Administrative Discretion & Abuse of Power

Administrative Discretion occurs when a law leaves an official free to choose from among several possible courses of action. While absolutely necessary for personalized welfare governance, unchecked discretion is the starting point of tyranny.

1. Control of Discretionary Power

Indian courts will not interfere with a policy choice itself, but they will declare the exercise of discretionary power invalid if it falls under any of the following grounds:

A. Abuse of Discretion

• Mala Fide (Bad Faith): The official exercised their power with malicious intent, dishonest motive, or personal grudge.
• Irrelevant Considerations: The decision was based on factors that have no connection to the purpose of the statute. For example, if a license is refused because of the applicant's political views.
• Leaving Out Relevant Considerations: The authority failed to take into account facts that the statute mandates they must consider.
• Mixed Motives: If a decision is made for both proper (lawful) and improper (unlawful) motives. The decision is void if the dominant motive was the improper one.

B. Non-Exercise of Discretion

• Acting under Dictation: An official who is granted discretionary power by a statute blindly obeys the order or dictation of a political boss or superior officer, failing to apply their own independent mind.
• Self-Created Rules / Fettering Discretion: The authority adopts a rigid, blanket policy rule that prevents them from considering the individual merits of a specific application.

2. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

This doctrine protects citizens against sudden, arbitrary shifts in administrative policy. If the government has made a clear representation or had a consistent past practice, a citizen has a "legitimate expectation" that this practice will continue, unless a compelling public interest overrides it.