By Vaidehi Gupta[*]
Discretion, in the pure sense, means the freedom to choose from a palette of options without any guiding principles prescribing how such freedom is to be exercised. However, constitutionalism & the rule of law allow no discretion to be unbounded. Hence, in India wherein the rule of law & constitutionalism both exist, there is no unfettered discretion. Thus, administrative discretion in India necessarily means that, subject to some legal restraints, the respective administrative authority has an area wherein it can exercise pure discretion. There are many reasons behind the development of administrative discretion. It is not possible to envisage all possible situation that may occur in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to leave room for discretionary power.
Administrative Discretion & Indian Constitution
Indian constitution gives the Governor & President discretionary powers under certain special circumstances guided by Articles 74 & 163. In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, vis-à-vis Ishwar Chand Agarwal v. State of Punjab, it was stated he may though require Council of Ministers (hereinafter CoM) to reconsider such advice either generally or otherwise at his discretion. On the contrary, Article 163 states that CoM shall aid and advise the Governor except as “required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion”. The Governor has more discretion as compared to the President. Under Article 163(1), the Governor can exercise his discretionary power only if there is a compelling necessity to do so which might arise either from the expressed provision or from the rules made under the Constitution. The President has the discretion to make the appointments as pleasure as mentioned under Articles 75, 76, 156, 164 & 165. Article 356, confers a power upon the President to be exercised only where on receipt of the report from the Governor or otherwise he is satisfied that a situation has arisen where the government of a State cannot be function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Under the Article 123 & 213, the President and the Governor respectively, have the power to promulgate an ordinance only when both the Houses of Parliament are not in session & it has been conferred ex-necessitate in order to enable the executive to meet an emergent situation.
Articles 72 & 161 grants pardoning power to the President & the Governor respectively along with the powers to suspend, remit or commute a sentences in certain cases. There are many more powers envisaged directly or emanate indirectly from the constitution which confers the discretionary power on the administration in India.
Controls Over The Administrative Discretion & Grounds For Judicial Review
Administrative discretion can either be controlled the Judiciary by judicially reviewing the matter if needed or non-judicially. The court has developed lot of new principles to control the excise of discretion. These principles are the Doctrine of ultra-vires, abuse of administrative discretion, improper purpose, irrelevant consideration, malice, unreasonableness, violation of procedure, arbitrary use of discretion & administrative discretion. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu where mala-fide was pleaded to attack the legality of the decision of the administrative authority, the burden is on the party so pleading, to clearly establish mala fide process, where the degree of burden is very high. In the absence of sufficient material, the court will not interfere, however, mala-fide exercise of statutory power conferred on an authority is liable to be struck down if it is established by the party who has alleged it so. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,it was held that the ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority must be based on sound material having a nexus with the activity of the detainee. The Court found that non-disclosure of reasons was not justified as no damage to the public interest was involved. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, the Supreme Court observed, in the case of unchanneled arbitrary discretion, discriminatory is writ large on the face of it. Such a discretion patently violates the doctrine of equality, for the difference in the treatment of persons rests solely on the arbitrary selection of the executive. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India the court said that, only when a decision-making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority proceeding reasonably or lawfully could have arrived at such decisions, can the power of judicial review be exercised. However, if it is bona fide & in public interest, the Court will not interfere in the exercise of power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest by ignoring public interest. The grounds given by the Supreme Court for the purpose of judicial review are:
(i)To look into the decision-making body not exceeding its powers.
(ii) Not commit an error of law.
(iii) Not commit a breach of rules of natural justice.
(iv) To reach a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached.
(v) Abuse of the powers conferred.
An there are many more cases catering to the grounds for judicially reviewing & limiting the discretionary powers of the administration.
Conclusion
After the above discussion, the discretion must be conferred with some limits otherwise it would become absolute & arbitrary. Without discretion, administration cannot run smoothly in a welfare state. It is a necessary element in exercise of powers. Sir John Acton has rightly said that “power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Discretion develops creativeness in government & must be in all administrative actions but at the same time, it is necessary to check discretion to uphold the principle of rule of law in administration, lest cases of injustice go unheeded & scot-free. If discretion is without restrictions then there will be dictatorial rule & rule of law shall vanish from the country. Without discretion, no policy can be carried out in the country. If absolute discretion is conferred, democratic norms and ideals shall no longer hold a place in society.
* Student, Third year, BA LLB, Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli.