Doctrine of Wednesbury is required to review the decisions taken by the administrative action of a government. There were two tests developed in order to control the abuse of powers which are discretionary really used by the administrative body.
The Doctrine of Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Proportionality from Associated Provincial Pictures Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, where the court held that when a reasonable work is not by an authority, it would be concluded as unreasonable and hence the law can be invalidated.
Lord Diplok also opinionated certain grounds where judicial review of the administrative body would be allowed-
1. Illegality
2. Irrational
3. Procedural Impropriety
In the case of the Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh the administrative bodies can exempt a particular industry from tax as per Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 under section 21 (3) for a period of three years. The government however only exempts those factories run by co-operative societies.
Therefore, the Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. appealed in the court saying that the government misused its power by discretionary exempting certain factories.
The court declared that it is totally upon the government to decide which factory shall be exempted and which shall not be exempted. Henceforth, the government administrative body is correct in using its discretionary powers in exempting only those companies that are run by cooperative societies.
From this case it can be understood that certain discretionary powers can be exercised by the administrative bodies of the government when there is reasonable applications applied to it.
Critical Aspect-
The main issue arises when instead of objectivity, subjectivity arises. Objectivity observes a simple affirmative or negative position, however, when subjectivity in topics arises, it can lead to more complexity and conflicts.
1. Opinion- When opinions are to be considered, it becomes
difficult as the views differ of each and every individual. Due to multiple
opinions, decision making can be conflicted amongst the members of the body
itself.
2. Identifying unreasonableness- When it is
to be determined what is reasonable and what isn’t, there can be various
complex issues raised. It can become to then identify.
3. Limited judicial scrutiny- Critical
examination can be limited only to extreme cases where no final decision can be
arrived at.
This then gave rise to the proportionality tests, which led to calling the Doctrine of Wednesbury also as Doctrine of Proportionality. There were two tests developed-
1. The Balancing Test
According to the balancing test the level of crime and the quantum of punishment should be equal and hence proportionate.
2. The Necessity Test
The Necessity Test lays down that there should be a minimum punishment fixed for a particular offence or crime and a minimum and maximum punishment should also be fixed for the very same crime. Therefore the punishment shall be decided based on the minimum and maximum criteria prescribed.
The requirement of this principle arises when the administration exceeds its power in prescribing the punishment for an offence/crime in that case a person can appeal in the court of the law based on this principle to get a fair punishment.
Also read- Writs under Indian Constitution | Prohibition | Certiorari | Mandamus
0 Comments