This article is written by Hari Priya R V, B.com LL.B (hons) 5th year studying at the School of Excellence in Law during her Internship with LeDroit India.
KEYWORDS: English law – Wednesbury Principle – Discretionary Powers – Excessive Punishments – unjustifiable – Article 14 – Proper sense of proportion – Priorities of Decision Making – Judicial Review.
ABSTRACT:
In English law, the Doctrine of proportionality is treated as a Wednesbury Principle, which explains arbitrariness as due to discretionary powers, the state cannot exercise excessive powers over small disputes. As explained earlier, using excessive powers and restrictions and enjoying privileges is unjustifiable as it violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. These Principles insist on prioritizing the decision making and if any excessive privilege has been given should be initiated to Judicial Review as per the Administrative law System. This Doctrine helps to balance the needs with the necessary ends. This Doctrine has been derived from the case law of Associated Provincial Picture Houses vs Wednesbury Corporation.
INTRODUCTION:
During the judicial review Process, this Doctrine of Proportionality plays an important role as a legal rule in balancing government action and their means and outcomes. This Doctrine has been originated in Europe. In English Law, it has been treated as a part of Wednesbury’s Principle in the UK. According to Wednesbury’s Principle, it states that if a decision taken is so unreasonable and unjustifiable that no sensible authority can ever take it, such decisions are liable to be quashed through Judicial review.
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF WEDNESBURY PRINCIPLE:
- The scope of this principle is that any administrative decision which is in a manner, not proportional to the offense at the point at which it was directed should be invalidated.
- An administrative authority while exercising discretionary powers should apply a proper sense of proportion.
- There should be a proper balance must be maintained between any adverse effects (ie) Excessive penalties are to be avoided and available restrictive alternatives to be adopted by the person who has the rights or liberties to issue.
- If any Administrative authority makes misappropriate decisions serious to the nature of the misconduct, then such decisions are arbitrary and which is subject to Judicial Review.
ILLUSTRATION:
- ‘A’, an army officer who purchased eleven bottles of rum while they were entitled to purchase only four bottles of rum. For this offense, the punishment granted was three months of rigorous imprisonment as well as Dismissal from service. The face of the punishment itself denotes that it was arbitrary and severe and hence it is entitled to Judicial Review and quash the order. This fact was discussed in the case of Sardar Singh vs Union of India.
- ‘A, B, C &D’ were workers in XY Co., they were absent from duty on a particular day thinking of that day as a holiday. Due to this, XY Co. issued termination to all such workers who had taken leave on that day. Such punishments were rigorous and severe hence entitled for Judicial Review. These facts have been discussed in the case of Hind Construction Co. vs Workman.
CASE LAW:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd vs Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223:
Facts: In 1947, the plaintiff “Associated Provincial Picture Houses “ was granted a license by the Wednesbury Corporation to operate a cinema in Staffordshire on the condition that no children be allowed on Sundays, who is under the age of 15, whether they accompanied with adults or not.
Issues: The plaintiff sought a declaration that the license granted to him on such condition was unacceptable and was outside the power of the corporation to impose.
Related provisions:
- Cinematography Act 1909 – which denotes that, Cinemas could be open from Monday to Saturday but on Sundays, except the commanding officer of a military force in a neighborhood could apply to licensing authority to open the cinema on Sundays.
- The Sunday Entertainment Act 1932 – This act legalized opening cinemas on Sundays by the local licensing authorities who may be deemed to be fit to impose.
Judgement:
The Court of Appeal held that, to intervene in the matter the defendant must have failed to take into account or the decision made by the defendant was unreasonable or unjustifiable that no sensible authority can ever take it or the defendant took into account which he ought not to have taken. Hence court held that the decision taken by the defendant would not fall under these categories and the claim has been dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
Thus with the case law, the Wednesbury principle in relation to the Doctrine of Proportionality has been integrated into administrative law to find the proportionality or reasonability in the discretionary powers taken by the administrative authorities. This doctrine helps to prioritize the decision-making and avoid excessive penalties being issued. This doctrine is connected to the interpretation of statutes to ensure fairness and justice to the nation.
REFERENCES:
