Irrelevant Considerations, and Ignoring Relevant Ones
Chapter Fifty-Nine
Syllabus topic 4, "Grounds of Review"
Pages 179 to 181 of 430
In one line
An authority must think about what the statute tells it to think about, and about nothing else.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: a discretionary decision is bad if the authority took into account a consideration which the statute, expressly or by implication, required it to exclude, or failed to take into account a consideration which the statute required it to consider; and the decision falls whether or not the authority acted dishonestly.
Where the ground comes from
From the same source as the rest of Module II: the power was given for a purpose, and the considerations which are relevant to it are fixed by the statute. Lord Greene stated it as part of the meaning of unreasonable in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223: a person entrusted with a discretion must direct himself properly in law, must call his own attention to the matters he is bound to consider, and must exclude from consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. Lord Reid put the same idea in terms of the policy and objects of the Act in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] AC 997.
The three forms it takes
One, taking account of the irrelevant. The authority relied on something the statute excludes. A licensing authority which refuses a licence because the applicant belongs to a particular community, or because he sued the corporation last year.
Two, failing to take account of the relevant. The authority ignored something the statute requires it to weigh. A transport authority which never considered the needs of the travelling public, when the section names them.
Three, acting on no material at all, which is the extreme case and is treated as malice in law: S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49, where the Union conceded that there was nothing on the record to justify the order of premature retirement, and the Court held that where an authority makes an order with no material at all on which it could have been made, the order is an abuse of power and is bad, whether or not any actual malicious intention is shown.
How the court decides what is relevant
Expressly stated factors. Where the section lists them, the list is the answer, and the words "having regard to" make consideration compulsory.
Implied factors. Where the section is silent, the court reads the scheme and object of the Act. This is where the argument usually is.
Weight is for the authority. Once a consideration is relevant, how much weight it carries is not for the court, unless the weight given is so absurd that the decision becomes irrational.
Irrelevant Considerations, and Ignoring Relevant Ones
A worked example
A section allows a State to grant a mining lease, having regard to the applicant's experience, his financial capacity, the development of the mineral concerned and the interest of the State revenue. A lease is granted to a company whose application was late, and the file records that the Minister preferred it because its promoter had promised to fund a college in his constituency, and that the applicant with twenty years of experience was not considered because his file was misplaced.
The promise of a college is an irrelevant consideration: it is nothing to do with any of the four factors. The failure to consider the experienced applicant is a failure to take account of a relevant matter, both because experience is a listed factor and because the section requires the claims of applicants to be compared. Either would be enough; together they make the grant plainly bad.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Irrelevant considerations | Improper purpose | |
|---|---|---|
| What is wrong | The material relied on | The object pursued |
| Where it is seen | The reasons recorded and the file | The statute's purpose against the actual effect |
| Overlap | Very large: an irrelevant consideration is usually evidence of an improper purpose |
| Relevance | Weight | |
|---|---|---|
| Who decides | The court, by construing the Act | The authority |
| Reviewable | Yes | Only through irrationality |
What this does NOT mean
It does not mean the court re-weighs the factors. Relevance is for the court; weight is for the authority.
It does not mean an authority may consider nothing but the listed factors. Where the list is not exhaustive it may consider other matters consistent with the object of the Act.
It does not mean a single irrelevant factor always destroys the order. Where the decision would plainly have been the same without it, a court may decline relief; but where the factor is likely to have influenced the result, the order falls.
Quick revision
An authority must direct itself properly in law, consider what it is bound to consider and exclude what is irrelevant, which is Lord Greene in Wednesbury. Three forms: taking the irrelevant into account, ignoring the relevant, and acting on nothing at all, the last being malice in law under S.R. Venkataraman. Relevance is decided by the court from the express and implied factors in the Act; weight is for the authority.
Test yourself
1. Who decides what is relevant, and who decides how much it matters? The court decides relevance by construing the Act; the authority decides weight, subject only to irrationality.
2. What happens where the authority acts on no material at all? The order is an abuse of power and is bad, without proof of any bad motive: S.R. Venkataraman.
Irrelevant Considerations, and Ignoring Relevant Ones
3. Does a single irrelevant consideration always vitiate the decision? Not necessarily. It does where it is likely to have influenced the result; where the decision would plainly have been the same without it, the court may decline relief.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.