Grounds of Judicial Review: Abuse of Discretion

In one line

An authority abuses its discretion when it uses a real power for the wrong reason.

In the words a student can write in an exam: abuse of discretion covers the cases in which an authority has exercised the power conferred on it, but has exercised it improperly. The recognised grounds are that the power was used for an improper or ulterior purpose; that irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations ignored; that the authority acted in bad faith; that it exercised the power in a colourable manner; that its decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it; that the decision was based on no evidence or on a mistake of fact; and, in the appropriate class of case, that the interference was disproportionate.

The two families of ground

Module III's grounds divide into two, and MU prints them as separate heads, so the division must be observed.

The English classification, which Indian courts also use, groups all of it under three headings: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, with proportionality added later. Illegality and irrationality are the subject of this chapter; procedural impropriety is Module II's natural justice.

Ground 1: improper purpose

A power conferred for one purpose may be used only for that purpose. If the Act allows land to be acquired for a public purpose, it may not be acquired to spite the owner or to benefit a private developer.

How the purpose is found. From the Act itself: its preamble, its long title, the scheme, and the section conferring the power. The question is never what the authority thought the purpose was, but what the statute says it is.

Mixed purposes. Where an authority acts for two purposes, one proper and one not, the usual test is whether the improper purpose was the dominant one, or whether the authority would have reached the same decision on the proper purpose alone.

Ground 2: irrelevant considerations, and ignoring relevant ones

The authority must take into account what the statute requires it to consider, and must exclude what the statute makes irrelevant. Both halves matter and students usually give only the first.

What is relevant is determined by the statute, expressly or by implication from its purpose. A licensing statute concerned with public safety makes the applicant's caste, politics and religion irrelevant, and makes the condition of the premises relevant.