CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT ABUSE :
General principle of construction is that whenever a statute confers discretionary power
on an adjudicatory authority, it should be so construed that such discretionary power is not
abused. Thus authority whether it be administrative, quasi-judicial or administrative, upon whom
the discretionary power is conferred must exercise it in good faith and must taken in account the
object of the statute. As a matter of fact, discretionary power given to an authority by a statute
does not imply absolute of unqualified power, but implies a power exercised in accordance with
the rules of reason and justice.
Whenever a statute empowers exercise an authority to exercise discretion, the authority
must exercise it to achieve justice. However, the exercise of discretion must be fair and honest.
Where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of
persons specifically mentioned and upon the conditions specifically provided for such persons
are entitled to call for the exercise of such discretionary power by that public offer and that
discretionary power ought to be exercised and the court will require it to be exercised.
Whenever a discretionary power is conferred upon any statutory authority, it must be exercised
reasonably and no authority is at liberty to decide what the law is according to their notion. In a
system governed by rule of law, discretion when conferred upon statutory authorities is deemed
to be conferred with clearly defined limits.
When actual power is different from that which is authorized by law, and that the
discretionary power is used ostensibly for the authorized but in reality for the unauthorized
purpose, such exercise of power is said to be ultra vires exercise of power. In Nalini Mohan Vs.
District Magistrate, AIR 1967 Cal 346, the High Court of Calcutta held an order ultra vires and
illegal because the power given by enabling statute for the purpose of rehabilitating the persons
displaced from their residence within the state as a result of communal violence was used for a
person who came from Pakistan due to communal riots in that country. Whenever an authority
exercises its discretion, it must be exercised in conformity with the spirit with which the statute
was enacted. As the basic principle of construction of any statute is to give effect to the intention
of the legislature and not to defeat it.
Statutes which confer powers on statutory authorities to adjudicate are so construed as
to meet all attempts to abuse these powers. In doing so, the judicial courts enquire into the bona
fide of a purported exercise of a statutory power. Accordingly, Maxwell opines that modern
tendency seems to be against construing statutes so as to leave the person or body upon whom
a power is conferred absolutely untrammeled in the exercise of it. It has been firmly established
that the discretionary powers given to the governmental or quasi-governmental authorities must
be hedges by policy, standards, procedural safeguards or guidelines, failing which the exercise
of discretion and its delegation may be quashed by the court.
The discretionary power conferred upon any authority under any statute must not be
construed as arbitrary fanciful which is influenced by extraneous considerations. In matters of
discretion, the choice must be dictated by public interest and must not be unprincipled or
unreasoned. The courts have laid down it clearly that before the exercise of discretion, the
authority must frame rules for the proper exercise of the discretion. Court have also emphasized
that even the power of the President or the Governor to grant pardon and to suspend, remit or
commute sentences or power of the Chief Minister to allot cement, plots or house from
discretionary quota or to make nominations to medical or engineering college must conform to
judicial norms.
