Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Administrative Laws

Administrative Discretion and Its Control: Grounds of Judicial Review

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Administrative discretion is the power of an authority to choose between several lawful courses of action. It is never absolute. Courts control it through judicial review, quashing decisions that are ultra vires, mala fide, based on irrelevant considerations, unreasonable, in non-application of mind, or in breach of natural justice or legitimate expectation.

Understand Administrative Discretion and Its Control

Administrative discretion means a public authority has a choice. The statute says the authority "may" grant a licence, or "may" impose a penalty up to a limit. The authority decides which option fits the facts. Modern governance needs this. No law can foresee every case.

But a choice given by law is a choice limited by law. In a constitutional system with the rule of law, no power is unlimited. Article 14 requires that state action is not arbitrary. So discretion must be exercised in good faith, for the purpose the law intended, and on relevant grounds.

Abuse of discretion happens when the authority crosses these limits. The courts do not replace the authority's choice with their own. They ask whether the power was used lawfully. This is the difference between an appeal (is the decision right?) and judicial review (is the decision lawful?).

The usual grounds are these. First, excess of power: acting outside the statute. Second, mala fides: acting with bad faith, malice or a dishonest motive. Third, improper purpose: using power for a purpose other than the one the statute intended. Fourth, irrelevant or extraneous considerations: taking into account what should not count, or ignoring what should. Fifth, non-application of mind: acting on dictation, or rigidly following a policy without looking at the case (called fettering of discretion). Sixth, unreasonableness. Seventh, breach of natural justice.

Wednesbury unreasonableness comes from the English case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948). A decision is unreasonable if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have made it. Indian courts apply this test and also test arbitrariness directly under Article 14. The courts also use proportionality, which asks whether the measure is more drastic than needed to reach its aim. Judicial review is exercised by the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32, mainly through writs.

Key rules to remember

Meaning of discretion: Discretion = power to choose between lawful options, within limits set by law; Discretion is not licence. It must be exercised reasonably, in good faith and for the statutory purpose.
Grounds of abuse: Excess of power | Mala fides | Improper purpose | Irrelevant considerations | Non-application of mind / fettering | Unreasonableness | Natural justice breach; Use this list as a checklist in every answer.
Wednesbury test: Decision is unreasonable if no reasonable authority, properly directing itself, could have reached it; The bar is high. Mere disagreement with the decision is not enough.
Review vs appeal: Judicial review = lawfulness of the decision-making process; appeal = merits of the decision; The court quashes an unlawful decision and usually sends it back. It does not substitute its own choice.
Constitutional basis: Article 14 (non-arbitrariness); Articles 32 and 226 (writ remedies); Mention these to anchor the answer in the Constitution.

How to solve Administrative Discretion and Its Control questions

Use this order for any question on discretion, abuse or judicial review. It gives the provision, the analysis and a conclusion, as ICSI expects.

1Define administrative discretion in one or two lines and say it is a power to choose, not an absolute power.
2State the principle: discretion must be exercised within legal limits, in good faith, for the statutory purpose, and not arbitrarily (Article 14).
3Read the facts and spot what the authority did wrong. Match it to a ground: excess of power, mala fides, improper purpose, irrelevant considerations, non-application of mind, unreasonableness, or natural justice.
4Explain the ground in two or three lines. For unreasonableness, give the Wednesbury test. For fettering, say a fixed policy applied without looking at the case is unlawful.
5Name the remedy: a writ under Article 226 or Article 32, such as certiorari to quash or mandamus to compel proper exercise of power.
6Say what the court will not do: it will not sit as an appellate authority or substitute its own view.
7Write a clear conclusion: the decision is valid or liable to be quashed, and why.

Quickest way: Ground-spotting checklist

When to use it: Use when you have about ten minutes for a short-note or problem question.

Write one line: discretion is a lawful choice, bound by law and Article 14.
List the grounds that fit the facts. Do not list all seven if only two apply.
Add one line on Wednesbury or proportionality if the decision looks harsh or absurd.
Add the remedy: certiorari or mandamus under Article 226.
End with a one-line conclusion.

Common mistakes in Administrative Discretion and Its Control

Treating judicial review as an appeal on the merits.
Students think the court corrects any wrong decision.
Fix: State clearly that courts examine legality and process, not whether the decision was the best one.
Saying discretion is absolute or unfettered because the Act says "may".
The word "may" looks like a complete freedom.
Fix: Say that every statutory power is limited by its purpose, good faith and Article 14.
Describing Wednesbury as any unfair or unwise decision.
The word "unreasonable" is read in its everyday sense.
Fix: Give the exact test: so absurd that no reasonable authority could have made it. The threshold is high.
Confusing mala fides with mere error.
Both lead to a wrong decision.
Fix: Mala fides needs bad faith, malice or a dishonest motive. A bona fide mistake is a different ground, such as error or irrelevant consideration.
Ignoring fettering of discretion.
Students focus on outright misuse and forget rigid policies.
Fix: Add that an authority that applies a fixed rule mechanically, or acts on another's dictation, fails to apply its mind.
Giving no remedy or conclusion.
Students stop after naming the ground.
Fix: Always name the writ and state whether the order will be quashed.

Worked examples

Example 1

A licensing authority has power under a statute to grant or refuse trade licences "as it thinks fit". It refuses a licence to Meera because she belongs to a rival political party. Examine whether the refusal can be challenged.

Show the solution

Provision: the statute gives discretion, but discretion must be exercised in good faith, for the statutory purpose and without arbitrariness. Article 14 forbids arbitrary state action.
Analysis: the licensing purpose relates to the suitability of the trade or applicant under the Act. Political affiliation is an irrelevant, extraneous consideration. The refusal also shows improper purpose and possibly mala fides if the motive was hostility.
The words "as it thinks fit" do not make the power absolute. They are read subject to law.
Remedy: Meera may file a writ petition under Article 226 for certiorari to quash the refusal and mandamus to reconsider her application on relevant grounds.

Answer: The refusal is an abuse of discretion based on irrelevant considerations and improper purpose. It can be challenged under Article 226 and is liable to be quashed, with a direction to decide the application afresh lawfully.

Example 2

A municipal body has discretion to fix the penalty for a minor building violation. It has a rule that every violation, however small, is punished with demolition, and it refuses to hear any explanation. Discuss the legality of this approach.

Show the solution

Provision: where a statute gives discretion, the authority must consider each case and apply its mind. It cannot bind itself by a rigid rule that ignores the facts.
Analysis: a blanket policy of demolition for all violations is a fettering of discretion. It shows non-application of mind to the individual case.
Demolition for a minor violation is also disproportionate. It may fail the Wednesbury test if no reasonable authority would impose it, and it fails the test of proportionality.
Refusing to hear the owner raises a breach of natural justice.
The authority may adopt guidelines. But guidelines must leave room to consider the facts of each case.

Answer: The approach is unlawful. It fetters discretion, shows non-application of mind, is disproportionate and violates natural justice. A court can quash the demolition order by certiorari and direct the body to decide each case on its merits after hearing the owner.

Exam tips

Write the checklist of grounds in order and apply only those that fit the facts. Examiners reward matching, not listing.
Always cite Article 14 for arbitrariness and Articles 226 and 32 for remedies.
Give the Wednesbury test in one exact sentence. Mention the case name and that Indian courts also apply proportionality.
Distinguish judicial review from appeal in one line. It is a common short-note point.
End every problem answer with a conclusion: valid, or liable to be quashed, and the writ available.

Practice questions from Administrative Laws

Administrative Discretion and Its Control: frequently asked questions

What is administrative discretion in simple words?

It is the power of a government authority to choose between lawful options when applying a statute. The choice must stay within the limits of the law and be made fairly and in good faith.

What is Wednesbury unreasonableness?

It is a test from an English case of 1948. A decision is unreasonable if it is so absurd or outrageous that no reasonable authority could have made it. It sets a high threshold for the court to interfere.

How do Indian courts control administrative discretion?

The High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 review the decision. They can quash it by certiorari or direct proper exercise of power by mandamus. They test it for excess of power, mala fides, irrelevant considerations, arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

Can a court substitute its own decision for the authority's discretion?

Generally no. Judicial review checks legality, not merits. The court usually quashes the unlawful decision and sends the matter back to the authority to decide again according to law.