Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion

Judicial review examines whether an administrative authority exercised its discretion lawfully, rather than whether the court would have made the same decision. An order shows non-application of mind when the authority fails to form its own judgment on relevant facts, acts mechanically, or relies on legally irrelevant considerations.

Constitutional and legal basis

Administrative discretion is controlled by Article 14, which prohibits arbitrary state action, and by Article 21 where life or personal liberty is affected. The Supreme Court and High Courts may enforce these limits under Articles 32 and 226, respectively.

• The authority must exercise discretion for the purpose for which the law conferred it, after considering relevant material.
• Compliance with statutory procedure and applicable principles of natural justice is part of lawful decision-making.

How courts identify non-application of mind

The court reviews the decision-making process and the official record. It does not ordinarily substitute its own view on the merits or reweigh the sufficiency of evidence.

• An order may be invalid if it merely reproduces a standard formula without connecting the material to the statutory requirements.
• Ignoring relevant facts, considering extraneous matters, acting under another authority's dictation, or recording satisfaction without supporting material can establish non-application of mind.
• Mala fides, absence of evidence and reliance on irrelevant grounds are recognised grounds for reviewing purported subjective satisfaction, as explained in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975).

Application to preventive detention

Although preventive detention depends upon the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, that satisfaction is not immune from judicial review. Courts examine whether the authority itself considered relevant and proximate material and observed the safeguards in Article 22.

• Under Article 22(5), the grounds of detention must be communicated as soon as may be, and the detainee must receive the earliest opportunity to make a representation.
• Mechanical consideration of a representation, unexplained delay, vague grounds, or reliance on irrelevant material may invalidate continued detention.
• A court may quash an unlawful administrative order; in detention cases, habeas corpus secures release unless detention is otherwise legally authorised.