Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion

The main grounds for reviewing administrative discretion can be classified as follows:

1. Ultra Vires
2. Abuse of Discretionary Powers
3. Proportionality
4. Unreasonable Exercise of Discretionary Power
5. Irrationality
6. Procedural Impropriety
7. Jurisdictional Error
8. Acting Under Dictation
9. Non-Application of Mind
10. Malice
11. Colorable Exercise of Powers

A. Ultra Vires

• The principle of ultra vires asserts that an individual or authority operating under statutory power is limited to actions explicitly authorized by the statute. If they exceed this scope, the courts have the authority to annul such decisions made by public functionaries. Essentially, this doctrine maintains that an authority can only perform actions permitted by law, and anything not expressly allowed is prohibited.
• The courts are empowered to examine whether the actions taken by an authority fall within its jurisdiction or exceed the boundaries set by law. This principle is a cornerstone of administrative law, emphasizing that actions beyond granted powers are invalid and thus ultra vires.

B. Abuse of Power

Abuse of power occurs when administrative bodies fail to use their discretionary authority for the intended legislative purpose. This can involve irrelevant considerations, improper purposes, or legal errors in their functions. Such actions constitute an abuse of discretionary powers, providing grounds for judicial review.

Irrelevant Consideration

• Administrative decisions involve discretion that must be based on relevant considerations, not irrelevant or extraneous factors. The power conferred by statute on administrative authorities should be exercised based on considerations relevant to its purpose.
• When authorities take into account irrelevant or extraneous circumstances, their actions are deemed ultra-vires and subject to quashing. The ground of irrelevant consideration adds a dimension to judicial review.
• If the statute specifies relevant criteria for exercising power, the court's task is straightforward. However, even if the statute does not fully delineate relevant considerations, courts can assess whether extraneous considerations influenced the administrative decision.
• Prerogative powers can also be challenged on grounds of irrelevant consideration. Judicial recognition acknowledges that prerogative powers can be abused, similar to other powers. Lord Green M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Homes Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp. emphasized that authorities exercising discretion must adhere to principles such as considering all relevant factors and excluding irrelevant ones.
• Discretionary powers must be exercised for proper purposes outlined in the conferring statute. Courts have a duty to determine cases within their jurisdiction and ensure administrative bodies exercise their statutory discretion when circumstances warrant.
• The Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar ruled that authorities with vested discretion must exercise it, but not in a specific manner. Authorities must genuinely address the matters before them, not act under the dictate of others or disable themselves from exercising discretion in each case. Good faith, consideration of relevant factors, and avoidance of irrelevant considerations are essential.

Improper Purpose

• When a statutory authority exercises discretion for a purpose different from what was intended, the actions can be annulled on the grounds of improper purpose. It is crucial to distinguish between improper purpose and mala fide exercise of power. Mala fide purpose involves ill-will, malice, or oblique motive, while these elements may be absent in the case of improper purpose.
• As highlighted in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, a public body's act, even if performed in good faith and without corruption, may be deemed inoperative if founded on an alien and irrelevant ground.
• The legislature confers discretion upon administrative authorities with the expectation that it will be used to promote the policy and objectives of the Act. Determining the policy and objectives of the Act requires considering its provisions as a whole. While drawing a clear line may be challenging, if an authority misconstrues the Act or uses its discretion in a way that contradicts the Act's policy and objectives, the court will protect the aggrieved parties.
• Even in the absence of corrupt motives, exercising power based on irrelevant factors can be deemed a fraud on power. The Supreme Court has observed that misuse or misapplication of power refers to the use of power in an illegal manner. It is not necessary to prove deliberate misuse for establishing such cases.
• The judiciary emphasizes that discretionary powers should be exercised justly, reasonably, and fairly. Authorities must approach the exercise of power impartially, considering the objections raised by the aggrieved party and deciding in accordance with natural justice principles. Decisions cannot be influenced by external parties, as this would amount to abdicating discretion.
• Delegating discretion to another body renders the authority ultra vires and contrary to the nature of the powers conferred. The Supreme Court in Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir emphasized that administrative powers should operate within a system of controls based on relevance and reason concerning the objectives they seek to achieve.

Errors of Law

• Courts can review administrative decisions where there is an obvious error of law on the record. This error does not need to be flagrant or pertain to a simple legal principle but must be easily identifiable by the supervising court without a detailed examination of all evidence.
• Judiciary controls inferior tribunals not in an appellate capacity but to ensure they adhere to the law. This control involves quashing tribunal determinations that violate legal standards. Courts do not replace tribunal views but may ask for a rehearing in proper cases.
• The error of law must be evident on the record, meaning that documents forming the decision's basis must reveal the error. Courts grant review if satisfied about an error of law. Judicial review for "error on the face of record" applies to decisions by inferior authorities acting judicially.
• Errors of law manifest in various forms, such as misinterpreting legal terms. Judicial review is available for errors of law but not errors of fact. Courts can correct legal errors via certiorari. An error of law means the decision was legally incorrect but within jurisdiction.
• Errors of law can lead to decisions being invalidated, and the scope of 'error of law' is expanding in India. Courts can annul decisions based on apparent legal errors. Patent errors of law can be corrected by certiorari, but not mere wrong decisions.
• Gajendragadkar, J. in Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radha Krishnan noted that only errors of law apparent on record can be corrected by writ, not errors of fact. The only instance where a finding of fact can be contested on grounds of error of law apparent on record includes refusal to admit material evidence, admission of inadmissible evidence influencing the finding, and a finding based on no evidence.

Unauthorized Delegation

• A person entrusted with a power must exercise it personally unless expressly authorized to delegate. The power conferred on a specific administrative body is intended to be exercised by that body alone, not delegated to others.
• Judicial review of unauthorized delegation can be understood as follows:
• Where an authority with discretionary powers affecting private rights empowers a committee, sub-committee, or officer to exercise those powers independently without supervision, such exercise may be invalid.
• A by-law allowing a local authority to delegate its regulatory powers to an official with virtually unrestricted discretion may be considered unauthorized delegated legislation and held void.
• The degree of control maintained by the delegating authority over the actions of delegates or sub-delegates can be crucial in determining the validity of the delegation.
• It is improper for an authority to delegate broad discretionary powers to another authority it cannot directly control, unless expressly empowered to do so.
• When discretionary power is assigned to a specific officer, another officer cannot exercise that power on their behalf unless statutory provisions allow it.
• If sub-delegation is authorized by statute, the delegation must be conveyed in an authorized form to the designated authority, clearly identifying the delegated functions instead of leaving the sub-delegate to determine their own authority.
• A delegate must act within the confines of their delegation, failing which the act becomes unauthorized and a ground for judicial review.

Fettering of Discretion

• When a statute grants an authority the power to apply a standard at its discretion, it is expected to apply it case by case without imposing rigid rules or policies uniformly across all cases.
• An authority with discretionary power should exercise it after considering individual cases. If it imposes fixed rules or policies applicable to all cases, it fails to exercise discretion properly.
• Imposing a general rule for all cases, regardless of differing facts, fetters the discretion conferred by statute. It is advisable not to establish rigid rules guiding discretion.
• The Supreme Court in Somabhai v. State observed that generalizations on matters of discretion frustrate the purpose of conferring discretion.
• However, there are instances where imposing fetters on discretion through self-imposed rules or policies is justified. When adopting a general policy, it should be based on the facts and merits of each case.
• Halsbury Laws of England states that a public body with statutory discretion may formulate general rules or principles of policy to guide its discretion in individual cases, as long as these rules are legally relevant, consistent with the statute's purpose, and not arbitrary.
• Nevertheless, the authority must remain open to exercising genuine discretion in specific cases and be willing to consider exceptions to the general rule when warranted by the circumstances.

C. Proportionality

• The doctrine of proportionality is emerging as a significant ground for challenging administrative discretion in judicial reviews. It is a general legal principle aimed at maintaining a balance between the adverse effects of a decision on individuals' rights, liberties, or interests and the intended purpose of the action. Proportionality seeks to ensure that the means employed by administrative authorities are appropriate and not excessive in relation to the objectives pursued.
• Courts applying the doctrine of proportionality may annul administrative actions if there is a lack of reasonable relationship between the objectives sought and the means employed to achieve them. For instance, in the case of Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, the Supreme Court emphasized that penalties imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and any penalty disproportionate to the misconduct would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Proportionality can also serve as a safeguard against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. When the state imposes punishment, the impact of that punishment must not be grossly disproportionate to what would have been deemed appropriate. In assessing whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate, courts consider factors such as the gravity of the offense, the personal characteristics of the offender, and the specific circumstances of the case. The goal is to determine an appropriate range of evidence for punishment, rehabilitation, or deterrence, or to protect the public from the offender.
• The Supreme Court of India has clarified that a restriction on fundamental rights can be invalidated if it is disproportionate. In essence, courts utilize the principle of proportionality to evaluate whether there has been disproportionate interference with individuals' rights and interests. If such disproportionate interference is found, the action is declared illegal.

D. Unreasonable Exercise of Discretionary Power

The concept of unreasonableness encompasses various defects such as misdirection, improper purpose, neglect of relevant considerations, and attention to immaterial factors. Lord Greene elucidated the essence of reasonableness in Associated Provincial Picture Homes Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, stating that there may be instances so absurd that no sensible person could conceive them to be within the authority's power.

All powers exercised by public authorities are susceptible to misuse, prompting courts to vigilantly check for such misuse, a subject of judicial review. The doctrine of ultra-vires restricts public authorities to powers granted by statute. Courts focus not only on the existence of exercised power but also on its reasonableness.

Courts ensure that discretionary power conferred on an administrative authority is exercised reasonably. Unreasonable exercise indicates abuse of power, rendering the authority's action ultra-vires. Unreasonableness serves as a general descriptor of actions that must not be taken. A person entrusted with discretion must direct themselves correctly in law, paying attention to matters they are obliged to consider. Excluding relevant matters from consideration may render their actions unreasonable.

The rule of reasonableness mandates that extraneous matters cannot form the basis of decisions. Authorities must reason objectively, and their orders must reflect this reasoning process in justifying their discretionary actions. Judicious exercise of discretion contrasts with capricious or arbitrary use of power. The rule of reasonableness necessitates objective and reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. Unreasonableness, such as considering irrelevant factors, ignoring relevant ones, or disregarding statutory objectives, invalidates the order.

Wednesbury Principles

• These principles were established by the Court of Appeal in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp.
• The plaintiffs, owners and licensees of a cinema house, were granted a license by the defendants, the Wednesbury Corporation, under The Cinematograph Act.
• The

E. Irrationality

• Irrationality and unreasonableness are often seen as similar concepts.
• Irrationality is a specific aspect of unreasonableness, referring to decisions that lack logical reasoning or justification.

Key Points:

• A decision is considered irrational when it is made without clear reasoning or is based on arbitrary factors.
• Absurd or perverse decisions are examples of irrationality, where the reasoning behind the decision is unintelligible.
• Irrationality can be inferred from the reasons provided for a decision. If the reasons are required by law, they must be adequate and intelligible.
• Judicial review can be based on irrationality when the decision lacks a logical connection between evidence and reasons or when evidence does not support the decision.
• The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd v. Ajay Kumar, highlighted that irrationality refers to decisions that defy logic or moral standards to such an extent that no reasonable person could have arrived at the same conclusion.

F. Procedural Impropriety

• Administrative authorities must follow certain procedures when making decisions. Procedural impropriety focuses on the structure of decision-making rather than the quality or impact of the decisions themselves.
• Procedural justice aims to ensure that individuals have a fair opportunity to participate in decisions affecting them and to promote the quality, accuracy, and rationality of the decision-making process.
• Both procedural justice and substantive justice are important in administrative law. Substantive justice ensures that decisions are within the authority's powers, while procedural justice allows individuals to influence the outcome through consultation and representation.
• The concept of procedural fairness originates from natural justice, which emphasizes the need for a fair hearing and an unbiased adjudicator.
• The two key principles of natural justice are:(a) Audi alteram partem: Parties should be given a proper opportunity to be heard.(b) Nemo judex in causa sua: A person adjudicating should be disinterested and unbiased.
• Natural justice imposes an obligation on administrators to act fairly, and failure to follow mandatory procedures can invalidate decisions.
• Procedural fairness is required whenever the exercise of power adversely affects an individual's statutory rights. It is not limited to legal rights but also encompasses broader interests such as livelihood and reputation.
• The decision-maker should be impartial and not biased, as bias can distort the decision-making process and undermine its integrity.
• Procedural impropriety includes the absence of bias and the need for fair consideration of all arguments presented by the parties involved.

G. Jurisdictional Error

• Administrative discretion is based on the principle of preventing authorities from exceeding their powers or neglecting their duties.
• Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide. Authorities may make errors of law within their jurisdiction, and judicial review focuses on the legality of findings rather than their correctness.
• The validity of an authority's findings cannot be challenged collaterally during judicial review; they are binding until reversed on appeal.
• The question of jurisdiction depends on the nature of the inquiry and is determined at the beginning of the process, not at the conclusion.
• Administrative authorities must discharge their functions under the statute and can only decide questions authorized by the statute.
• The doctrine of ultra-vires allows courts to invalidate decisions made by administrative bodies if they exceed their jurisdiction as defined by the statute.
• Statutory powers imply the authority to use means necessary for their execution.

Acting Without Jurisdiction

• News Papers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal(1957).
• State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Nath(1969).
• Ahmadabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat(1974).

Exceeding Jurisdiction

Notable cases of exceeding jurisdiction include:

• London County Council v. AG(1902).
• Calcutta Electric Supply Corp. v. Workers' Union(1959).

H. Acting under Dictation

• Authorities entrusted with discretion must not act under the dictation of another body.
• Statutory discretion should consider public policy, but authorities must exercise individual judgment.
• Decisions made under dictation are quashed as non-exercise of power.
• Gajendragadkar, C. J. emphasized the need for unfettered decision-making.
• Venkatachaliah J. noted that authorities must not surrender discretion to external influences.
• Seeking advice is permissible, but acting under dictation is not.
• Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas distinguished between seeking advice and acting under dictation.
• Indian Railway Construction Company v. Ajay Kumar invalidated orders made under superior authority's dictation.
• Muni Survarat Swami Jain S. M. P. Singh v. Arjun Mathuran Gaikwad clarified 'acting under dictation' scope.

I. Non-application of Mind

• Authorities with discretionary power must apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before making a decision.
• If this requirement is not met, the decision will be considered invalid, and the authority will be deemed to have failed to exercise its discretion as intended by the legislature.
• Discretion should not be exercised mechanically, and authorities should avoid acting lazily, casually, or overly relying on subordinates.
• Non-application of mind can be evident in various situations, such as:
• (a) When the authority fails to consider vital facts.
• (b) When the authority acts without care and caution.
• (c) When the authority does not comply with statutory conditions for exercising power.
• (d) When the authority delegates its powers to others or acts under superior's instructions.
• (e) When the authority imposes restrictions on exercising discretionary power.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized that authorities must exercise discretion with due care and after considering relevant facts.
• Failure to apply mind renders the decision illegal and open to challenge.
• Justice Hidayatullah highlighted the need for demonstrable circumstances leading to the inference for action.

J. Malice or Malafide

• Power must be exercised in good faith, as implied in the statute creating the power. Actions of public authorities should be supported by reasons, objectivity, genuine satisfaction, and rationales.
• Exercise of power with extraneous motives, bad faith, or irrelevant considerations renders the action unlawful.
• Two types of malice are:(1) Malice in Fact and (2) Malice in Law.
• High proof is needed for review due to malice; mere allegations are insufficient. However, mala-fide exercise of statutory power can be annulled if proven by the alleging party.
• Factors important in proving mala fides include:
• Direct evidence (documents, recordings, etc.),
• Course of events,
• Public statements by authority,
• Deliberate ignorance of facts by authority, and
• Failure to deny mala fides allegations through affidavits.
• Mala fides decisions are often targeted at individuals, and personal animosity disqualifies adjudicators.
• Mala fides implies ill will, corrupt motive, or dishonest intent regarding statutory power exercise.
• A power is deemed maliciously exercised if the authority is motivated by personal enmity towards those affected by its actions.
• Malice cannot be alleged against government policies, and actions taken under government policies are not illegal, arbitrary, or ultra-vires.

K. Colourable Exercise of Powers

• Decisions by administrative authorities can be challenged if powers are exercised under the guise of the authorized purpose but actually to achieve something else.
• The doctrine of colourable exercise of powers indicates that the authority is using the conferred power for an unauthorized purpose.
• Court decisions have denounced abuse of discretion when authorities act under the guise of authorized power but aim for an unauthorized objective.
• Colourable exercise can be patent, manifest, or direct, but also disguised, covert, and indirect.
• Colourable legislation refers to statutes that appear within legislative power but actually transgress it.
• Judicial pronouncements have used the term 'colourable legislation' to address this issue.
• The concept of colourable exercise of powers is rooted in the idea of acting within the limits of power while transgressing them in substance and reality.
• Cases like Ashok Kumar v. Union of India illustrate the application of colourable exercise in judicial reviews.