Discretionary power
Rama Sugar Industries v State of Andhra Pradesh[1]
The facts of the case were that the government of Andhra
Pradesh interpreted section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulating of
Supply and purchase) Act 1951 and provided themselves with discretionary power
to grant exemption to any factory form the payment of purchase tax. Hence they confined
the co-operative society factories from the benefit of purchase tax. Therefore,
the suit was filled u/a 32 of the
Constitution to enforce the fundamental right by the sugar factory.
Government contention- Section 21 of the Act, mentions only
new factory or factory in the opinion of the government, tax may be levied. The
government has the power to decide which factories shall be exempted from tax
and upon which factories tax can be levied.
Sugar factories contention- initially the contention was that the exemption
granted is obligatory in nature and later the contentions were that application
on each factory shall be considered on merits and not on discretion by the government
as the policy of granting exemption only to co-operative factories has no nexus
with the objective of the said Act.
Supreme Court- The majority of the judges upheld the contentions of the state. The
government was very much right in treating sugar factory, consisting of
sugarcane growers as a distinct category. The idea was to enhance the sugarcane
growers. The state has not made the permanent rule, but only for 1 year. The
rationale of the court, as well as the government, was incentivising. We have
to look at the larger objective and hence it is a valid decision of the
government. The word may occurring in sub-section 3 should be read as shall,
otherwise it will be unconstitutional as it would fail to provide discretionary
power to the government to grant or refuse exemption. Since there is no
guidelines furnished by the legislation in choosing between 2 factories, it shall
be at the discretion of the government.
Hence the exemption shall be given to the sugar factory only
in the co-operative societies alone held by the court.
Dissenting judgement- The issue is that whether Andhra Pradesh was right in
exempting tax for only one sector. Discretion shall not be exercised so
unreasonably that there cannot be any real or genuine exercise of it. While
exercising statutory discretion authorities should not shut their ears to the
application.
Nandlal Khodidas Barot v Bar Council of Gujarat[2]
The facts of the case were that an advocate was charged of professional
misconduct and the state bar council suspended him for a period of one month.
Contention of the appellant was that the bar took all the
complaints together and forwarded it to the disciplinary committee. They did
not apply their mind and mechanically forwarded it to the committee.
The Supreme Court held that if any complaint comes to Bar
Council, they have to apply 'reason to believe' before forwarding it.
They have to scrutinise the complaint and if they feel that there is a prima
facie reason to believe that the complaint shall be forwarded to the committee,
then only it shall be forwarded. This phrase cannot be ignored and reason to believe
cannot be converted into formalized procedural road block. Discretionary power
provided to the council shall be used with care and precision.
Doctrine of
Proportionality
It a process of a higher level of scrutiny. It is a higher
level of scrutiny because the fundamental right is involved. The anvil of
scrutiny increases. The court has to judge whether the fundamental right is
violated or not or that the measure adopted by the administrative authority was
proportionate, desirable and necessary or not. In administrative law, the
action shall not be more drastic than what it ought to be for achieving the
desired result. If anything, illegal happen and the administration has to
decide the quantum of punishment, then it shall not be more drastic than what
it ought to be, for the sake of maintaining peace and harmony and smooth
working.
“A canon shall not be used to shoot a sparrow”. A suitable action shall
be taken by the administrative body while using their discretion over the quantum
of punishment. The doctrine of proportionality is the primary scrutiny test,
and the doctrine of Wednesbury reasonableness is a secondary test. The court is
not an appellate body but a review body while scrutinising the proportionality
of the administrative decisions.
The court has to check that whether the choices opted by the administration
have not created a higher burden upon the person than required and goes beyond
what was necessary. In the Wednesbury reasonableness test, the court is into
finding the "factors that lead to the particular decision".
Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative
Bank v Secretary, Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association
& Anr., 2007
Proportionality test does not need to be applied in this case;
the mere application of the Wednesbury reasonableness test was sufficient.
The facts of the case were that there was an Industrial
strike in a factory and conciliation proceedings were started, and an amicable
settlement was made. 134 workmen resumed their duty, but 53 workmen refused to
join their duty back. Because these 53 workmen did not follow the settlement
rules and did not join the duty, their strike was held to be illegal. The inquiry
was initiated against them which they did not cooperate with the inquiry
officer. They did not become part of the conciliation proceedings. They also threatened
the other workmen to join the duty and tries to create hindrance to the other
134 workmen. The management came with certain punishment, that was no payment
of salary during suspension and stoppage of increment for a period of 1 to 4
year.
The Supreme Court held that the award passed by the
management was just fair and reasonableness. Their decision over the quantum of
punishment is not arbitrary and illegal. They have applied the principle of natural
justice system. The court here is just trying to see the process, method and
the manner in which the decision was taken and also that whether triple I's
test (irrationality, irregularity and Procedural Impropriety) was applied by
the management and followed the established procedure or not. Thought the High
Court has applied the doctrine of proportionality, but the SC rejected to apply
it in this case and the punishment imposed upon the 53 workmen by the
management was not harsh so as to interfere.
Wednesbury test- whether reasonable factors has been
considered or not. There was no requirement to apply the doctrine of
proportionality by the court in this and only reasonableness was scrutinised.
De Smith stated 2 tests in proportionality:
1. Balancing test- scrutiny of excess onerous penalties
or infringement of rights and interest and manifest imbalance of relevant consideration.
2. Necessity test- requires infringement of human
rights to the least restrictive alternative. If even by applying the less
restrictive alternative the desirable result would have been achieved, then
unnecessary burden shall not be levied upon the individual.
The doctrine of
Proportionality and Wednesbury test
The court takes into consideration the proportionality
between action and penalty. While the court does not consider it while applying
the Wednesbury test. It is not necessary that the court have to check firstly
the arbitrariness and reasonableness of the decision of the administrative body
and then the court will go on to check the proportionality of quantum of
punishment. The court if required can straightaway apply the doctrine of
proportionality in the case matter if prima facie it seems that the punishment
imposed by the administrative body is more than what ought to be. There might
be a case where the administrative body's decision look reasonable but would
not be proportionate to the punishment given.
In the Wednesbury reasonableness, we do not talk about
suitability and necessity as we do in the doctrine of proportionality. There is
though no literal interpretation gives for suitability and necessity, the court
has to apply its discretion in the context of law and principle of natural
justice.
Arbitrariness and reasonableness are two terminologies as
under administrative law are different from one another are shall not overlap.
If seen from the context of constitutional law they both might overlap each
other. But in administrative law court are still trying to figure out how, how much,
and what court can review the administrative body's decision. Test of
proportionality being the highest-level scrutiny, the court has to apply only
when required.
0 Comments