Abstract:
The essence of decision making by Administrative Bodies may be said to be the
discretion exercised by them. K.C. Davis the pioneer writer on discretion
observed "Writers about law and government c h a r e c t e r i s t i c a l l y recognise the
role of discretion and explore a l l around the perimeter of i t but seldom
penetrate i t " . Therefore i t w i l l be useful to consider the nature of
discretionary power and j u d i c i a l control of such powers and limitation
thereof.
This study examines the importance and relevance of j u d i c i a l review and the
attitude of Courts and writers regarding the extent of such review
especially in relation to the exercise of discretionary powers.
The Restraint and Activist models of review are considered and the relevance
of judicial review to the concept of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers
discussed. An analysis of the concept of discretion i s made and the views
of leading writers in this regard are discussed. Consideration has been
given to the view of K.C. Davis and i t s relevance today. The relationship
between other closely connected concepts with discretion such as fairness
and arbitrariness i s also b r i e f l y made. The concept of unreasonableness as
a ground of review is discussed and the development of the Wednesbury
unreasonableness considered. The attitude of Courts to accepting
unreasonableness as a ground of review, particularly in relation to English
and South African decisions i s also considered. The development of the
oncept of Patent Unreasonableness in Canada in a somewhat different manner
ora the corresponding Wednesbury Principle in England i s noted. The recent
evelopment of the review of the prerogative i n several jurisdictions is
onsidered with reference to the leading decisions of such j u r i s d i c i t o n s.
e latter half of the study consists of some of the principles developed in
he judicial review of discretionary powers. Judicial review of improper
otive and purpose i s considered and the development of the no evidence'
IV
concept discussed. Thereafter review on the ground of irrelevant consideration
is discussed and f i n a l l y an analysis of the subjectively phrased
clauses granting discretionary powers considered and the trend of recent
decisions in this regard analysed. In discussing these aspects a
comparative approach i s adopted and an attempt i s made to discuss not only
some of the leading English and S r i Lankan decisions but also the decisions
of the Commonwealth, South Africa and a few other countries.
