Wednesbury principle - Indian Laws - General

Wednesbury principle: Lord Greene said in 1948 in the Wednesbury case that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. He said that interference was not permissible unless one or other of the following conditions were satisfied-namely the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were consistently followed in UK and in India to judge the validity of administrative action. It is equally well known that in 1983, Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Services, (1983) 1 AC 768 (called the GCHQ case) summarised the principles of judicial review of administrative action as based upon one or other of the following-viz. Illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationality. He, however, opined that 'proportionality' was a 'future possibility.' (Om Kumar and ors. vs UOI- 2000 (11) TMI 1215 - SUPREME COURT) Supreme Court Employee's Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr.,- 1989 (7) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURT and U.P. Financial Corporation v. GEM CAP (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1993 (3) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT, while Judging whether the administrative action is 'arbitrary' under Article 14 (i.e. Otherwise then being discriminatory, this Court has confined itself to a Wednesbury review always. Thus, when administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article 14, the principle of primary review is for the Courts by applying proportionality. However, where administrative action is questioned as 'arbitrary' under Article 14, the principle of secondary review based on Wednesbury principles applies.