Administrative Discretion and Article 14

Introduction

Generally, everyone is aware of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, i.e. the “Right to Equality.” Our nation has yet to achieve true freedom after 73 years of independence. Discrimination and other evils still exist in our country. The fundamental rights granted by the Indian Constitution are not perfect, implying that they are subjected to some limitations, the boundaries of which are set out in the Constitution. These constraints are commonly referred to as “reasonable restrictions.” 

The Government has the power to limit the exercise of liberties through laws. Executive action is the use of the ability of the state to limit these rights through laws. Administrative discretion is one of the ways wherein the administration might restrict the exercise of Indian citizens’ fundamental rights.

The modern welfare society, in which the govt. is required to perform a great variety of responsibilities for the sake of the citizens, gives rise to the concept of discretion. Administrative authorities have evolved to get wide discretionary powers in order to effectively execute the laws so they can carry out its functions. The mere presence of discretionary powers for the administration, according to traditional rule of law theory, is a breach of the rule of law. Giving discretionary powers to the administration, on the other hand, has become completely mandatory for the modern welfare state to work. To overcome the conflict, it has been argued that if administrative discretion cannot be eliminated entirely, it should be reduced to the minimum amount possible and subjected to judicial scrutiny.

Article 14: Right to Equality

Everyone in India has the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It enshrines the fundamental concepts of equality before the law and bans unjustified discrimination amongst citizens, as well as expressing the concept of equality in the Preamble. Article 14 provides “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India[1]”

On the one hand, Equality before the Law bans any group or people from receiving special treatment. It makes no mention of equal treatment under the same conditions. As per  it, the perfect scenario should exist, and the state does not have to intervene in society by giving extra privileges.

The Right to Equality, on the other hand, is not perfect and has various restrictions. As per Article 14, equals must be treated equally. There are a few limitations to equality before the law, such as the protection of the governor and president.

The problem as to whether the Right to Equality is absolute or not was addressed in the well-known case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[2]. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to equality is not really absolute in this case. The State of Bengal was deemed to use its powers to submit any case to the Special Court created by them unfairly in this case. As a result, the State of Bengal Act was found to be in violation of the Right to Equality.

Principles Evolved from Equality

Following are few principles which evolved from equality:

1. Discrimination: The basic concept is that granting an  arbitrary, broad, and unrestrained discretion on administrative authority violates article 17 since it increases the risk of discrimination among individuals who are similarly located, which is contrary to the equality principle stated in article 17.
2. Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The courts had a great reliance on the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” to examine the legitimacy of administrative decision-making throughout the early stages of the creation of administrative law. In this instance, the court determined that it could not interfere and overturn the corporation’s decisions just because it disagrees with it. The court stated that judgment must be employed reasonably, which introduces the term “unreasonable.” This term is often used to describe acts that should not be performed.
3. Specific Guidelines: The government’s directives must be followed by administrative authorities with discretionary powers. If the authorities take any discretionary acts without following the standards, they will be considered unreasonable and unlawful under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Equal Protection of the Laws

One of the beneficial aspects of equality is this concept. This law is taken from  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Act of the U.S Constitution which guarantees “Equal protection of the Laws.”  This concept states that everyone living in India should be treated as equals and have equal legal protection. It ensures that all Indian citizens are treated equally, and the government cannot refuse this (for equal protection of the law).

It makes the state responsible for preventing human rights violations. This can be accomplished by enacting socioeconomic reforms. In Stephens College v. The University of Delhi[3], a same principle was addressed.

In this case, the college admissions procedure was scrutinised, and the major point of contention was the legality of giving Christian students priority in the admissions process. The Supreme Court ruled that a minority college getting state funding has the right to give priority or reserve places for students from its group.

The Supreme Court ruled that unequal treatment of students in the admissions process does not infringe Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, but that it is necessary for minorities.

Equality is a Pragmatic Principle: Basawaraj v. the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

In the well-known case of Basawaraj v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer[4], the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court after the High Court of Karnataka issued an unfavorable judgment. As per the appellant, the High Court made a mistake by refusing to excuse the delay because there were numerous reasons why they were unable to get at the High Court on time. It is a well-established legal principle that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is not meant to maintain illegality, even by extending a former incorrect decision.

The appellant was found to be negligent because they were unable to demonstrate a valid reason for the delay, and therefore their appeal was denied.

Exceptions

1. Discretion of Judicial Officer: Because the constitution allows superior courts to review judgments issued by inferior courts, the decision of the judicial officer is not unreasonable and does not amount to a denial of equality.
2. Discretion by govt. When the government deals with the public, whether by granting employment, entering into contracts, approving quotas or licences, or providing other types of largess, the government cannot function unreasonably at its will deal with anyone it pleases, as a private person could. Instead, the government must operate in accordance with a guideline or rule that is not unreasonable,  arbitrary or unrelated.
   The court held in Om Prakash vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir[5] that the state has the right to refuse to engage into a relationship with anyone, but that if it does, it cannot randomly select any individual it wants for such a relationship and discriminate among people in similiar situations.
3. Expert bodies: In some cases, there is an executive body that governs and regulates all of the lower entities that fall under it. The problem arises as to whether the expert body can be questioned under Article 17 of the Indian constitution if it uses unconstitutional power.
   In Joseph Vellukunnel vs Reserve Bank of India[6], the legality of an expert body was questioned. Under Section 38(1) as well as (3) (b) (iii) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank of India is the final decider to determine if a banking company’s affairs are getting performed in a manner that is injurious to depositors’ interests.
4. Administrative Convenience: The administrative authorities should have a responsibility to act reasonably and fairly when exercising discretionary authority, and one of the exceptions to Article 14 is administrative convenience, in which the administrative authorities can act further than their powers, i.e. discretionary powers, and this exception can be questioned under fairness (“principles of natural justices”), even if the range of article 14 is not affected.

Administrative Discretion

Simply said, discretion refers to the ability to select one of many, or at least two, options provided. In the context of administrative law, it can simply be defined as the administrative authority’s ability to select and choose among the available choices to it.

Sir Edward Coke described discretion as the ability to tell the difference among truth and lie, or right and wrong, without relying on private factors. Lord Halsbury stated in Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield[7] that whenever something is entrusted to administrative discretion, it must be handled in line with the principles of fairness and rationality, rather than on the grounds of the personal point of view of the authority.

It might be claimed that while exercising administrative discretion, the authority in concern is required to make decisions based not just on the proof but also on policy and practicality.

Definitions by Jurists

1. “Discretion is a science to understand the difference between truth-untruth, right-wrong and reasonable-unreasonable. They must not do their work under the influence of personal interest and to fulfill own will” said Lord Cock.
2. Mr. Justice Frankfurter made an observation “’Discretion without a criterion of its exercise is authorization of arbitrariness.” Picking one option from a list of alternatives is what discretion entails. These options must be decided on rationality and fairness, not on personal preference. This practice must not be arbitrary, hazy, or bizarre; it must be lawful and consistent.
3. Any law passed by the legislature is based on many assumptions, and it is impossible to predict everything that might happen as a result of that law. The basic goal of administrative discretion is to ensure that all members of society are treated equally. Such administrative discretion, however, should not be overused and should be exercised with caution. This may lead to an unreasonable discretion.
4. Administrative discretion, according to Phillip Cooper, is the “power of an administrator to make significant decisions that have the force of law, directly or indirectly, and that are not specifically mandated by the Constitution, statutes, or other sources of black letter law”.

Reasonable Classification Test

The Supreme Court discusses equality before the law doctrine in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar[8]. The standard used to establish whether governmental actions are constitutionally lawful. Only in this case was the well-known “classification test” conducted. The High Court ruled that where it is essential, a government might appoint a commission to investigate a case. The government’s primary goal here is to make any commitment to aid problems of public interest. It’s a matter of administrative discretion in this circumstance. In this case, finally the government has the power to make any decision.

In this case, the government’s actions were likewise found to be rational and legal.

The Supreme Court concluded that when we talk about equality in a political democracy, we’re talking about social and economic equality. There is no alternative form of equality, and the state should do everything it can to achieve social and economic equality.

Misusing Administrative Discretion

Where an administrative authority has been given discretion, it must act within the bounds of the law and exercise such powers in accordance with the law. Simply expressed, the term “misuse of administrative discretion” alludes to circumstances in which an administrative authority has used its discretion in an unjustified or unlawful method. In such cases, the court may interfere and give the case the necessary directions.

The following are the bases for seeking court review of an alleged misuse of administrative discretion:

1. The administrative authority acts in an area over which it has no control.
2. The authority goes beyond what the law has granted it permission to do.
3. The authority has endeavored to accomplish what it is not permitted to do directly, namely, the cognizable use of power, in an indirect manner.
4. The authority has considered unnecessary factors in reaching a judgement.
5. The authority did consider relevant factors when reaching a decision.
6. The decision of the authority is irrational.
7. The government has functioned in a deceitful manner.
8. Disobedience to natural justice principles.
9. Irrationality.
10. The law by which the authority gains its discretion is valid legislation.

Case Laws

1. In J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation[9], a Company Secretary questioned the legitimacy of an investigation carried against him that resulted in his suspension, claiming that he was denied legal representation despite the fact that the company’s presenting officer was a lawfully qualified person. The Supreme Court of India acknowledged the reasons and ruled that the investigation was handled in breach of natural justice principles since the appellant was denied legal representation, denying him a fair chance to defend the case against a qualified prosecutor in the best possible manner.
2. The government gave the Indian Express newspaper a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture in the case of Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. V. Union of India [10]. The warning was false, according to the publication, and was founded on a false factor – the Indian Express’ negative comments on the Congress party. The claims were not denied by the administration, but they were regarded as unimportant. The notice was cancelled because it was false, and the Court also stated that it is up to the Court to determine what is important and what is not. It is forbidden for the parties to discuss that.

The decision by the relevant government can be reversed by certiorari and the relevant government can be ordered to review the subject once again by mandamus.

Test of Proportionality

Proportionality implies that the administrative action in question should not be more vigorous than is required. The concept of proportionality requires the court to consider the benefits and drawbacks of the activity in issue. A so-called administrative action cannot be supported unless it is beneficial and in the interest of the public. This theory attempts to strike a balance between methods and goals.

This approach has been followed by Indian courts for a long time, but it was only after the passage of the Human Rights Act, 1998, that it was adopted by English courts. The court will not employ discretionary powers if there is no rational relationship between the goal to be reached and the methods to accomplish it, according to the proportionality test. If the administrative power is excessive in comparison to the harm, it will be dismissed.

 In Hind Construction Co. v. Workmen[14] some workers called for a holiday and did not show up. They were later discharged from the military. The workers should have been cautioned and penalised rather than being fired permanently, according to the court.

Conclusion

Ultimately, because our country is democratic, we have been guaranteed basic fundamental rights, and we must assure that these rights are not trampled upon by anyone, even the state. Even when so many legal obligations relating to it have been brought forward by our legal system, our constitution’s right to equality is not being fully implemented.

The framework of modern welfare state necessitates that the administrative authorities be given discretionary powers to assist them in doing their duties effectively. Administrative discretion creates a variety of possibilities for connection between administrative discretion and fundamental rights, whether in conflict or agreement.

It is argued that in order for the rule of law to flourish in a modern welfare state, a steady balance must be established between the administrative discretion that the State must grant the administration and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens.

Only then India can be expected to become the perfect democratic republic that the Indian Constitution envisions.

---

References:

[1] Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

[2] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 CAL 150

[3] Stephens College v. The University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630

[4] Basawaraj v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (4) KCCR 3430 (SC)

[5] Om Prakash vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1981 SC 1001

[6] Joseph Vellukunnel vs Reserve Bank of India, 1963 SC 1881

[7] Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield, 1891 AC 173

[8] Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538

[9] J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, 1991 AIR 1221

[10] Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 S.C.R. 287

[11] Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1964 AIR 72

[12] State of Bihar v. Ganguly, 1958 AIR 1018

[13] Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act (1947)

[14] Hind Construction Co. v. Workmen, 1965 AIR 917

Other Sources:

• Aditi Singh, Right to equality under the Indian Constitution – iPleaders iPleaders (2018), https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-equality/ (last visited Aug 23, 2021).
• Subodh Asthana, An Overview of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution iPleaders (2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-14/#Administrative_discretion (last visited Aug 23, 2021).
• Administrative Discretion | Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/administrative-discretion (last visited Aug 23, 2021).
• Diva Rai, Reasonable restrictions under Article 19 and administrative discretion – iPleaders iPleaders (2021), https://blog.ipleaders.in/reasonable-restrictions-article-19-administrative-discretion/#Administrative_discretion_Meaning (last visited Aug 24, 2021).
• The Abuse of Administrative Discretion, Lawteacher.net, https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-abuse-of-administrative-discretion-administrative-law-essay.php (last visited Aug 24, 2021).
• Administrative Discretion And Fundamental Rights – Prolawctor, Prolawctor (2020), https://prolawctor.com/administrative-discretion-and-fundamental-rights/ (last visited Aug 24, 2021).
• M.P Jain, ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN INDIA, JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43949633 (last visited Aug 24, 2021).