ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SEMESTER-VI ASSIGNMENT

“ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION: SCOPE AND CONTROL”

NAME: ARFA IMTEYAZ

COURSE: 3RD YEAR B.A.LL. B (Hons)

SEMESTER: 6TH SEMESTER

R. No: 14, REGULAR BATCH

STUDENT ID: 202003793

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Law school is a journey, complete with hurdles, medals, pain, and appreciation. I am fortunate
to be a law student in Jamia Millia Islamia, where the faculty members are hardworking, highly
skilled, and most importantly, very helpful. I am glad to have Dr. Alisha Khatoon ma’am,
taking Administrative Law as a subject in my third year of this journey, as she is not only
hardworking and talented but also highly dedicated to teaching us students the many concepts
of Administrative Law.

From evolution and development of Administrative Law, to types of legislations and

administrative adjudication, she has taught us the many mechanisms of the Indian legal system,
meaning of administrative law and its various nuances. The concepts might be easy or difficult
to understand, but either way, ma’am makes it highly interesting and tries to engage the whole
class in the discussions.

I would therefore firstly like to thank ma’am for her constant dedication and help. She does not
think twice before helping us and clearing our queries, and makes us intrigued towards the
concepts by using various case laws to explain.

I would also thank my family and friends for being constant supporters and for cheering me on
whenever I felt low, and for making readily available, the material required to study well and
do assignments properly.

Also, I would like to thank Faculty of Law, JMI for this wide, comprehensive syllabus, which
will benefit us in our legal career heavily.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. Introduction 4
2. Chapterization 5-13
Chapter I:
Chapter II:
Chapter III:
Chapter IV:
3. Chapter V: Conclusion 14
4. Review of Literature 14

3
INTRODUCTION

Administrative law is a legal discipline concerned with the principles and procedures governing
the decision-making processes and actions of government administrative agencies. These
agencies are established to perform specific functions, such as enforcing regulations and
providing public services. Administrative law encompasses the regulations and protocols that
these agencies must adhere to when carrying out their duties, including the standards and
procedures that must be met when making decisions. Moreover, administrative law governs
the mechanisms for challenging administrative decisions, as well as the government's
relationship with the public, including access to information and the duties and responsibilities
of administrative agencies. Overall, administrative law plays a crucial role in ensuring that the
actions of government agencies are lawful, transparent, and accountable to the public they
serve, thereby promoting good governance and the rule of law.

Administrative discretion refers to the power and authority granted to administrative agencies
by law to make decisions and take actions based on their own judgment and expertise. This
discretionary power allows administrative agencies to make decisions that are tailored to
specific circumstances, rather than being bound by rigid rules and regulations. Administrative
discretion is essential for administrative agencies to carry out their functions effectively,
efficiently, and responsively. However, it is also subject to legal limits, such as the requirement
that it be exercised within the scope of the agency's statutory authority, and that it be exercised
reasonably, fairly, and in good faith. Moreover, administrative discretion is subject to judicial
review, which allows courts to ensure that the exercise of discretion by administrative agencies
is consistent with the law and the principles of good governance. Courts may overturn
administrative decisions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, or not based on substantial
evidence, and they may order administrative agencies to take corrective action.

In summary, administrative discretion is a crucial element of administrative law that provides

flexibility and responsiveness to administrative agencies, but it must be balanced against legal
limits and subject to judicial oversight to ensure that it is exercised in a fair, reasonable, and
lawful manner.

4
 I. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

Administrative discretion is a fundamental principle that underlies the functioning of

government agencies and officials. It refers to the wide latitude of decision-making authority
that is vested in these officials as they perform their duties within their respective areas of
responsibility. This discretionary power allows government officials to exercise judgment and
make choices that are informed by their expertise, experience, and the unique circumstances of
the cases they handle.

However, administrative discretion can also be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is
essential for government officials to have the freedom to adapt their decisions to the
specificities of each case they handle. On the other hand, the potential for abuse and arbitrary
decision-making is ever-present, as officials may be tempted to use their discretion to further
their own interests or to discriminate against certain individuals or groups.1 To prevent the
abuse of administrative discretion, a framework of legal and procedural guidelines has been
established to regulate its exercise. These guidelines provide a clear definition of the scope of
discretion and set limits on the authority of government officials to ensure that they act within
the bounds of the law and in the public interest. One of the primary legal instruments that
govern administrative discretion is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA
establishes the procedural and substantive requirements that government agencies must follow
when making decisions and taking actions.

The APA also provides for judicial review of agency decisions, allowing individuals or
organizations to challenge the legality or constitutionality of an agency action or decision.
Another key legal concept that governs administrative discretion is the doctrine of ultra vires.
This principle holds that government officials must act within the scope of their legal authority,
and any actions that exceed that authority are null and void. The ultra vires doctrine serves as
a check on the exercise of administrative discretion, preventing officials from acting beyond
their mandate and from making decisions that are not supported by the law.2 In addition to legal
constraints, administrative discretion is subject to various ethical and professional standards.
Government officials are expected to act with integrity and impartiality, avoiding conflicts of

1
Administrative Discretion: Definition, Examples, and Cases," Legal Dictionary, last accessed May 1, 2023,
https://legaldictionary.net/administrative-discretion/.
2
"Administrative Discretion: Meaning, Scope, and Limitations," Lawctopus, last accessed May 6, 2023,
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/administrative-discretion-meaning-scope-and-limitations/.

5
interest and treating all individuals and groups fairly and equally. They must also follow
established procedures and rules, ensuring that their decisions are transparent and consistent.

In conclusion, administrative discretion is a critical component of the functioning of

government agencies and officials. It provides the flexibility and adaptability needed to handle
complex and diverse cases while also posing significant risks of abuse and arbitrariness. To
mitigate these risks, legal and procedural guidelines have been established, and officials are
expected to adhere to ethical and professional standards in their exercise of discretion. By
striking a balance between flexibility and accountability, administrative discretion can
contribute to the effective and equitable functioning of government institutions.

II. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN INDIA

Administrative discretion in India refers to the decision-making authority that is granted to

government officials and agencies when carrying out their responsibilities. India, being a vast
and diverse country with complex societal and economic challenges, requires a great deal of
administrative discretion to be exercised by the government officials and agencies. The
Constitution of India has recognized the importance of administrative discretion by granting
certain powers to the Executive branch of the government.3The Constitution has empowered
the government to make laws and policies, execute them, and ensure the proper functioning of
various government agencies. However, the Constitution also places limitations on the exercise
of administrative discretion to prevent any abuse of power.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, created the Central Administrative Tribunal and the
State Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate disputes related to the recruitment and service
conditions of public servants. These tribunals provide an independent forum for public servants
to challenge any arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion by their superiors.4

The Right to Information Act, 2005, is another significant legal instrument that helps to
regulate the exercise of administrative discretion. This act empowers citizens to request
information from public authorities, which promotes transparency and accountability in the
decision-making process of government officials.5

3
"Administrative Discretion in India: Meaning, Scope and Limitations," iPleaders, accessed May 10, 2023,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/administrative-discretion-in-india/.
4
"Administrative Discretion in India: A Critical Analysis," Legal Service India, accessed May 10, 2023,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2121-administrative-discretion-in-india-a-critical-analysis.html.
5
"Administrative Discretion in India: A Comparative Analysis," Legal Bites, accessed May 10, 2023,
https://www.legalbites.in/administrative-discretion-in-india-a-comparative-analysis/.

6
The Indian judiciary has also played a crucial role in regulating the exercise of administrative
discretion. The Supreme Court and High Courts have established various legal principles, such
as the doctrine of proportionality, which requires that the exercise of administrative discretion
be proportional to the purpose it seeks to achieve. The courts have also used the principles of
natural justice, which requires that administrative decisions be fair and just, to strike down
decisions made without following proper procedures 6 . Despite these legal and procedural
safeguards, administrative discretion in India is still vulnerable to abuse, particularly in cases
of corruption, favouritism, and discrimination. Therefore, it is essential that government
officials and agencies exercise their discretion judiciously, transparently, and accountably. In
conclusion, administrative discretion in India is a necessary tool that allows government
officials and agencies to address complex and diverse challenges effectively. However, its
exercise needs to be regulated by legal and procedural safeguards to ensure that it is not abused.
The principles of transparency, accountability, and impartiality must guide the exercise of
administrative discretion to promote good governance and uphold the rule of law.7

III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The concept of administrative discretion in India can be traced back to the colonial period when
the British administration introduced a centralized bureaucracy to govern India. The Indian
Civil Service (ICS) was created in 1853, and its members exercised vast discretionary powers,
often without any accountability or transparency.8

After India gained independence in 1947, the Indian Constitution was drafted, which defined
the powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government. The Constitution
recognized the importance of administrative discretion in the functioning of government
agencies and officials, but also placed limitations on its exercise to prevent any abuse of power.
The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was established in 1966 to review and
improve the functioning of the government machinery in India. 9 The ARC recommended
various measures to strengthen the accountability of government officials and agencies and to

6
"Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review in India," Law Times Journal, accessed May 10, 2023,
https://lawtimesjournal.in/administrative-discretion-and-judicial-review-in-india/.
7
"Administrative Discretion and Judicial Control in India," Legal Service India, accessed May 10, 2023,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-623-administrative-discretion-and-judicial-control-in-
india.html.
8
R.V. Kelkar, "Administrative Discretion and its Historical Background," Indian Journal of Public
Administration 8, no. 1 (1962): 1-12.
9
"The Emergence of Administrative Discretion in India," Lawctopus, accessed May 10, 2023,
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/emergence-administrative-discretion-india/.

7
promote transparency in the exercise of administrative discretion. In the 1980s and 1990s, India
underwent significant economic reforms, and the government began to adopt a more market-
oriented approach to economic development. This resulted in the liberalization of various
sectors, such as finance, telecommunications, and aviation, which required the exercise of
administrative discretion by government officials and agencies. In recent years, the Indian
government has made significant efforts to improve the transparency and accountability of
administrative discretion. The Right to Information Act, 2005, was a significant milestone in
this regard, as it provided citizens with the right to access information from public authorities,
promoting transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.10

IV. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

One of the early cases that dealt with the exercise of administrative discretion was A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), which involved a challenge to the preventive detention
law. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recognized the scope of administrative discretion but
also held that the courts could review and regulate its exercise to prevent abuse of power.
Another landmark case was Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the
scope of administrative discretion by recognizing the right to personal liberty as a fundamental
right. The case established the principle of natural justice, which required that the exercise of
administrative discretion must be fair, just, and reasonable. The principle of proportionality,
which requires that the exercise of administrative discretion be proportional to the purpose it
seeks to achieve, has been developed through several cases, such as Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) and Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001).

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras11

Facts: The case involved the detention of A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, under the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which allowed the government to detain individuals without
trial for an indefinite period.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not provide for any specific
fundamental right against preventive detention and that the government had wide powers to
detain individuals for preventive purposes. The Court held that the validity of a detention order

10
B.R. Ambedkar, "Constituent Assembly Debates," Parliament of India, accessed May 10, 2023,
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p11.htm.
11
AIR 1950 SC 27

8
could be challenged only on procedural grounds, such as non-compliance with the provisions
of the Act.

Aftermath: The A.K. Gopalan case is significant as it established the narrow interpretation of
fundamental rights and emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards while exercising
administrative discretion. The case highlights the need to balance national security concerns
with individual rights.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India12

Facts: The case involved the cancellation of Maneka Gandhi's passport by the government
without providing her with a hearing or any reasons for the cancellation.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad was a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court held that the government could not deprive a citizen of this right without following
due process of law, which included providing the citizen with an opportunity to be heard and
reasons for the decision.

Aftermath: The Maneka Gandhi case is significant as it expanded the scope of fundamental
rights and established the principle of 'natural justice' in the exercise of administrative
discretion. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need to provide
reasons for decisions that affect citizens' rights.

3. Tata Cellular v. Union of India13

Facts: The case involved the imposition of a levy on telephone companies by the government.
The petitioner, Tata Cellular, challenged the levy on the ground that it violated the principles
of natural justice and was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that the government's decision to impose the levy was
arbitrary and lacked transparency. The Court established the principle of 'reasoned decision-
making' and held that the government must provide reasons for its decisions to enable citizens
to challenge them effectively.

Aftermath: The Tata Cellular case is significant as it established the principle of reasoned
decision-making and emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in the exercise

12
(1978) 1 SCC 248
13
(1994) 6 SCC 651

9
of administrative discretion. The case highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the
government follows a fair and objective decision-making process.

4. Om Kumar v. Union of India14

Facts: The case involved the transfer of a government employee, Om Kumar, from one location
to another. The petitioner challenged the transfer on the ground that it was arbitrary and violated
his right to livelihood.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that the government had wide powers to transfer its
employees, but it must exercise such powers in a fair and reasonable manner. The Court
established the principle of 'public interest' and held that the government could transfer its
employees if it was necessary to serve a public purpose. The Court also held that an employee
had a right to be heard before the transfer order was passed.

Aftermath: The Om Kumar case is significant as it established the principle of public interest
in the exercise of administrative discretion and emphasized the need for procedural fairness
while making decisions that affect employees' rights. The case highlights the importance of
balancing individual rights with the public interest.

5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 15

Facts: The case arose out of a challenge to the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act,
1971, which sought to give the Parliament unlimited powers to amend the Constitution. The
petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader, argued that the amendment violated the
basic structure of the Constitution.

Judgement: In its landmark judgement, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament's power to
amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that it could not destroy the fundamental
principles of the Constitution. The Court established the principle of 'basic structure' of the
Constitution, which refers to the essential features of the Constitution that cannot be altered by
the Parliament. The Court identified several features of the Constitution as part of the basic
structure, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the independence of
the judiciary.

14
(2001) 2 SCC 386
15
(1973) 4 SCC 225

10
Aftermath: The Kesavananda Bharati case is significant as it established the principle of the
basic structure of the Constitution, which limits the government's power to amend the
Constitution. The case also highlights the role of the judiciary in regulating the exercise of
administrative discretion and ensuring that the government does not abuse its powers.

6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 16

Facts: The case involved the eviction of pavement dwellers in Mumbai, who were residing on
the public footpaths. The Bombay Municipal Corporation sought to remove them from the
footpaths as it claimed that they were obstructing the free flow of traffic.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood was a fundamental right under
the Constitution and that it could not be taken away without following due process of law. The
Court established the principle of 'public purpose' and held that the government could only
evict citizens from public land if it was necessary for a public purpose. The Court also ordered
the government to provide alternative accommodation to the pavement dwellers before evicting
them.

Aftermath: The Olga Tellis case is significant as it established the right to livelihood as a
fundamental right and recognized the need to balance competing interests while exercising
administrative discretion. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the
need to follow due process of law while taking decisions that affect citizens' rights.

7. Vineet Narain v. Union of India 17

Facts: The case involved allegations of corruption against high-ranking public officials,
including the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner, Vineet
Narain, alleged that the government was not taking appropriate action against the corrupt
officials.

Judgement: The Supreme Court ordered an investigation into the allegations and established
the principle of 'institutional integrity.' The Court held that the CBI was a premier investigating
agency and that it needed to function independently and impartially to maintain public trust.
The Court directed the government to establish a 'Lokayukta' in every state to investigate
corruption allegations against public officials.

16
(1985) 3 SCC 545
17
(1998) 1 SCC 226

11
Aftermath: The Vineet Narain case is significant as it established the principle of institutional
integrity and emphasized the need to exercise administrative discretion with transparency and
accountability. The case highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the government
does not abuse its powers and that public officials act with integrity and impartiality.

8. Common Cause v. Union of India 18

Facts: The case was filed by the non-governmental organization Common Cause, challenging
the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which made the linkage of Aadhaar
number (a unique identification number issued by the government of India) with Permanent
Account Number (PAN) mandatory for filing income tax returns.

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 139AA and held that
linking of Aadhaar with PAN was necessary to prevent fraud and duplicate PAN cards.
However, the Court also held that the government could not make Aadhaar mandatory for other
purposes, such as opening bank accounts, obtaining mobile phone connections, or admission
to schools, colleges, and universities. The Court held that the right to privacy was a
fundamental right under the Constitution, and Aadhaar could be used only for specific purposes
such as distribution of subsidies and benefits, and not for general purposes like verification of
identity.

Aftermath: The Common Cause case is significant as it established the importance of protecting
citizens' privacy while exercising administrative discretion. The judgment provided clarity on
the uses of Aadhaar and its limitations, thereby balancing individual privacy rights and the
government's legitimate interest in implementing a system of unique identification. The case
has far-reaching implications on the use of Aadhaar in various sectors and has been hailed as a
landmark decision for protecting individual privacy.

18
(2017) 6 SCC 487

12
 V. CONCLUSION

Administrative law is a legal discipline concerned with the principles and procedures governing
the decision-making processes and actions of government administrative agencies. It plays a
crucial role in ensuring that the actions of these agencies are lawful, transparent, and
accountable to the public they serve. Administrative law encompasses the rules and regulations
that administrative agencies must adhere to when carrying out their duties, including the
standards and procedures that must be met when making decisions, as well as the mechanisms
for challenging administrative decisions and accessing information.

Administrative discretion is the power and authority granted to administrative agencies by law
to make decisions and take actions based on their own judgment and expertise. It is necessary
for administrative agencies to carry out their functions effectively, efficiently, and
responsively. However, administrative discretion is also subject to legal limits, such as the
requirement that it be exercised within the scope of the agency's statutory authority and the
need to exercise it reasonably, fairly, and in good faith. Additionally, administrative discretion
is subject to judicial review to ensure that it is consistent with the law and the principles of
good governance. Overall, administrative discretion must be balanced against legal limits and
subject to judicial oversight to ensure that it is exercised in a fair, reasonable, and lawful
manner.

The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in defining the scope and limits of
administrative discretion, particularly with respect to fundamental rights. In Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, the Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must be exercised in a
manner that is fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. In Om Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme
Court held that administrative discretion must be guided by the principle of proportionality. In
Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must
be exercised in a transparent and accountable manner, and that decisions must be supported by
clear, cogent, and convincing reasons. Public participation and consultation in the decision-
making process are also important.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “Administrative Discretion and the Rule of Law” by Peter H. Schuck, Yale Law &
Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 2, 1991, pp. 219-243.
2. “Administrative Discretion and its Limits: A Comparative Study” by M.P. Singh and
S.P. Sathe, Journal of Indian Law and Society, vol. 1, no. 2, 2010, pp. 105-128.

13
3. “Administrative Discretion in India: Scope, Limitations and Accountability” by Amita
Dhanda, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 50, no. 4, 2008, pp. 436-460.
4. “Administrative Discretion: An Historical Overview” by Michael Asimow,
Administrative Law Review, vol. 57, no. 2, 2005, pp. 325-341.
5. “Administrative Discretion and the Public Interest” by P. S. Atiyah, Modern Law
Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 1976, pp. 1-14.
6. “The Role of Discretion in Public Administration” by David H. Rosenbloom, Public
Administration Review, vol. 39, no. 6, 1979, pp. 518-526.
7. “Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion” by C. Raj Kumar, Indian Journal of
Constitutional Law, vol. 2, no. 2, 2009, pp. 207-232.
8. “Administrative Discretion and the Public Interest: A Reassessment” by Laurence
Whitehead, Political Studies, vol. 22, no. 3, 1974, pp. 315-325.
9. “Administrative Discretion and the Question of Standards” by David E. Lewis,
Governance, vol. 14, no. 4, 2001, pp. 441-458.
10. “Administrative Discretion: A Legal and Ethical Perspective” by V.S. Ganesan, Journal
of Indian Law Institute, vol. 40, no. 2, 1998, pp. 160-174.

14