The Role Of Judicial Review In Curbing Malafide Exercise Of Administrative Discretion

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Banking & Finance

Published: 2026-08-23T21:30:42.199401+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:21.294+00:00

THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CURBING

MALAFIDE EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DISCRETION

S. Hanishree, School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University

ABSTRACT

Judicial Review plays an important role in safeguarding the rule of law by ensuring that administrative authorities exercise their discretion within legal bounds. This article explores the significance of judicial review in curbing the misuse of administrative discretion, focusing on instances where administrative decisions are influenced by improper motives, personal bias, arbitrariness, and malafide intentions. By analysing key judicial precedents, legislative frameworks and legal principles, this study explores the parameters within which courts can intervene to prevent the abuse of power by administrative authorities. Ultimately this study analyses the role of judicial review in upholding transparency, fairness, accountability and preventing the misuse of administrative discretion by public officials, which is essential for the protection of individual rights.

Introduction: Administrative Discretion is an essential feature of modern governance, allowing public officials to make decisions that require flexibility and expert judgement. However, this discretion can sometimes be exercised arbitrarily or with malafide intent, leading to injustice, abuse of power and a breach of the rule of law. In this context, judicial review serves as a vital check on the exercise of administrative discretion, ensuring that it is not misused for improper purposes or beyond the scope of legal authority. Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to review the actions of administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the law, adhere to the principles of natural justice, and remain free from bias, bad faith or malafide intention or improper motive.

The primary objective is to protect citizens’ rights, uphold legal standards and maintain the accountability of public officials. This article examines the role of judicial review in curbing the malafide exercise of administrative discretion. By analysing relevant legal doctrines, landmark judicial decisions, this study explores how courts intervene when administrative actions are tainted with malafide intentions or lack transparency. Furthermore, it highlights the delicate balance that courts must maintain between respecting the autonomy of administrative agencies and protecting the individuals from the consequences of unlawful or biased decision making. Objectives: • To examine the concept of administrative discretion and its significance in the functioning of modern governance.

• To analyze the doctrine of judicial review and how it serves as a mechanism to oversee and control administrative discretion. • To explore the concept of malafide (bad faith) in administrative actions, identifying the factors and circumstances that lead to the arbitrary or improper exercise of discretion. • To asses the role of judicial review in curbing the malafide exercise of administrative discretion, through an analysis of key judicial decisions and relevant case laws. • To evaluate the effectiveness of judicial review in maintaining accountability, fairness, and transparency within administrative bodies and prevent abuses of power.

Administrative Discretion: Justice Edward Coke defines Administrative Discretion as “A science or undertaking to differentiate between falsity and truth, between right and wrong, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, not according to the will and private affections”. Administrative discretion refers to the decision making power given to the administrative authorities with certain limits set by the legislative authorities. In the case of Susannah Sharp V. Wakefield[1], Lord Halsbury said that when something is left to administrative discretion, it means that it has to be done in accordance with principles of justice and reason and not on the basis of the private opinion of the individual.

Malafide Exercise Of Administrative Discretion: Malafide is a broad term and it means something which is done with dishonest intention, corrupt motive or in bad faith. An administrative action must be done without malafide intentions. Here, the burden of proof lies on the person who alleges the malafide exercise of administrative power. In a narrow sense, malafide exercise of administrative discretion means when the administrative action is done with personal animosity, spite, vengeance, or for the personal benefit of the administrative authority itself or its relations. Malafide exercise of administrative discretion amounts to abuse of power by the administrative authorities.

Judicial Review: Judicial Review is the power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive and administrative organs of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the Constitution of such country. If they are inconsistent with the constitution, the courts can declare them as unconstitutional and invalid. Marbury V. Madison[2], is a landmark case of the U. S. Supreme Court which established the doctrine of Judicial Review. In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall of the U. S. Supreme Court for the first time declared an act of the Congress to be unconstitutional. This decision established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

Although the Indian Constitution does not have any provisions expressly mentioning the term judicial review, there are some provisions of the Indian Constitution that makes a reference to this concept. For example, Article 13 declares that all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the fundamental rights mentioned in part 3 of the

Indian Constitution shall be void. Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution provides that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to exercise judicial review. Under Article 32 a person can approach the Supreme Court for the violation of his or her fundamental rights. Under Article 226 a person can approach the High Courts for the violation of his or her fundamental rights. In the British case of Council Of Civil Service Union V. Minister Of Civil Service[3], Lord Diplock gave the following grounds for Judicial Review, • Jurisdictional Error • Irrationality • Procedural Impropriety • Proportionality • Legitimate Expectation Though these grounds are not exhaustive, they provide a base for the courts to exercise their jurisdiction.

Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion: In India, the courts can interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers by the administrative authorities in the following two circumstances, (i) Failure of the administrative authority to exercise the discretion given to it. It deals with the situations in which the administrative authority has sub delegated its authority or power to someone else even though there is no express provision which directs it to do. (ii) Abuse of Discretion by the Administrative Authority. This is when the administrative authority is not duly exercising the power and authority given to it. Some of the abuses of administrative discretion are as follows, • Malafide or Malice • Improper Purpose

Irrelevant Considerations • Leaving Out Relevant Considerations • Colourable Exercise of Power • Unreasonableness • Non-application Of Mind This article examines the role of judicial review in curbing Malafide exercise of administrative discretion in detail. Judicial Review of The Malafide Exercise Of Administrative Discretion – Relevant Case Laws:

S. Pratap Singh V. State of Punjab [4]

In this case, the appellant was a surgeon in the employment of the state government. He was initially granted leave in advance of his retirement, but later it was revoked and he was suspended. A disciplinary action was started against him on the charge that he had accepted Rs. 16 as a bribe from a patient before going on leave. The appellant argued that the charges against him were in the wake of the personal vendetta of Pratap Singh (who was then the Chief Minister of Punjab) against him. It was because the appellant has refused to yield to the illegal demands of Pratap Singh and his family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted the appellant’s contention, held that the exercise of power is malafide and quashed the order. G. Sadanandan V. State of Kerela [5] In this case, the petitioner was a businessman dealing in the business of wholesale kerosene oil.

The petitioner was detained under rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 on the ground that he was operating without a license and illegal dealing of kerosene oil. The petitioner challenged the order of detention on the ground of malice or malafide. The petitioner argued that the detention order was passed as result of the malevolent and erroneous reports, which were devised on the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The petitioner alleged that the reason the reason for the DSP to prepare those erroneous reports was to get rid of the petitioner from the business of wholesale kerosine oil in Trivandrum, Kerela, so that one

of his (DSP’s) family members could attain the dealership. The counter affidavit for the allegations made against him was not filed by the DSP. By analysing the facts and circumstances of the case The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held the order of detention to be malafide. Rowjee V. State of Andhra Pradesh[6] The State Road Transport Corporation prepared a scheme to nationalise certain bus routes. This scheme was suggested by the Chief Minister. It challenged on the ground that the chief minister had acted with malafide intention in directing the preparation of this scheme. It was alleged that the certain bus routes were selected for nationalisation by the Chief Minister because, he intended to take vengeance on the private operators on those routes, as they were his political opponents. The counter affidavit for the allegations made against him was not filed by the Chief Minister.

So, the Supreme Court held the decision of the Chief Minister to be malafide and quashed his decision. State of Punjab V. Gurdial Singh[7] In this case, the land acquisition proceedings were started by one of the respondents who was a minister in the government and a politician. He initiated the land acquisition proceedings to satisfy his own personal vendetta against the landlords. So, the land acquisition was challenged by the landlords on the ground of malafide. The counter affidavit for the allegations made against him was not filed by the respondent. So, the Court concluded that there was malice on part of the government in acquiring the land of the petitioners and quashed the land acquisition proceedings. B. P. Samant V.

State of Maharashtra[8] In this case, the distribution of cement was in favour of certain builders because they have made donations to certain foundations or trusts in which the Chief Minister was a Trustee. So, It was challenged on the ground of malafide. The Court held that it is a clear case of abuse of power. Further stated that the distribution of cement was against the law and the guidelines issued by the government.

Somesh Tiwari V. Union of India[9] In this case, the Court held that high degree of proof is needed for the judicial review of administrative actions on the ground of malafide. Mere allegations are not enough. If the allegations were proved by the alleging parties then the malafide exercise of administrative or statutory powers can be struck down by the court. E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu[10] In this case, the Supreme Court established the following factors which are important in proving malafide,

1. Direct evidence (example: documents, recordings, tape, etc)

2. Course of events

3. Public utterance of the authority

4. Deliberate ignoring of facts by the authority

5. Failure to file affidavits denying the allegations of malafide

Shrilekha Vidyarthi V. State of U.P[11] This is a landmark case in India where the court quashed an administrative decision for being arbitrary and in bad faith. Findings:

1. Judicial Review as a Key Check on Discretionary Power of Administrative Authorities:

Judicial review plays a role in maintaining the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. Courts act as a safeguard against the abuse of administrative discretion by ensuring that discretionary powers are exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith. In cases where administrative actions have been arbitrary, irrational or in bad faith, courts have stepped in to ensure that such actions are quashed. Judicial review thus serves as a deterrent against malafide behavior in administration.

2. Judicial Review and the Doctrine of Malafide Intent: The concept of “Malafide” or

“Bad faith” is a subjective but crucial ground for judicial intervention. Courts have developed criteria to assess malafide intent, typically requiring that the administrative action be done with ulterior motives, bias or dishonesty.

3. Evolving Standards of Judicial Review: The standards of judicial review, particularly

in assessing malafide actions, have evolved over time. Courts have moved from a narrow interpretation of judicial review to a broader one, incorporating principles such as proportionality, reasonableness and fairness. And also what is considered malafide today may differ in the future, making it challenging to create static conclusion.

4. Subjective Nature of “Malafide”: Determining whether administrative actions are

taken with malafide intention can be subjective and fact sensitive. Courts often rely on the specific circumstances of a case to establish malafide intent.

5. Challenges in Proving Malafide Intent: One of the major challenges in judicial review

is proving malafide intent. Courts require substantial evidence to establish that an administrative action was done in bad faith. This can make it difficult for petitioners to succeed unless there is clear evidence of the improper purpose, ulterior motive or malice.

6. Judicial Review as a tool for Transparency and Accountability: Judicial review fosters

transparency and accountability in governance by scrutinizing the processes behind administrative decision making. The requirement for administrations to justify their actions helps prevent arbitrary or bad faith actions. Courts have also used judicial review as a tool to protect public interest, particularly in cases where administrative discretion has been exercised in a way that harms public welfare or violates fundamental rights. Conclusion: Judicial Review serves as a critical mechanism in curbing the malafide exercise of administrative discretion by upholding principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. Judicial review is also an essential tool for safeguarding the rule of law and preventing the abuse of administrative discretion, particularly in cases where decisions are made with malafide

intent. Through judicial scrutiny, courts ensure that discretionary powers are exercised within legal boundaries, free from bias, personal animosity or ulterior motives. There remains a challenge in proving malafide intent, as it requires clear evidence of improper motives or abuse of power, making it difficult for petitioners to succeed without substantial proof. Despite this, Judicial review serves as a crucial check on executive power, ensuring that administrative actions do not violate individual rights or the public interest. In conclusion, judicial review is a vital mechanism for maintaining accountability in administrative decision making, preventing misuse of discretionary powers, ensuring that discretion is exercised in good faith and for legitimate purposes, judicial review reinforces the principles of justice and good governance.

Reference: Books: • Sathe, S. P. (2015), Administrative Law (Seventh edition), LexisNexis. • Takwani, C. K. (2021), Lectures On Administrative Law (Seventh edition), Eastern Book Company. Journal Articles: • Sathe, S. P. (2002), “Judicial Review in India: Limits and Policy”. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 2(1), 15 to 30. Webliography: • https://legalservicesindia.com • https://blog.ipleaders.in • https://lexpeeps.in • https://www.archives.gov • https://indiankanoon.org Case Laws:

[1] [1891] A.C. 173

[2] 5 US (1Cranch) 137 (1803)

[3] [1984] UKHL 9, AC 374

[4] 1964 AIR 72, 1964 SCR (4) 733

[5] W.P. 136 OF 1965

[6] 1964 AIR 962, 1964, SCR (6) 330

[7] 1980 AIR 319, 1980 SCR (1) 1071

[8] 1990 AIR SCW 854

[9] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1399

[10] 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348

[11] (1991) 1 SCC 212