Origin
The Wednesbury principle of law originated from an English Landmark Case ‘Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd Vs Wednesbury Corporation. In this case, a Cinema Company challenged a decision of Wednesbury Corporation which allowed the cinemas to open on Sundays with restrictions. The Corporation permitted cinemas to open provided no children under 15 years of age is admitted.
The House of Lords ruled in favour of the corporation holding that the decision was not unreasonable. The case established that the court can only intervene in administrative decisions if they are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them. It is known as the Wednesbury principle.
According to this principle if a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it, then the courts can interfere. It is a milestone of administration and helps to ensure that the public authorities exercise their powers responsibly. Since it is known as the principle of reasonableness, it safeguards against arbitrary and irrational administrative actions. Indian Courts have been dealing with the Wednesbury principle to test the reasonableness of the decisions of the public authorities.
Wednesbury Principle in Indian Context & Its Evolution
Recently, in Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (08.01.2024 – SC) : MANU/SC/0025/2024, the Supreme Court of India while dealing with the contention of the Wednesbury principle, has quashed impugned orders of remission of the sentence as it being contrary to law. The court observed that ‘Remission of sentence, which is for reduction of the period of imprisonment, cannot however relate to the payment of fine at all. Since there was non-application of mind in this regard, the impugned orders of remission are contrary to law and are liable to be quashed, the other contentions based on Wednesbury principles do not require consideration in the present case and hence all contentions on the said aspect are left open.
In Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Ors. vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (13.07.2022, SC: MANU/SC/0880/2022), the Supreme Court of India addressed the validity of a search and seizure authorization under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee challenged the authorization on the grounds that it was a “fishing enquiry” and lacked the requisite conditions for its issuance.
The Assessee claimed that he had provided a loan to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Pvt. Ltd., which was secured by property from another company. However, the Revenue alleged that the transaction resembled a modus operandi used by entry operators to introduce unaccounted black money into the financial system. They argued that disclosing the contemplated action would have compromised the investigation’s confidentiality and secrecy.
The High Court quashed the warrant and all actions pursuant to it, deeming the authorization invalid. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that:
- The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded by the authority cannot be reviewed while determining the validity of the authorization.
- The recorded belief is subject to judicial review only to the extent of assessing its reasonableness under the Wednesbury Principle (i.e., whether it is arbitrary or irrational).
- The court cannot act as an appellate body over the reasons to believe recorded by the authority.
Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the search and seizure authorization.
In CISF and Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey (16.12.2022, SC: MANU/SC/1636/2022), the Supreme Court clarified the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It held that judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is limited to correcting errors of law, procedural violations, or instances of manifest injustice, rather than re-evaluating evidence or merits of the case.
Key points include:
- Judicial review is not equivalent to adjudicating the case on merits. Courts should not interfere with findings unless they are unsupported by evidence, perverse, or legally untenable based on Wednesbury principles.
- The High Court’s role in writ jurisdiction is to examine the decision-making process, ensuring compliance with prescribed procedures, fairness, and due consideration of relevant evidence without extraneous influences.
- Courts should not substitute their own conclusions for those meticulously reached by competent authorities after proper evaluation of evidence, even if they might have arrived at a different decision.
The Court emphasized that the focus of judicial review is the legitimacy of the process, not the correctness of the outcome.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the Wednesbury Principle is a standard for evaluating the reasonableness of public authorities’ administrative decisions. The courts use this principle to consider applications for judicial review of decisions of any public authority. The principle stands refined over some time to meet the complexities of modern administrative decision-making.
