MODULE 3.
2 – ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND JUDICIAL CONTROL
1. Meaning of Administrative Discretion
In simple terms, administrative discretion means the power or freedom given to
government officers and authorities to make decisions according to their judgment in
specific cases. When laws are made by the legislature, they cannot cover every small
situation or detail. Hence, administrative bodies such as government departments, officers,
and agencies are given the authority to interpret, apply, and execute these laws according to
the situation.
This power helps the administration work more efficiently and practically because it allows
flexibility in decision-making. For example:
- The Municipal Corporation may be allowed to decide whether to grant a building permit.
- A police officer may decide whether to arrest or issue a warning.
- A licensing authority may decide whether to issue or cancel a trade license.
All these examples involve administrative discretion — decisions taken according to
judgment, guided by the purpose of the law and public welfare.
However, this discretion must not be arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory. If government
officers misuse this power for personal or political reasons, it becomes abuse of discretion,
which the courts can control through judicial review.
2. Need for Administrative Discretion
In modern governance, administrative discretion is essential for several reasons:
1. Complexity of modern administration
2. Flexibility in governance
3. Efficiency and speed
4. Public interest
Discretion helps officers act for the welfare and protection of citizens when quick decisions
are required — for example, in emergencies or disasters.
3. Risks of Administrative Discretion
Though necessary, discretionary power can lead to abuse if not properly supervised. Some
risks include:
- Arbitrariness
- Favouritism and corruption
- Violation of rights
- Negligence
Hence, there must be judicial control over administrative discretion to ensure that it is used
fairly, reasonably, and lawfully.
4. Judicial Control over Administrative Discretion
The judiciary plays an important role in ensuring that administrative authorities use their
discretionary power properly. Judicial control acts as a safeguard against misuse, ensuring
that the government functions within the limits of law.
Objectives of Judicial Control:
1. To ensure legality
2. To ensure fairness (natural justice)
3. To ensure reasonableness
5. Forms of Judicial Control
(i) Judicial Review – Courts examine legality and fairness of administrative actions.
(ii) Doctrine of Ultra Vires – Actions beyond legal power are invalid.
(iii) Writs and Injunctions – Writs like mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus,
and quo warranto ensure accountability.
(iv) Appeals – Administrative decisions can be appealed before tribunals or higher courts.
6. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
This doctrine protects citizens from arbitrary changes in government policies or decisions.
It ensures fairness and consistency when authorities make promises or follow established
practices.
Types:
1. Procedural Legitimate Expectation – Expectation of fair procedure.
2. Substantive Legitimate Expectation – Expectation of a particular benefit or decision.
Case: State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai (1988)
The government withdrew permission to open new schools after giving sanction. The
Supreme Court held that this violated legitimate expectation and natural justice.
7. Doctrine of Proportionality
Administrative action must be proportionate — punishment or decision should not be more
severe than necessary. It ensures balance between means and ends.
Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
The Wednesbury Test states a decision is irrational if:
- It is beyond legal power
- Based on irrelevant facts
- Ignores relevant facts
- So unreasonable that no sensible person would make it
Case: Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997)
Proportionality applies in constitutional adjudication, and its use in administrative law is
still evolving.
8. Public Accountability
Public accountability means that the government and its officers must be answerable to the
people for their actions. It ensures transparency, responsibility, and trust in democratic
governance.
Types:
1. Upward Accountability – To higher authorities and auditing bodies.
2. Downward Accountability – To the public through elections, complaints, or courts.
Case: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
A person died in police custody. The Supreme Court awarded compensation for violation of
the right to life, holding the State accountable.
9. Conclusion
Administrative discretion is a necessary part of modern governance because it allows
flexibility and practical decision-making. However, unchecked discretion can lead to
arbitrariness and misuse of power. Therefore, the judiciary acts as a guardian to ensure that
administrative actions remain within legal limits and respect citizens’ rights.
Through doctrines like ultra vires, legitimate expectation, proportionality, and public
accountability, the courts maintain a balance between administrative efficiency and
individual justice.