exercising discretion, the government has to measure it upon the touchstone of Constitutional provisions of equality, freedom and justice. A government needs discretion for the proper conduct of its functions; however, it should exercise its power well within the Constitutional limits. A government has to act for the benefit of the citizens. It has to ensure equality in its treatment of the citizens. Article 14 provides for the equality before law clause and it seeks that the citizens are not subjected to unjust or arbitrary actions of the government. Article 14 stands against anything that is unreasonable, unjust or arbitrary. Every government action has to pass this test of equality.

An administrative body can itself keep a check upon its arbitrary acts by giving reasons in its reports and orders. In order to successfully defend its actions, an administrative body should give a reasoned order in cases of exercise of discretion. By giving a reasoned order or a speaking order, the authority is able to put forward the various grounds that were taken into consideration during the exercise of its discretion.

Judicial control

The actions of the administration can be checked at the judicial level as well. The Constitution of India has provided the judiciary with the power to review. The courts can keep a check upon any arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers by the administration. The courts can take up cases of discretion upon receiving a cause as well as suo moto. The courts can control it at two stages.

(1)    At the stage of delegation of discretion

The courts exercise 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. The statute conferring the power of discretion upon the government body needs to be constitutional. If the parent statute is ultra vires the Constitution, it cannot confer valid discretionary powers upon the administration. Every law has to pass the test of validity upon the touchstone of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Thus, if the law confers vague and wide discretionary powers on any administrative authority, it may be declared ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and other provisions of the Constitution.

In State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali, the Supreme Court held that the West Bengal Special Courts Act was invalid on the ground that the expression ‘speedier trials’ conferred wide discretionary powers on the government and may lead to unreasonable classification.

In State of Bihar v K K Mishra, the Supreme Court held Section 144(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code unconstitutional because it invested the administrative authority with blanket discretionary power that was capable of being used arbitrarily resulting in unreasonable restriction upon the freedom of movement.

(2)    Control at the stage of the exercise of discretion

In order to control the arbitrary exercise of discretion, the courts have developed formulations such as:

(i)                  That the authority is deemed not to have exercised its discretion at all. In the case of Purtabpore Company ltd v Cane Commissioner of Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that, the exercise of discretion or its compliance with instructions of some other person amounts to failure to exercise the discretion altogether.

(ii)                That the authority has not exercised its discretion properly. Improper exercise of discretion includes ‘taking irrelevant consideration into account’, ‘acting for improper purpose’, ‘asking wrong questions’, ‘acting in bad faith’, ‘neglecting to take into consideration relevant factors’ or ‘acting unreasonably’.

In the case of R D Shetty v International Airport Authority, the Supreme Court observed that the exercise of discretion must not be arbitrary, fanciful and influenced by extraneous considerations. The choice must be dictated by public interest and must not be unprincipled or unreasoned.

Thus, administrative discretion has to be exercised with great caution, keeping in mind the principles laid under the chapter on fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. If the administrative authority fails to observe due caution and acts unreasonably, its actions are bound to be struck down on the same ground. An administrative authority cannot act against the public policy. It has to act in a just and reasonable manner.