Supreme Court cautions judges using discretion to nail executive acts

Written By Rakesh Bhatnagar | Updated:

SC, which has scrapped various government decisions because they were “unreasonable” or “irrational”, also cautioned judges taking pride in exercising discretion to nail executive actions.

At a time when arbitrary and discriminatory executive actions are facing legal challenges the Supreme Court has sought to boost the morale of government authorities, saying if an action is “conducive” to the functioning of modern society it can’t be quashed by a court of law.

SC, which has scrapped various government decisions because they were “unreasonable” or “irrational”, also cautioned judges taking pride in exercising discretion to nail executive actions.

The words “rational” and “reasonable” are vague. What may be regarded rational or reasonable by one judge may not be regarded so by another.  “This could lead to chaos,” a bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra said while dismissing an appeal by Transport and Dock Workers Union against an order of Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) creating “unreasonable” classification among typists.

Stressing that there shouldn’t be ambiguity in law, the bench said if vagueness was allowed to persist, “judges may have total freedom or discretion”.

Law should be, as far as possible, clear and certain, so that people know where they stand and conduct affairs accordingly. If “total freedom is given to judges, the law will run riot,” the court said.

In administrative matters, the court should, therefore, ordinarily rely on the executive judgment unless its decision is clearly against the law or is “shockingly arbitrary”.

Under the 1996 policy, MPT sought to bring about uniformity in working hours of personnel in indoor and outdoor establishments. Employees who were appointed after November 1, 1996, in indoor establishments were to work for eight hours, while personnel in outdoor establishments were to work for seven hours.

The employees union filed a writ petition before the Bombay high court, saying the MPT order was discriminatory and unjust. After HC rejected its petition, the union moved SC.

The apex court said article 14 (discrimination) could not be interpreted in a doctrinaire or dogmatic manner. “Absolute and inflexible concepts are anathema to progress and change,” it said.