Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Action Based On Subjective Opinion/Satisfaction Of Authority

• Before the Gauhati High Court, the writ petition filed by Rifleman in Assam Rifles challenged the order passed by Lt. Col Offg Comdt discharged him from service on the basis of the four Red¬ Ink entries received by him during his period of service.
• The single bench set aside the order of discharge and rescinded the matter to the authorities concerned for a fresh decision. Allowing the writ appeal filed by Union of India, the Division bench of the High court put away the single bench judgment.
• In appeal, the appellant argued  that Four Red entries are just a base necessity and cannot be the sole ground to order discharge, and that the Rule itself states that the power "may be invoked" and that "as far as practicable, however, discharge under this provision should be avoided as the Personnel sent on discharge on this account are not eligible for pension" and that the provision can be pressed into service only when "continued and willful disobedience or neglect" comes on record.
• The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the four Red Ink entries were adequate for the authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that here the appellant was not fit to be retained in service and more particularly being a Rifleman with the Assam Rifle.

To address these assertions ,the bench made the following observations:

• Where an Act or the statutory rules framed under it, left an action dependent upon the opinion of the authority concerned, by some such expression as 'is satisfied' or 'is of the opinion' or 'if it has reason to believe' or 'if it considered necessary', the opinion of the authority is conclusive, (a) if the procedure prescribed by the Act or rules for formation of the opinion was duly followed, (b) if the authority acted bona fide, (c) if the authority did not proceed on a fundamental misconception of the law and the matter in regard to which the opinion had to be formed.
• In the court’s opinion, the action based on the subjective opinion, can judicially be reviewed to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion. While, it is true that ordinarily the court should not inquire into the correctness or facts found except in a case where it is alleged that the facts were not supported by any evidence at all or that the circumstance of finding or material is so perverse that no reasonable man would say that the facts and circumstances exist. The courts will not readily defer to the convincingness of the authority's opinion as to the existence of a matter of law or fact whereupon the legitimacy of the exercise of power is predicated.
• Thus, the doctrine of reasonableness may be invoked. Where there are no reasonable grounds for the formation of the authority's opinion, judicial review in such a case is permissible.
• When the court says that where the conditions or material or state of affairs does not exist to form an opinion and the action based on such opinion can be suppressed by the courts, we mean that there is no evidence whatsoever to form or support the opinion. The distinction between insufficiency or inadequacy of evidence and no evidence must be borne in mind. A finding based on no evidence as opposed to a finding which is merely against the weight of the evidence is an abuse of the power which courts naturally are averse to tolerating. Whether or not there is evidence to support a particular decision has always been considered as a question of law.
• In such a case it is said that the authority would be considered to have not applied its mind or it did not honestly form its viewpoint. The same conclusion is drawn when opinion is based on an immaterial matter. 
• In the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal and another, [AIR 1969 SC 707], it was held that the existence of circumstances is an essential precedent to form an opinion by the Government. 
• Furthermore, the court can examine whether the facts and circumstances found to exist have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. In other words, if an inference from facts does not logically correspond with and flow from them, the Courts can interfere, treating them as an error of law. Hence, this Court can see whether on the basis of the facts and circumstances found, any reasonable man can say that an opinion that is formed can be formed by a reasonable man. That would be a question of law that is to be determined by the Court.
• Thirdly, this Court can intervene if the constitutional or statutory term essential for the use of the power has either been misapplied or misinterpreted. The Courts have always equated the jurisdictional review with the review for error of law and have shown their readiness to repudiate such an order.
• Fourthly, it is permissible to intervene in a case where power is used for improper purposes. If power is granted for a specific purpose and is exercised for a different purpose, then it will be deemed that the power has not been validly exercised. In the present case, if the power is found to have not been exercised genuinely for the purpose of taking immediate action but instead has been used only to avoid embarrassment or wreck personal vengeance, then the power will be considered to have been exercised improperly.
• Fifthly, if the grounds which are relevant for the purpose of using the power have not been considered or are of irrelevant grounds and are still considered and an order is based on such grounds, then such an order can be attacked as invalid and illegal.
• In reference to the relevant provisions of Assam Rifles Regulation, 2016 , the bench observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the nature of the misconduct leading to the award of four Red Ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent authority had no choice but to direct his discharge in order to prevent indiscipline in the force. Consequently, it set aside the order of discharge passed and allowed the appeal.