Judicial review of enforcement discretion
I. Judicial Review of Enforcement Discretion
What is Enforcement Discretion?
Enforcement discretion refers to the power of administrative agencies and authorities to decide whether or not to enforce laws, initiate proceedings, or take action against violations.
Agencies often have limited resources and must prioritize cases or decide if an investigation is warranted.
Why is Judicial Review of Enforcement Discretion Important?
To prevent abuse of discretion (arbitrariness, bias, mala fide intentions)
To ensure enforcement decisions conform to the law and principles of fairness
To balance executive freedom with protection of individual rights
To uphold rule of law and accountability
Nature of Judicial Review
Courts generally defer to administrative discretion except where discretion is exercised illegally, arbitrarily, or mala fide.
Review is often limited to legality and reasonableness, not merits.
Courts examine whether discretion is exercised within the bounds of law.
II. Landmark Indian Case Laws on Judicial Review of Enforcement Discretion
1. Union of India v. Angappa (1971) AIR 458, 1970 SCR (3) 438
Facts:
The Income Tax Department decided not to prosecute a particular taxpayer despite prima facie evidence.
Issue:
Whether courts can compel the tax authorities to initiate prosecution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that enforcement discretion is not absolute.
Courts can intervene if there is mala fide exercise or failure to discharge public duty.
However, mere disagreement with discretion is insufficient for judicial interference.
Significance:
Established that courts have limited but essential supervisory role in ensuring discretion is not abused.
2. R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 722
Facts:
Petitioner challenged the refusal of the Income Tax Department to sanction prosecution.
Issue:
Scope of judicial review over refusal to prosecute.
Judgment:
Court reiterated that enforcement discretion can be reviewed if exercised arbitrarily, mala fide or ignoring relevant material.
Held that policy considerations belong to executive, but judicial review protects citizens from abuse.
Significance:
Emphasized balance between executive discretion and judicial protection.
3. State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra Verma (1959) SCR 952
Facts:
The State declined to enforce certain law enforcement actions in specific cases.
Issue:
Whether courts can compel enforcement of law.
Judgment:
Held that if refusal to enforce law is unreasonable or mala fide, courts can issue mandamus to enforce.
Mere failure to enforce without reason amounts to neglect of public duty.
Significance:
Affirmed judicial power to issue mandamus for enforcement.
4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 149
Facts:
Petitioners alleged political interference in administrative decisions including enforcement.
Issue:
Can courts review discretionary administrative actions influenced by improper motives?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed judicial review in cases of mala fide or improper exercise of discretion.
Emphasized transparency and reasoned decision-making in enforcement.
Significance:
Extended judicial review to include motive and propriety of enforcement discretion.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Government refused to allow passport renewal without reason.
Issue:
Whether refusal to enforce citizen’s right requires review.
Judgment:
Court expanded scope of due process and reasoned decisions in administrative enforcement.
Held that discretion must be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily, and following principles of natural justice.
Significance:
Broadened judicial review to procedural fairness in enforcement decisions.
6. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Bharat Motors Ltd. (1989) 2 SCC 619
Facts:
Government agency refused to enforce a contract due to policy reasons.
Issue:
Whether courts can intervene in policy-based enforcement decisions.
Judgment:
Court held that policy decisions are not justiciable, but enforcement discretion must not be unfair or arbitrary.
Judicial review applies to lawfulness, not policy wisdom.
Significance:
Clarified limits of judicial review on enforcement discretion grounded in policy.
7. Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. (1987) 2 SCC 73
Facts:
Pollution control authorities took selective action against some factories.
Issue:
Whether selective enforcement amounts to illegal exercise of discretion.
Judgment:
Court held selective enforcement must not be arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
Ordered uniform enforcement or rational explanation for differentiation.
Significance:
Enforcement discretion must be exercised fairly and uniformly.
III. Principles Emerging from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review is Limited | Courts do not substitute their opinion but check legality and reasonableness of enforcement decisions. |
| No Interference without Malice | Mere refusal to prosecute or enforce is not reviewable unless mala fide, arbitrary, or ignoring material facts. |
| Mandamus for Public Duty | Courts may compel enforcement where public duty is neglected or arbitrary refusal occurs. |
| Fairness and Non-Arbitrariness | Discretion must be exercised fairly, transparently, and consistently without discrimination. |
| Policy Decisions are Generally Exempt | Decisions based purely on policy or resource constraints are not justiciable unless violating fundamental rights or manifest illegality. |
IV. Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Legal Principle | Remedy/Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Angappa | Limited review of enforcement discretion | Intervention if mala fide or neglect of duty |
| R.K. Jain v. Union of India | Arbitrary exercise reviewable | Judicial review for arbitrariness or mala fide |
| State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra | Mandamus for refusal to enforce law | Courts can compel enforcement |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India | Review of improper motive in discretion | Review if mala fide or improper motives |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Procedural fairness in enforcement | Enforcement must comply with natural justice |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Bharat Motors Ltd. | Policy decisions exempt from review | Courts only check lawfulness, not policy merit |
| Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. | No arbitrary or selective enforcement | Enforcement must be uniform and fair |
V. Conclusion
Judicial review of enforcement discretion is a delicate balance between respecting administrative autonomy and protecting citizens from abuse.
Courts intervene only when discretion is exercised in bad faith, arbitrarily, or in violation of fundamental rights.
Judicial review does not extend to policy decisions or resource-based prioritization, but requires enforcement decisions to be transparent, reasonable, and fair.
Remedies include quashing unlawful refusals, issuing mandamus for enforcement, and protecting citizens’ rights against arbitrary action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments