Discretionary Powers Flashcards
Brief note on discretion
Discretion is the power to make a choice between alternative course of action or inaction. Discretion does not mean arbitrary exercise, there must be application of mind. Dicey: Wide discretion is room for arbitrariness. New York v. United States: “Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered”
Measures to safeguard discretion.
FIx boundaries of discretion
Lay down some standards to compare to
Court may read down discretion (judicial review)
Limits of judicial review of discretionary power
Court can look at whether the discretionary power has been exercised, and whether such power is in consonance with the enabling act.
However, the court cannot look at the merits of the exercised power. Cannot ask questions such as whether the decision should have been taken or not. Cannot look at correctness, adequacy or satisfactory nature of the said reasons. Court does not sit in appeal over the government’s decisions.
Fundamental rights and discretionary powers
Article 14 protects against administrative arbitrariness and arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion. The case of
State of Punjab v. Khan Chand.
The Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed the government to requisition any law it deemed necessary or expedient and pay a compensation. It was held by the court that this was an arbitrary uncontrolled power. Also, it didn’t lay down the purposes for which the property could be requisitioned. In the absence of the same, there is no standard for discretion.
What are the circumstances where abuse of discretion may be ascertained?
- Exceeding jurisdiction (of the enabling statute)
- Irrelevant considerations taken into account
- Leaving out relevant considerations
- Mala fide
- Improper purpose
- Colourable exercise of power
- Unreasonable exercise of power
Case where Govt. has wide discretionary powers in commercial matters.
In the case of Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. Combatta Aviation Ltd. Respondent sends letters asking quotation for ground handling services. Combatta quoted a higher offer that was recommended by the evaluation committee. Despite this, the Board of directors went with Air India with which it had talks beyond the last date of the limited global competitive bidding norm.
Challenged on the basis of unfair and biased use of discretion. Combatta was also not given another opportunity to make a better offer.
Court held that the decision of the evaluation committee was not binding on the Board of Directors. Also, the final discretion is with the BOD and if CIAL bona fide believed that hiring a national carrier would be more beneficial then it is up to them. In commercial transactions the government has wide discretionary powers. States can choose their own method and its usually not open to judicial scrutiny unless public interest requires so.
Need for broader guidelines for exercise of discretion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court had struck down the nomination of three students to the State Medical College
made by the Chief Minister out of his discretionary quota for 1982-1983. No guidelines were laid down for the
exercise of discretion. Hence, power was unanalysed and liable to be abused.
Case on unreasonable use of power
In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, where the accused was sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment,
dismissal from service and declared unfit for civil employment simply because the order of a superior officer to eat food was disobeyed was held to be on unreasonable exercise of power.
Case on colourable exercise of power
Jiwani Krunar v. First Land Acquisition Collecto
