Most of the problems are new, practically of the first impression. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the judicial investigation of administrative decision would not extend far as reviewing the actions on merit. Especially for a judge, a public official or other private party has the authority to make decisions on any legal matters or other big official subjects. Infact judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope. The detention order was quashed because none of the facts were established on this ground. The Yale Law Journal, 69 4 , 543-544.
India is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitution allows for preventive detention during peacetime. Ministers, however, do not enjoy such immunity. The court quashed the order of the Board on the ground that the basis of the factors mentioned in Section 237 for such exercise of discretion. It also determines whether such actions are consistent with the constitution of the country. Some functionaries like the President and the Governor are immune from legal proceedings even in respect of their personal acts. Administrative Discretion and Judicial Control.
Thus, In this case- the court concluded that detention of the petitioner was the result of malafides. Of his additions to the administrative discretion and of bureaucracy as we know it today, one in particular, the creation of brought about the creation of new offices and adjudicatory administrative boards. The law of preventive detention leaves a very broad discretion with administrative authorities and only a narrow margin for judicial review. This study focuses on a series of legal, extralegal, and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice systems. This act expired in 1969, and before it expired, it was amended for 7 times, each expansion was to make it valid for 3 more years and this it was extended till 31 December 1969.
A writ is an order of the court enforcing compliance on the part of those against whom the writ is issued. The minister in exercise of his unfettered discretion refused to direct the complaint. The court have consistently insisted that the legislature must observe certain constitutional limits in granting discretion to the administrative authorities but they have not insisted upon a rigid criterion. The Secretary did not say or record anywhere that exposure to the substance benzene at 10 ppm parts per million would cause leukemia and exposure to 1 ppm would not Oyez cases. The producers of London complained that though they were in proximity of the London market, yet did not reflect the higher value of the price paid for their milk, and requested the minister to refer the matter to the statutory committee for complaints.
Even though the procedures have a positive dimension of ensuring fair play, too much of it negates the whole process. However, Article 22 3 says that the above safeguards are not available to the following: If the person is at the time being an enemy alien. Conscientious moral agents therefore have no option. In the criminal justice system, discretion is often performed by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries, correctional officials and paroling authorities. Once the court was satisfied that he was arrested under some law, habeas corpus comes to an end. Public administration exercises a large volume of power to meet the citizens need in modern democratic welfare state. A writ petition was field by a person who was himself neither a tenderer nor an hotelier.
Administrative Discretion in Criminal Law Enforcement -- When a government official of law enforcement uses their own sense of ethical discretion such as not to or to invoke in criminal process. Administrative discretion means choosing from amongst the various available alternatives but with reference to the rules of reason and justice and not according to personal whims and fancies. What guidance the law cannot provide is supposed to be provided by standard principles of justice and due process, reason, and the facts of each case. It was held that since the authority did not consider vital facts relevant to the detention of the petitioner the detention order was bad. The fact were brought before the court to show that the D. This entails that if administrate discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the court would intervene. Case — Ram Manohar Lohia v.
Kammrup16 Held that, A Preventive detention order can also be quashed if it is based on vague grounds because of the reason that vague grounds affect the right of the detenu to make representation. Every person who has been arrested would be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. These variables are employed first to analyze the decision of the court to refer defendants for presentence investigation when such a referral is not mandatory, then to examine how these referrals, once made, influence disposition. In Manu Bushan vs west Bengal14 The ground that the detenu committed a murderous attack on a person causing his death was held to raise only a law and order problem and therefore order of preventive detention was quashed because under the law, preventive detention was authorized on the ground of public order and not law and order. Therefore the courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, ensure that discretion is exercised by the authority concerned according to law. May 2015 In , administrative discretion refers to the flexible exercising of judgment and decision making allowed to public administrators. Not withstanding its popularity, it cannot be.
From the sequence of events, certain tape recordings and the absence of an affidavit denying allegations, the court concluded that charge of mala fide is proved. Generally judicial intervention in administrative activities is confined to the following cases: a Lack of Jurisdiction: If any public official or administrative agency acts without or beyond his or her authority or jurisdiction the courts can declare such acts as ultra-virus. Justice Mathew and Justice Bhagwati however, gave a dissenting opinion on the ground that the adoption of policy, as has been done in this case, predetermines the issue. The quality of judiciary mostly depends on the quality of the judges. The court examines whether the grounds supplied have a relevant connection with the order and would examine the bonafide of the order and interfere if it was malafides, that is to say, if the law of preventive detention was used for any purpose other than that for which it was made20. The court examines the grounds communicated to the detenu to see if they are sufficient to enable him to make an effective representation. Thus within the area of administrative discretion the courts have tried to fly high the flog of Rule of Law which aims the progressive diminution of arbitrariness in the exercise of public power.
For example in modern Russia aspects and direction of development of judicial reforms were formulated in their constitution enacted by the Russian parliament on 24th October 1991 Russian judicial reform. The rule of law requiring that the administration can interfere with the right of an individual only with the authority of law and that the authorization is clearly limited in its content, subject matter, purpose and extent so that the interference is measurable and to a certain extent is foreseeable and calculable by the citizen. To analyse the grounds where administration discretion can be challenged. But that is not true of the other common law countries whose written constitution determine and regulate the competence of the legislature particularly through the enumeration of the basic rights of individuals. The court quashed the exercise of discretion on ground that he abdicate his power by exercising it at the dictation of some other authority. Security of India or of a state maintenance of public order etc. However, this does not mean that the administrative authority cannot frame broad policies for the exercise of its discretion.
Prohibition: It is a judicial writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, preventing it from usurping jurisdiction, which is not vested with it. In the case of preventive detention, they have always examined whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was arrived at by taking into consideration relevant facts and ignoring irrelevancies. But that is not true of the other common law countries whose written constitution determine and regulate the competence of the legislature particularly through the enumeration of the basic rights of individuals. There are two major situational motivations of police discretion; whether police response is internally invoked or citizen initiated and whether it is a law enforcement of order maintenance situation. The first condition above is justified, because when India is in war, the citizen of the enemy country may be arrested.