Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Action Based On Subjective Opinion/Satisfaction Of Authority

The Supreme Court explained the scope of judicial review of action of administrative authority based on it's subjective opinion or satisfaction."The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion", the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.Before the Gauhati High Court, the writ petition who was Rifleman in Assam Rifles challenged the order passed by Lt. Col Offg Comdt discharging him from service on the basis of the four Red Ink entries received by him during his period of service. The single bench set aside the order of discharge and remitted the matter to the authorities concerned for a fresh decision. Allowing the writ appeal filed by Union of India, the Division bench of the High court set aside the single bench judgment.In appeal, the appellant contended that Four Red entries are only a minimum requirement and cannot be the sole ground to order discharge, that the Rule itself states that the power "may be invoked" and that "as far as practicable, however, discharge under this provision should be avoided as the Personnel sent on discharge on this account are not eligible for pension" and that the provision can be pressed into service only when "continued and willful disobedience or neglect" comes on record. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the four Red Ink entries were sufficient for the authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the appellant herein was not fit to be retained in service and more particularly being a Rifleman with the Assam Rifle. To address these contentions,the bench made the following observations:Where an Act or the statutory rules framed thereunder left an action dependent upon the opinion of the authority concerned, by some such expression as 'is satisfied' or 'is of the opinion' or 'if it has reason to believe' or 'if it considered necessary', the opinion of the authority is conclusive, (a) if the procedure prescribed by the Act or rules for formation of the opinion was duly followed, (b) if the authority acted bona fide, (c) if the authority itself formed the opinion and did not borrow the opinion of somebody else and (d) if the authority did not proceed on a fundamental misconception of the law and the matter in regard to which the opinion had to be formed.The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction, in our opinion, can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion. It is true that ordinarily the court should not inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the facts found except in a case where it is alleged that the facts which have been found existing were not supported by any evidence at all or that the finding in regard to circumstances or material is so perverse that no reasonable man would say that the facts and circumstances exist. The courts will not readily defer to the conclusiveness of the authority's opinion as to the existence of matter of law or fact upon which the validity of the exercise of the power is predicated.The doctrine of reasonableness thus may be invoked. Where there are no reasonable grounds for the formation of the authority's opinion, judicial review in such a case is permissible. [See Director of Public Prosecutions v. Head, (1959) AC 83 (Lord Denning). When we say that where the circumstances or material or state of affairs does not at all exist to form an opinion and the action based on such opinion can be quashed by the courts, we mean that in effect there is no evidence whatsoever to form or support the opinion. The distinction between insufficiency or inadequacy of evidence and no evidence must of course be borne in mind. A finding based on no evidence as opposed to a finding which is merely against the weight of the evidence is an abuse of the power which courts naturally are loath to tolerate. Whether or not there is evidence to support a particular decision has always been considered as a question of law. [See Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Armah, Ex Parte, (1966) 3 WLR 828 at p. 841]. It is in such a case that it is said that the authority would be deemed to have not applied its mind or it did not honestly form its opinion. The same conclusion is drawn when opinion is based on irrelevant matter. [See Rasbihari v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 SC 1081]. In the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal and another, AIR 1969 SC 707, it was held that the existence of circumstances is a condition precedent to form an opinion by the Government. The same view was earlier expressed ...

Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Action Based On Subjective Opinion/Satisfaction Of Authority

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Action Based On Subjective Opinion/Satisfaction Of Authority

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers