consti ii project

7/23/2019 Consti II Project

1/14

National Law Institute University

administrative law ii

cases on unreasonableness

Submitted to -: Submitted by -:

Mrs. (Dr.) Sushma Sharma Shivank Virmani

Asst. Prof. 2012B.A.LL.B.70

x Trimester

1 | P a g e


2/14

Contents

Acknowledgement................................................................................................. 3

Associate Provincia! Picture "ouses Lt. V. #enes$ur% &or'..............................................4

nian &ase Las........................................................................................................7

*ameshar Prasa v +nion of nia.................................................................................7

,m -umar v. +nion of nia..........................................................................................8

State of +.P. v. Sheo Shanker La! Srivastava an ,rs............................................................8

*e!iance Air'ort Deve!o'ers v. Air'orts Authorit% of nia.....................................................

Maneka anhi v. +nion of nia..................................................................................!"

&onc!usion..............................................................................................................!3

2 | P a g e


3/14

Acknowledgement:

take immense '!easure in thankin/ Prof. S.S. Sin/h Director an Mrs. Sushma Sharma

res'ecte teacher for havin/ 'ermitte me to carr% out this 'roect ork. e'ress m%

/ratitue to them for /ivin/ me an o''ortunit% to e'!ore the or! of information

concernin/ m% 'roect to'ic.

#ors are inae3uate in thankin/ m% seniors an $atchmates for their su''ort an

coo'eration in carr%in/ out the 'roect ork.

4ina!!% ou! !ike to thank m% fami!% mem$ers for their $!essin/s an ishes for the

successfu! com'!etion of the 'roect

3 | P a g e


4/14

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. V. Wednesbury Corp1

Facts o t!e Case

5he facts of #enes$ur% are critica! to a iscourse on the su$ect. 5he '!aintiff com'an% the

oners an !icensees of the aumont &inema #enes$ur% Stafforshire ere /rante $%

the efenants ho ere the !icensin/ authorit% for that $orou/h uner the &inemato/ra'h

Act 1606 a !icence to /ive 'erformances on Suna% uner S.1 (1) of the Suna%

ntertainments Act 16829 $ut the !icence as /rante su$ect to a conition that :no chi!ren

uner the a/e of fifteen %ears sha!! $e amitte to an% entertainment hether accom'anie $%

an au!t or not.: n these circumstances the '!aintiffs $rou/ht an action for a ec!aration that

the conition as u!tra vires an unreasona$!e.

"!e #iscretion $ranted "o "!e Wednesbury Corporation

Le/is!ations re!evant ; *eference ma% $e mae to to im'ortant !e/is!ations in this res'ectsu$ect to such

conitions as the authorit% think fit to im'ose.?

As there as no e$ate a$out the #enes$ur% &or'oration $ein/ an authorit% contem'!ate

uner the &inemato/ra'h Act there as no e$ate a$out it $ein/ an authorit% uner the

Suna% ntertainments Act.

! Associated Provincial Picture HousesLtd. vs. WednesburyCororation#!48 $!% &.'. ((3$).((%*

! | P a g e


5/14

"!e #iscretion %&ercised 'y "!e Wednesbury Corporation

5he #enes$ur% &or'oration /rante the !icense to the '!aintiffs on the conition that no

chi!ren uner 1@ %ears hether accom'anie $% an au!t or not shou! $e amitte to

Suna% 'erformances

"!e (ssue 'rou)!t Fort!

5he c!aim of the '!aintiffs as that the conition as u!tra vires an unreasona$!e.

*ud)ment and rationale

5he &ourt he! that in consierin/ hether an authorit% havin/ so un!imite 'oer has acte

unreasona$!% the court is on!% entit!e to investi/ate the action of the authorit% ith a vie

to seein/ if it has taken into account an% matters that ou/ht not to $e or isre/are matters

that ou/ht to $e taken into account. 5he &ourt cannot interfere as an a''e!!ate authorit%

overriin/ the ecisions of such authorit% $ut on!% as a uicia! authorit% concerne to see

hether it has contravene the !a $% actin/ in ecess of its 'oer. Lor reene ho

renere the !eain/ u/ment ea!t ith the !a in etai! an enunciate ==>'rinci'!es of

reasona$!eness? an as an asie nian &ourts have fo!!oe these #enes$ur% 'rinci'!es

of reasona$!eness in various ecisions. Lor

$reene +.,.a!so ent on to e'!ain the or unreasona$!eness an he! that hen an

eecutive iscretion is entruste $% a Par!iament to a $o% such as the !oca! authorit% the

iscretion eercise $% the authorit% can on!% $e cha!!en/e in the &ourts in a strict!% !imite

c!ass of cases. "e a!so escri$e the various /rouns of cha!!en/e hich ent into the

!e/a!it% of 'u$!ic $o%s actions. +nreasona$!eness as use to escri$e actions $ase on

i!!e/a!it% irre!evanc% an the !ike. 5his #enes$ur% test has $een the maor too! use $% the

&ourts to contro! iscretionar% ecisions. 5o 3uote the !earne u/e on the cru of the

u/ment9

>#hat then is the 'oer of the courtsC 5he% can on!% interfere ith an act of eecutive

authorit% if it $e shon that the authorit% has contravene the !a. t is for those ho assert

that the !oca! authorit% has contravene the !a to esta$!ish that 'ro'osition. ,n the face of it

a conition of the kin im'ose in this case is 'erfect!% !afu!. t is not to $e assume 'rimafacie that res'onsi$!e $oies !ike the !oca! authorit% in this case i!! ecee their 'oers9 $ut

" | P a g e


6/14

the court henever it is a!!e/e that the !oca! authorit% have contravene the !a must not

su$stitute itse!f for that authorit%. t is on!% concerne ith seein/ hether or not the

'ro'osition is mae /oo. #hen an eecutive iscretion is entruste $% Par!iament to a $o%

such as the !oca! authorit% in this case hat a''ears to $e an eercise of that iscretion can

on!% $e cha!!en/e in the courts in a strict!% !imite c!ass of cases. As have sai it must

a!a%s $e remem$ere that the court is not a court of a''ea!. #hen iscretion of this kin is

/rante the !a reco/nies certain 'rinci'!es u'on hich that iscretion must $e eercise

$ut ithin the four corners of those 'rinci'!es the iscretion in m% o'inion is an a$so!ute

one an cannot $e 3uestione in an% court of !a.

#hat then are those 'rinci'!esC 5he% are e!! unerstoo. 5he% are 'rinci'!es hich the

court !ooks to in consierin/ an% 3uestion of iscretion of this kin. 5he eercise of such

iscretion must $e a rea! eercise of the iscretion. f in the statute conferrin/ the iscretion

there is to $e foun e'ress!% or $% im'!ication matters hich the authorit% eercisin/ the

iscretion ou/ht to have re/ar to then in eercisin/ the iscretion it must have re/ar to

those matters. &onverse!% if the nature of the su$ect matter an the /enera! inter'retation of

the Act make it c!ear that certain matters ou! not $e /ermane to the matter in 3uestion9 the

authorit% must isre/ar those irre!evant co!!atera! matters.?

# | P a g e


7/14

(ndian Case Las

t ma% $e state at the onset that the Su'reme &ourt has $een a''!%in/ the test of

reasona$!eness unreasona$!% an the 'ro'ortiona!it% 'rinci'!e is'ro'ortionate!%. #hi!e the

/enera! tren has $een state $e!o the researchers have focuse more on the eve!o'ment

of uris'ruence in the 21st &entur%.

,ames!ar Prasad v nion o (ndia/

Prior to makin/ a statement on the evo!ution of case !a in nia one must scrutinie the case

of *ameshar Prasa v. +nion of nia ecie in 200@ $% the "on$!e Su'reme &ourt of

nia. 5he minorit% u/ment $% "on$!e Eustice Ariit Pasa%at has re!ie heavi!% on

#enes$ur% 'rinci'!es re/arin/ the stanars for u/in/ reasona$!eness of an eecutive

action. +nfortunate!% it has over!ooke that the #enes$ur% 'rinci'!es have $een i!ute if

not reecte $% the "ouse of Lors in 'arte Da!% in 2001 an 'revious!% $% the Priv%

&ounci! in 1666. 5his as 'ointe out in the su$missions $ut someho has esca'e attention.

t must $e a''reciate that ecisions concernin/ aministrative !a affectin/ funamenta!

freeoms have a!a%s $een teste a/ainst the 'rinci'!e of 'ro'ortiona!it%? a!thou/h it ma%

not a!a%s e'ress!% $e state that the 'rinci'!e $ein/ ao'te as that of >'ro'ortiona!it%?.

t is orth mentionin/ that even $efore the ecision in ;P. Da!% Ma% 2001)

0m umar v. nion o (ndia2

5he Su'reme &ourt ha firm!% ackno!e/e this too! of uicia! inter'retation in ,m

-umar v. +nion of nia ecie on 17 Fovem$er 2000.

( +ames,war Prasad v Union o- India /ecided on 0uly(1 (""1

3 $m %umar v& 'nion o( )ndia $(""!% ( 2 38.

* | P a g e


8/14

n this case inter a!ia the Su'reme &ourt note that hi!e ea!in/ ith the va!iit% of

!e/is!ation infrin/in/ funamenta! freeoms enumerate in Artic!e 16 (1) of the &onstitution

of nia the issue of hether restrictions im'ose $% the !e/is!ation ere is'ro'ortionate to

the situation an not the !east restrictive of choices has $een re'eate!% eamine $% the

su'erior courts in numerous u/ments.

5hus in the ,m -umar case 'ro'ortiona!it% as he! to mean hether hi!e re/u!atin/ the

eercise of funamenta! ri/hts the a''ro'riate or !east restrictive choice of measures have

$een ao'te $% the !e/is!ature or the aministrator so as to achieve the o$ect of the

!e/is!ation or aministrative orer. An that it as for the su'erior &ourts to ecie hether

the choice mae $% the !e/is!ature or the aministrative authorities infrin/e the ri/hts

ecessive!%. 5his to m% min is the essence of the octrine of 'ro'ortiona!it%.

State o .P. v. S!eo S!an3er Lal Srivastava and 0rs4

n State of +.P. v. Sheo Shanker La! Srivastava an ,rs the Su'reme &ourt has su''!ie

further creence to e;'arte Da!%. ,ne must a!so refer to the case of &ommissioner of Po!ice

v. S%e "ussain here a simi!ar enorsement as mae.

Base on the facts of the case the Su'reme &ourt hi!e ho!in/ that the "i/h &ourt erre in

interferin/ ith the 3uantum of 'unishment e!t u'on the 3uestion of a''!ica$i!it% of

octrine of 'ro'ortiona!it%. An hi!e ho!in/ the vie that the octrine of 'ro'ortiona!it%

cou! $e invoke on!% uner certain situations the &ourt hoever ackno!e/e that the

octrine of unreasona$!eness as /ivin/ a% to the octrine of 'ro'ortiona!it%.

,eliance Airport #evelopers v. Airports Aut!ority o (ndia5

4 +tate o( '&P& v. +,eo +,anker -al +rivastava and $rs. $(""% 3 2 (7.

1 .eliance Airort /eveloersPvt. Ltd. v. Airorts Aut,ority o( )ndia 05("" $!"% 2 4(4

0 | P a g e


9/14

4urthermore the A'e &ourt ecision in *e!iance Air'ort Deve!o'ers v. Air'orts Authorit% of

nia has a!so firme u' the future a''!ica$i!it% of e;'arte Da!% if the contet so re3uires.

5he &ourt hi!e auicatin/ u'on a cha!!en/e to the eercise of iscretion $% overnment in

a!terin/ the terms of the ori/ina! tener ocuments inter a!ia he! that thou/h the test of

'ro'ortiona!it% as ver% much re!evant in the !i/ht of e;'arte Da!% the facts of the case in

*e!iance Air'ort Deve!o'ers i not necessitate its a''!ication.

5he Eu/es ho auicate u'on this matter a!so he! the vie that in such cases of uicia!

revie the &ourt has to necessari!% e!ve ee'er into the matter an su$ect such orers to

ee'er scrutin% /oin/ $e%on the a$ove three tests. Base on the facts an the issues in this

case the Su'reme &ourt inter a!ia ha to /o into the va!iit% of certain re/u!ations an the

'oer of Euicia! *evie of aministrative acts. #hi!e /oin/ into this 3uestion the Su'reme

&ourt ackno!e/e that kee'in/ in vie the situationa! chan/es 'articu!ar!% the outsourcin/

of soverei/n activities $% the State9 the Su'reme &ourt ha $een e'anin/ the sco'e of

uicia! revie. n its u/ment it has he! that >the octrine of unreasona$!eness has no

/iven a% to the octrine of 'ro'ortiona!it%?

#e 3uote the re!evant 'ortions of the u/ment $e!oGH. #e ma% note that kee'in/ in vie the situationa! chan/es an 'articu!ar!% outsourcin/

of the soverei/n activities $% the State this &ourt has $een e'anin/ the sco'e of uicia!

revie. t inc!ues the misirection in !a 'osin/ a ron/ 3uestion or irre!evant 3uestion an

fai!ure to consier re!evant 3uestion. ,n certain /rouns uicia! revie on facts is a!so

maintaina$!e. Doctrine of unreasona$!eness has no /iven a% to octrine of

'ro'ortiona!it%.?

5herefore there is a ne ave of thinkin/ that the Doctrine of +nreasona$!eness in caseshere a''!ica$!e cou! /ive a% to the Doctrine of Pro'ortiona!it%. An e are certain that in

a''ro'riate cases the !a i!! eve!o' accorin/!%.

| P a g e


10/14

+ane3a $and!i v. nion o (ndia6

Maneka Gandhi v Union of Indiais a !anmark u/ment an '!a%e the most si/nificant ro!e

toars the transformation of the uicia! vie on Artic!e 21 of the constitution of nia so as

to im'!% man% more funamenta! ri/hts from Artic!e 21. t a!so has iscusse in etai! the

'hrase >'roceure esta$!ishe $% !a? an /ave it a ne meanin/. An thus $rou/ht a

'arai/m shift in the nian !e/a! or!.

5he re!ationshi' $eteen various ri/hts /iven in 'art 8 of the constitution of nia (an

s'ecifica!!% $eteen artic!e 1G 16 an 21) as a!so iscusse in etai! an a ne test for

checkin/ the va!iit% of a !a has $een erive.

Statement o acts-:

1- +ane3a anhi 'etitioner in this case as au/hter;in;!a of nias e;'rime

minister Smt nira anhi an ife of con/ress !eaer Sana% anhi.

2; She is a ourna!ist from 'rofession. n 'ursuance of her 'rofession she ha a''!ie for

a tourist visa an in orer to o$tain same she neee a 'ass'ort for hich she

a''!ie in the office of *e/istrar Pass'ort De'artment Fe De!hi.

8; n nia there is Pass'ort Act 16H7 hich /overn the moe of issuin/ 'ass'ort to

nian citiens.

G; She as /iven a 'ass'ort on 01I0HI167H $% the /overnment of nia an !etter her

'ass'ort as im'oune on 02I07I1677 $% the 'ass'ort authorities uner Ss. 10(8)(c)

of Pass'ort Act 16H7.

@; Ss. 10(8)(c) of Pass'ort Act 16H7 /ives 'oer to centra! /overnment to im'oun or

revoke 'ass'ort of an% 'erson on the /roun of 'u$!ic interest nationa! securit% an

re!ationshi' ith other countries ith or ithout furnishin/ an% reason. 5he tet Ss

10(8)(c) of Pass'ort Act 16H7 is as fo!!os;

consti ii project

Documents