University Institute of Legal Studies

Administrative Law
Project report on

CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

Submitted to- Submitted by-

Miss. Puneetish Guntaj Singh Randhawa
UILS, B.A.LL.B (Hons.)
Panjab University VI-Semester, Sec-A
Chandigarh 7/19

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken efforts in this project however; it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of Miss Puneetish, UILS, Panjab University. I
am ineffably indebted to Miss Puneetish for her conscientious guidance and
encouragement that has helped me to accomplish this project report.

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratitude to exhibit my sincere and

heartfelt obligation towards all the personages who have helped me in this
endeavor. Without their active guidance, help and cooperation and encouragement,
I would not have made headway in this project.

I would also like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to University Institute of Legal

Studies for giving me this opportunity. I also acknowledge with deep sense of
reverence my gratitude towards my parents and my sister who have incessantly
supported me morally as well as economically to undertake this project. At last but
not the least, heartfelt gratitude goes to all my friends who have directly or
indirectly helped to complete this project. Any omission in this brief
acknowledgement does not mean lack of gratitude.

Guntaj Singh Randhawa

2|Page
 LIST OF CONTENTS

Sr.no Content Page No.

1 Introduction 5

2 Administrative discretion defined 5-6

3 Need for Administrative discretion 6-7

4 Control of Administrative Discretion 7

Judicial Control over Administrative Discretion

5  At the Stage of Conferment of Powers 7-18

 At the Stage of Exercise of Power

6 Parliamentary Control over Administrative Discretion 18

7 Conclusion 19

8 Bibliography 20

3|Page
 TABLE OF CASES

Sr.no Name of the Case Citation Page No.

1 Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. P.E. Guzder & Co. AIR 1930 Cal 22 10

2 Mohd. Mustaffa v. Haji Mohd. Hissa AIR 1987 Pat. 5 13

3 Plumb v. Fluitt 145 E.R 926. 7

Taxas Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Banking
4 Co
AIR 1919 PC 20 15

5 Tilakdhari v. Khedan Lal AIR 1921 PC 112 11

INTRODUCTION –

4|Page
Administrative actions are either ministerial or discretionary. A ministerial function is one where
the authority has a duty to do a particular thing in a particular way. Such actions are however
exceptional. In most administrative actions, the administrative authority has the power either to
act or not to act in one way or the other. This power to act or not to act in one way or other is
called Discretionary power.

‘Discretion’ is the power to decide or act according to one’s judgment. Administrative

authorities have to exercise the discretionary powers in various ways. For instance whether a
statute created for the nationalization of road routes is far and equitable or not or whether a
dispute can be referred to the Industrial Tribunal act or not. They also have to decide whether the
activities of a person or organization are likely to be prejudicial to the law or whether a person is
likely to be threat to the security of the state or not.

The problems of Administrative discretion are complex. It is true that in any intensive form of
government, the government cannot function without the exercise of some discretion by the
officials. But it is equally true that absolute discretion is ruthless master. It is more
destructive of freedom than any of man’s invention. It could be inferred that the use of
discretionary power of the administrative authorities is very important for the fulfillment of their
functions but the exercise of this discretionary power should not be unguided and uncontrolled. It
has to be limited by certain methods so that they do not become unguided and in turn violate the
actions of the administrative authority.

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION DEFINED

The word Discretion in the layman term can be defined as choosing from amongst the various
available alternatives without reference to any predetermined criterion, no matter how fanciful
that choice may be. For e.g. a person writing his Will has such discretion to dispose of his
property in any manner, no matter how fanciful and arbitrary it is.

But when the term discretion is preceded or qualified by the word Administration it has an
entirely different meaning. In this sense the word discretion means the Choosing from available

5|Page
options is on the basis of rules of reasons and justice and not on the personal whims and fancies
of an individual. Such exercise is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.

The West Encyclopedia of American Law has defined Administrative Discretion as “The
exercise of professional expertise and judgment, as opposed to strict adherence to regulations
or statutes, in making a decision or performing official acts or duties. It is something informal
and therefore unprotected by safeguards inherent in formal procedures. It is a freedom to
make a choice among potential course of action3.”

Prof Julius Grey in his book Discretion in Administrative Law has defined it as “ it is a
power to make a decision that cannot be determined to be right or wrong in any objective
way.”

Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education & Science v. Tameride Metroborough
Council5 has defined it as “the very concept of Administrative Discretion involves a right to
choose between more that one possible courses of action upon which there is a room for
reasonable people to hold differing opinion as to what may be preferred.”

Justice Coke as defined it as “ Discretion is a science or understanding to discern between

falsity and truth, between right and wrong, between substance and shadow, between equity
and colourable classes and pretence not to do according to their wills and personal
affections6.

NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

Due to the complexity of socio-economic conditions which the administration in modern times
has to contend with, it is realized that a government having only ministerial duties with no
discretionary functions will be extremely rigid and unworkable and that, too some extent,
officials must be allowed a choice as to when, how, and whether they will act. The reason for
this attitude is that, more often than not, the administration is required to handle intricate
problems which involve investigation of facts, making of choices and exercise of discretion
before deciding what action has to be taken. Therefore, the modern tendency is to leave a large
amount of discretion with various authorities. Statute books are now full of provisions giving

6|Page
discretion of one kind or the other to the government or officials for various purposes. The need
for ‘discretion’ arises because of the necessity to individualize the exercise of power by the
administration, i.e. the administration has to apply a vague or indefinite statutory provision from
case to case. Following are some good reasons for conferring discretion on administrative
authorities :

(a) The present day problems which the administration is called upon to deal with are of complex
and varying nature and it is difficult to comprehend them all within the scope of general rules;

(b) Most of the problems are new, practically of the first impression. Lack of any previous
experience to deal with them does not warrant the adoption of general rules;

(c) It is not always possible to foresee each and every problem but when a problem arises it must
in any case be solved by the administration in spite of the absence of specific rules applicable to
the situation;

(d) Circumstances differ from case to case so that applying one rule mechanically to all cases
may itself result in injustice.

CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

There are two main heads under which the control over administrative discretion exercised.

1. Judicial Control over administrative discretion

2. Parliamentary Control over administrative discretion

Judicial Control over administrative discretion

Judicial review is the soul of our constitution. It is the exercise of the court’s inherent power to
resolve whether an action is lawful or not. ‘It holds the balance of power between individuals
and the government. It legitimizes the application of administrative sanctions. Courts in India are
the guardians of our constitution. From time immemorial, they have believed that executive and
legislative powers which are immune from judicial scrutiny are in a way repudiation of rule of
law. Therefore for the purpose of doing justice and to protect the Rule of Law [9] , they through

7|Page
their various pronouncements, have build up an assortment of formulations to control the
exercise of administrative discretion. Without, judicial review, administrative action and
discretion would be limited only by agency, self-discipline, executive direction, or legislative
and public pressure. Thus this control acts as a limitation on nasty abuses of power.

Discretion is controlled at two stages:

1. At the Stage of Conferment of Powers

2. At the Stage of Exercise of Powers

AT THE STAGE OF CONFERMENT OF POWERS

When the legislature lays down a law in such a manner that the chances of abuse of that law is
higher that is in other words if that particular law can be easily misused or abused and the rights
and interests of the people will be adversely affected than in that case there is a need for
checking or limiting such grant of discretionary power. Here the power conferred is very wide
and leads to the abuse of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore in such
cases Article 14 and Article 19 of the constitution act as regulators to such grant of power.

The grant of Administrative Discretion can be challenged on the ground that it violates the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. For example, such discretion may be so
exercised as to treat different persons differently without justification or may make the
enjoyment of important freedoms of association, or freedom of speech and expression, or
freedom of assembly, or freedom to carry on trade or business, dependent upon the sweet will of
the administrative authorities. If the discretion conferred is uncontrolled, there is a possibility of
discrimination, the law conferring such discretion may be held invalid on the grounds of its
inconsistency with the fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of law
guaranteed by the Art.14 of the Constitution. Similarly, if a law grants absolute discretion to the
executives to allow or not to allow an activity involving the exercise of any of the freedoms
guaranteed by Art 19, such a law is held to be unreasonable restrictions on those rights.

8|Page
LIMITATION ON GRANT OF DISCRETIONARY POWER AND ARTICLE 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides certain limitation on the conferment of

discretionary powers. Article 14 of the Constitution says “The State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Article 14 provides a fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of law to the
citizens of India. It lays down that laws should be applicable to every person in the same sense
and should not discriminate one person against another. Any law which discriminates between
persons or classes of persons would be invalid and void. A similar criterion has been adopted
while checking the validity of the discretionary power exercised by the administrative
authorities.

The above mentioned point has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in RamKrishna v Justice
Tendulkar15, The Supreme court after laying down the rule that what Article 14 forbade was
class legislation but not classification, pointed out that the legislature might itself indicate
persons or things to whom or which its provisions were intended to apply and the basis of such
classifications of such persons and thing might either appear on the face of the statute or be
gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to, or brought to the attention of, the court.
The statute might, however not make any classification of persons or things for the purpose
of applying its provisions and leave it to the discretion of the government to select and
classify persons and things to whom its provisions should apply.

The Court would inquire whether the statute contained any policy or principles for guiding the
exercise of discretion by the government in the matter of selection or classification and if it did
not, the statute would be struck down on the ground that it had conferred arbitrary power and
uncontrolled power on the government, which would lead to the discrimination between persons
or things similarly situated.

The control imposed by Article 14 can be well understood by analyzing a series of cases decided
on the same issue.

9|Page
  WEST BENGAL V. ANWAR ALI SARKAR16

The West Bengal statute provided for special courts to try cases or classes of cases or
offences or classes of offences for ensuring speedier trial. The act did not lay down any
what types of offences or cases were to be tried by special courts. The executive
authorities could arbitrarily select a case for trial by the special courts. It was held that
in so far as the Act empowered the government to have any case or class of case or
offence or class of offences tried by the special courts, it violated Article 14 of the
Constitution.

 IN RE THE SPECIAL COURTS BILL 197817

The Supreme Court in this case upheld the special courts bill, which provided for special
courts to deal with offences committed by persons who had held high political offices
during the period of emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi government in 1975. The bill
gave power to the government to refer such cases to the special courts. The Court upheld
the grant of discretion because it was controlled by the policy of the Act. The Court held
that the grant of discretion to refer to special courts any case pertaining to the abuse of
power during the period of emergency was valid that constituted a class. However, the
court objected to the grant discretion to refer a case abuse of power before the period of
emergency because the cases of abuse of power before the emergency did not constitute a
class.

 SATWANT SINGH V ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER The Passports Act, 1967

was in question in this case. The act gave power to the passport officer to give or refuse a
passport without specifying any guidelines for the existence of such power, was held
invalid. The court asked the Parliament to specify the criteria in accordance with which
the passport officer was supposed to exercise the discretion.
 MAHARASHTRA V. KAMAL S DURGULE19 Section 65-A of the Bihar and Orissa
Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, which conferred blanket powers on the state
government to decide matters contemplated under the Act, even including quasi judicial
matters, was held to be violative of Article 14.

10 | P a g e
  CONSUMER ACTION GROUP V TAMIL NADU20 It was held in this case that an
attack on the grant of discretionary power can be repelled by showing that such a grant is
circumscribed by a policy and standards in accordance with which the power is to be
exercised. Such a policy may be discerned from its preamble, the objects and the reasons
and other provisions of the Act.
 R PATNAKAR RAO V ANDHRA PRADESH21 The Court held that normally the
discretion is held not to be unguided, unanalyzed or arbitrary if there are built in checks
against its abuse.

LIMITATION ON GRANT OF DISCRETIONARY POWER AND ARTICLE 19

Article 19 of the Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression along with
several other rights. It is basically a privilege given to the citizens of India that they have right to
speech and expression and other rights under this chapter. When a person exercises this right
other persons are under a duty not to infringe or curtail such rights. Therefore grant of any
Discretionary power which acts as a hindrance to the fundamental right of the citizens or curtails
such fundamental rights is declared void. Therefore Art 19 acts as a regulator on the conferment
of Discretionary power.

Art 19 says “Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) To freedom of speech and expression;

(b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) To form associations or unions;

(d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

11 | P a g e
(g) To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

If any discretionary power is granted which is violative of the above mentioned rights than such
grant of discretionary power would be void. But the State under Art 19 (2) to (6) can impose
reasonable restrictions on the above mentioned rights. The Court determines the reasonableness
of the restrictions.28 While deciding the reasonableness of a restriction, the principle laid down
is that the power conferred on the executive by the law should not be arbitrary and unregulated
and it should not be left entirely to the discretion of an authority to do as it likes without any
check and control by the above authority.29

Art 19(1)(a) Freedom of Speech and Expression

R. M. Sheshadri vs. DM, Tanjore: A requirement that at the beginning of a movie show in
theatres an approved film of such length and for such duration as the government might direct
was held to be unreasonable as there were no guidelines or limits fixed. 96

Art 19(1)(c) Freedom to Form Associations or Unions

State of Madras vs. V. G. Row: The SC struck down a law authorizing an administrative
authority to declare an association as unlawful on its subjective satisfaction that the association
was carrying on subversive activities. There were no grounds for such satisfaction and no
judicial review was provided.

Virendra vs.Punjab: A law empowering the government to restrict freedom of press on the
ground that such restrictions were necessary to combat any activity prejudicial to the
maintenance of communal harmony was held. The law here gave right to the aggrieved party to
approach courts.

Art 19(1)(d) Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India

State of Bihar vs. K. K. Misra: Sec. 144(6) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that the
government may extend the period of detention order passed by the Executive Magistrate beyond
the period of two months if it considered it necessary for preventing danger to human life, health

12 | P a g e
and safety or for preventing riot or affray. It was held that the power is so wide that there is every
chance of its misuse.

Art 19(1)(e) Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of India

Ebrahim Vazir vs. State of Bombay: A statutory provision which authorised the government to
impose penalty of removal of any citizen from India on ‘reasonable suspicion entertained by it
that the person concerned had committed an offence against the permit of law was invalid.

Art 19(1)(f) Freedom to Property

State of Maharashtra vs. Kamal Durgule: Powers conferred upon competent authority to
declare land as vacant and acquire it were found to be unconstitutional.

Art 19(1)(g) Freedom of Trade and Occupation

Dwarka Prasad vs.UP: A rule requiring a person to take a licence to to stock, sell or store for
sale an essential commodity was upheld. But the provisions empowering the licensing authority
to exempt a person from the requirements was unreasonable.

Harakchand vs. UOI: Gold Control Order which gave blanket power to the authority to grant or
refuse to grant licence to deal in gold was found to be violative of art. 19(1)(g).

AT THE STAGE OF EXERCISE OF POWERS

Abuse of discretion means, either of the following two things:

1. Failure to exercise discretion, i.e., not using the discretion at all,

2. Wrong exercise of discretion

13 | P a g e
FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION

‘The courts exercise judicial control if the administrative authority has either resigned from using
its power or has put restrictions on its implementations of the discretion or the jurisdictional facts
are either absent or have been erroneously concluded.’ [10]

In Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar [11] , the law has been made crystal
clear. In this case the Supreme Court held that in general, discretion must be exercised only be
the authority to which it is committed. The authority must genuinely address itself to the matter
before it; it must not act under the dictates of another body or disable itself from exercising
discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of discretion, it must not do what it
has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorized to do. Judiciary can
compel the administrative authority to exercise the discretion but cannot make them exercise it in
a particular way. There would be very few situations which would be discussed where there is an
occurrence of failure to exercise discretion.

• Surrender, abdication or dictation of discretion- In Purtabpore Co. Ltd. V. Cane Commr. Of

Bihar [12] , the Cane Commissioner had the discretion to hold back sugarcane quarters for the
individual sugar factories. But instead of using the discretion by own will, he acted upon the
dictates of the Chief Minister. The commissioner excluded 99 villages from the area held in
reserve by him in favour of the appellant-company previously. The two judge bench of the
Supreme Court quashed the exercise of discretion by the Cane Commissioner on the ground that
he abdicated his power by exercising it at the dictation of C.M. Therefore, it was deemed that the
authority had not exercised its discretion at all. Thus, such so-called exercise of discretion
amounted to a failure to exercise discretion by the authority.

• Fettering of discretion- In Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra

Pradesh [13] , Sec-21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation, Supply and Purchase) Act,
1961 gave discretion to the administrative authority to excuse any new factory from payment of
tax. The government framed a new policy granting exemption only to those factories in the co-
operative sector. The Supreme Court, held that the adoption of this policy has fettered the
exercise of discretion and said that an authority bestowed with such statutory discretion may
justifiably implement general rules or principles to channel itself in the exercise of its discretion

14 | P a g e
provided such rules are not arbitrary and not opposed to the objectives of the Act. The court in
addition said that by adopting such rules, the agency must not stop itself from exercising
authentic discretion in individual cases.

WRONG EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Indian courts have shown that they are pretty eager to examine the factual basis on which the
administrative authorities have exercised their discretion. Furthermore, whether the discretion
has been exercised in an unreasonable manner or absolutely in defiance of logic and morality, the
court to use the Wednesbury Test [14] of reasonableness and see whether the discretion has
been outrageously used, so much that it paved way for arbitrariness. The test suggests that the
discretion can be nullified if there is a manifested error in the exercise of such power or the
exercise of such power is manifestly arbitrary or mala fide or unreasonable. The decision could
be from numerous choices open to the authority, to exercise its choice; the court would not
surrogate its view. The court would infact strive to ensure its mala fide use.

 Unreasonable exercise of discretion or violation of Wednesbury Principle:

In SR Venkataraman v. Union of India [15] , the appellant, a Central Government

Officer was retired prematurely from his service in ‘public interest’ on attaining 50 years
of age. According to her there was non-application of mind on the part of the
government. Her service record was made bad by giving adverse remarks by the
chairman and that in the facts and circumstances of the case the discretion vested under
Rule 56(j) (i) was not exercised for furtherance of pubic interest but on extraneous
circumstances. The government conceded that there was nothing on record to justify the
order. The Supreme Court said that an administrative order which is based on reasons of
fact which do not exist must therefore be held to be infected with an abuse of power.

 Malafide Exercise of Power:

In G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala [16] , the Supreme Court held that a mala fide
exercise of discretion is nothing but abuse of power. In this case, the petitioner
challenged his detention order by the government on the ground of mala fide exercise of

15 | P a g e
 discretion. The facts presented in court showed that a fake report against the petitioner
who was a wholesaler dealer in kerosene was made by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Civil Supplies Cell). He was actually a relative of his competitor therefore in
order to benefit his relatives in the same trade; a plot was hatched to eliminate the
petitioner from the trade. Moreover no counter-affidavit from the side of the government
was filed thus, the court quashed the order declaring improper use of discretion.

 Irrelevant Considerations:

In Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board [17] , the court was of opinion that if it
is claimed that the conditions do not exist or that they are such that is not viable for
anyone to form an opinion therefrom then such opinion is challengeable on the ground of
non-application of mind or perversity or on the ground that it was formed on collateral
grounds and was beyond the scope of the statute. In this case, a board was instituted
under sec-237 of the Companies Act, 1956 which is authorized to investigate only if in its
opinion the company is trying to defraud the creditors or members, etc. but here it
conducted the enquiry on the basis of faulty management of the company which resulted
in heavy downfall of the share prices. Therefore, the court by quashing the order, said
that executive by merely declaring an opinion does not mean that the order would not be
scrutinized.

 Relevant Factors disregarded:

In Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Company Law Board [18] , the
Supreme Court affirming the decision of the lower Court held that since the board has
based its decision solely on the past conduct without considering subsequent conduct and
activities of the person which are relevant factors, its decision was wrong. Sometimes an
order may be based partly on relevant and partly on irrelevant considerations. In such
situations the Courts would try and find out the true purpose for which the power was
exercised. After due consideration, the Court comes to the conclusion that the purpose of
the exercise was improper, it would be irrelevant that incidentally a genuine purpose is
also served. This would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore,

16 | P a g e
 ‘where a matter is to be decided by the authority solely on the basis of its subjective
satisfaction, it must be properly based on relevant considerations only and not a mix of
both as it would be very difficult for the court to decide as to how much the irrelevant
consideration played a role in deciding ona particular course of action.’ [19]

 Mixed motives /colourable exercise of discretion:

In Jiwani Kunar v. First Land Acquisition Collector [20] , where the government
could acquire property for a public purpose only temporarily, and the land was acquired
permanently, the court held it to be a colourable exercise of power.

 Subjective Satisfaction:

The court said that administrative authority’s decision could be one of many choices but
it is for the authority to make choice. Court cannot substitute its choice; no matter a little
play in the joints is certainly possible while dealing with the subjective
satisfaction.’ [21] In Shalini Soni v. Union of India [22] the Supreme Court observed that
it is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a
decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory
functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate
matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote.”

 Arbitrary exercise of discretion-

In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [23] , the issue was
regarding awarding of a contract for running a second-class restaurant and two snack bars
by the International Airport Authority, which is a statutory corporation. The right of
selection and rejection was with the Airport Director who accepted the tender from a non-
hotelier. The petitioner in this case was neither an hotelier nor tenderer. His claim was
that both the tendered were in the same position as if a necessary condition i.e., only
registered hoteliers can send tender, can be forgone then why not petitioner’s. The
Supreme Court upheld the Locus Standi and Jus. Bhagwati said that every action of the

17 | P a g e
 Executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from
arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement.

However, in all these cases the burden of prove lies on the petitioner and whereas the
administrative authorities’ duty would be to show that discretionary power granted was exercised
in advance for the purpose which the power was granted in the first place.

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

There are several grounds of parliamentary control.

1. Direct General Control – The first form of parliamentary control shall be exercised at the
time the enabling act is passed. This is Parliamentary hearings that are of a general and direct
control sort. In India, different methods and procedures are used, such as discussions on the
delegation bill, which include aspects such as requirement, scope, form of delegation and
authority delegated to. In addition, any Member can ask questions on any aspect of the
delegation of legislative powers and, if disappointed, may give notice of discussion under Rule
59 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.

2. Direct Special Control – Prominent among these remedies is the “laying on the table”
method, which demands that administrative “laws” rendered under delegated authority be
submitted for approval to the legislature. Under direct control, laying is an important and
necessary feature, and it is laid down in compliance with the law, which ensures that it should be
put before Parliament after making the regulation.
3. Indirect control – This is a power every Parliament and its committees exercise. Subordinate
legislation is another term for such form of committee. The committee’s principal job is to
investigate.
 Whether rule are according to general object of the act.
 It bars the jurisdiction of the court in direct or indirect ways.
 Whether it has retrospective effect or not.
 Whether it safeguards or destroys the Principle of Natural Justice.
 Expenditure involved in it is from consolidated fund.

18 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

If anyone says that can we do away with administrative discretion then the answer is that it is
impossible. It is a price or collateral that we keep for getting governed in a better way. There are
numerous merits of administrative discretion. Firstly, they are very well acquainted with the
ground work of the issue. Therefore with this efficient knowledge comparatively, a better
outcome can be achieved. Secondly, to get the speedy and effective resolution of the dispute, it is
the easiest way to get it. Thirdly, to get effective results, the authority has to be sanctioned with
enough discretion then only this tortuous evil would turn into an instrument of success in
governance. Therefore, the utility of having such discretion is relatively beneficial for the
country.

But what if there is no judicial control at all over this discretionary power? The citizens would be
left without remedy if anything happens. Normally, it is suggested that while granting
discretionary powers to administrative authorities, there should be a broad framework laid down
by the legislature following which the administrative authorities would disseminate their
obligatory duties. But, even after that we would find various gaps being left by the legislature; it
is here that the courts play their most important role. They check that these gaps don’t allow the
administrative authorities to abuse the power.

The court while examining their right use of discretion would have to be very careful as it is
strictly prohibited to go into the merits of each case. It is however, allowed to look into the
manner in which the power was exercised. Practically, it is impossible for the courts to check the
manner of the exercise of powers without going into the merits of the case.

Moreover, in India the jurisprudence follows that courts are not supposed to substitute their own
decision with administrative discretion. The courts in such cases make sure that the
administrative discretion is exercised, that to properly exercised. No individual’s fundamental
rights can be breached, not by any another individual nor even by the state. Courts have very
sternly believed in this theory and thus has successfully it put into work.

19 | P a g e
Webliography:

 https://www.savethechildren.in/others/child-marriage-in-india-facts-figures/
 https://www.familyplanning2020.org/resources/district-level-study-child-
marriage-india
 https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/women/wrgs/forcedmarriage/ngo/
theredelephantfoundation.pdf
 https://www.unicef.org/media/86311/file/Child-marriage-the-law-2020.pdf
 https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/134161519943385981-0050022017/
original/WBL2017ChildMarriageLaws.pdf
 https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/about-child-marriage/law-and-child-marriage/
 https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report205.pdf
 https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/reports/genrep/
Report_Child_Marriage_in_India.pdf

20 | P a g e