Question

A decision will be said to be unreasonable in the sense of the Wednesbury principle if : Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

1. It is based on wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration
2. It has ignored a very relevant material which it should have taken into consideration
3. It is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached it

• A. All of these
• B. iii only
• C. i only
• D. i, ii

Answer 1

Answer:

A. All of these

Wednesbury Principle of Unreasonableness

Background and Significance

• The Wednesbury principle, also known as the 'shocks the conscience' test, is a standard of judicial review in English law, often applied in administrative law to determine the validity of decisions made by public bodies.

• It is a high threshold for unreasonableness, meaning a decision must be extraordinarily flawed to be struck down on this ground.

• In India, this principle has been adopted and applied by courts to review administrative actions, ensuring that public authorities do not act arbitrarily or irrationally.

Conditions for Unreasonableness under Wednesbury Principle

• 1. Based on Wholly Irrelevant Material or Consideration:

  • A decision is unreasonable if it relies on information or factors that are completely unrelated to the matter at hand.

  • For example, a licensing authority considering a candidate's political affiliation when granting a business license would be acting on irrelevant grounds.

• 2. Ignored Very Relevant Material:

  • Conversely, a decision can be unreasonable if it fails to consider crucial information that was directly relevant and necessary for a proper decision.

  • This highlights the duty of public bodies to gather and weigh all pertinent facts before making a determination.

  • For instance, if a tribunal ignores expert medical evidence in a disability case, its decision may be deemed unreasonable.

• 3. So Absurd That No Sensible Person Could Have Reached It:

  • This is the most stringent limb of the test. It implies a decision that is so illogical or perverse that it defies all reason and common sense.

  • The court does not substitute its own judgment but rather determines if the decision is one that no reasonable decision-maker, properly applying their mind to the relevant facts and law, could possibly arrive at.

  • This is often described as a decision that 'shocks the conscience' of the court.