Power Coupled with a Duty in Indian Law

The Doctrine of Power Coupled with a Duty in Indian Administrative Law: A Juridical Analysis

Introduction

In the realm of administrative law, the exercise of power by public authorities is a subject of perennial scrutiny. While discretion is often vested in these authorities to enable flexible and effective governance, such discretion is seldom unfettered. A significant jurisprudential principle that circumscribes administrative discretion is the doctrine of "power coupled with a duty." This doctrine posits that where a power is conferred upon a public authority for the public good or for effectuating a public purpose, there inheres a corresponding duty to exercise that power when the circumstances warranting its exercise arise. The authority cannot abdicate or refuse to exercise such power arbitrarily. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of this doctrine as it has been interpreted and applied within the Indian legal framework, drawing extensively upon seminal case law and statutory provisions.

Conceptual Moorings: The Principle of Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford

The foundational articulation of the doctrine of power coupled with a duty is often traced to the English House of Lords decision in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford[1]. In this case, Earl Cairns L.C. enunciated the principle that enabling words, though permissive in form, can impose a duty if the context so requires. He observed:

"... there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so."[2]

This dictum has been consistently approved and applied by Indian courts, forming the bedrock for understanding the obligations of public functionaries.

Seminal Judicial Interpretation in India: Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji

The Supreme Court of India authoritatively embraced and elaborated upon this doctrine in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji[3]. The case concerned the cancellation of a cinema license by the Commissioner of Police. The Court, while examining Rule 250 of the City of Bombay Police Act which vested "absolute discretion" in the Commissioner, held that such discretion was not unbridled. Relying explicitly on Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, Bose J. observed:

"The discretion vested in the Commissioner of Police under Rule 250 has been conferred upon him for public reasons involving the convenience, safety, morality and welfare of the public at large. An enabling power of this kind conferred for public reasons and for the public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor can it be evaded; performance of it can be compelled under section 45 [of the Specific Relief Act, 1877]."[4]

This judgment firmly established that powers granted to public authorities, particularly those affecting public interest, are imbued with a duty to act when the requisite conditions are met. The Court clarified that the Commissioner's initial grant of the license was a valid exercise of his discretion, but the subsequent cancellation, influenced by government instructions rather than his independent judgment, was flawed. The Supreme Court directed the Commissioner to exercise his discretion afresh.[5]

The Nature and Scope of Power Coupled with a Duty

Defining "Power" and "Duty"

To understand the doctrine, it is pertinent to distinguish between 'power' and 'duty'. As observed in K.P. Khemka v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors[6], citing Salmond on Jurisprudence, a power may be defined as an "ability conferred upon a person by the law to alter, by his own will directed to that end, the rights, duties, liabilities or other legal relations, either of himself or of other persons." A duty, conversely, is an obligation to act or forbear. The doctrine of power coupled with a duty bridges this by transforming a legal capacity (power) into a legal obligation (duty) under specific circumstances, primarily driven by public interest considerations.

When Discretion Becomes Obligation: "May" Construed as "Shall"

A common manifestation of this doctrine is the judicial interpretation of permissive words like "may" as imposing a mandatory duty ("shall"). In State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K Nangia And Another[7], the Supreme Court considered the Explanation to Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which stated that a company "may" nominate different persons for its various branches. The Court, invoking Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, held that "may" in this context meant "must," imposing a duty on the company. It observed: "There is an element of compulsion. It is a power coupled with a duty."[8] Similarly, in Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd. v. Board Of High School And Intermediate Education, U.P And Another[9], the Allahabad High Court, citing Kania C.J. in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.[10], held that the power of a Revenue Authority to make a reference to the High Court under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, though phrased with "may," was coupled with a duty to do so when an important question of law arose.

The Imperative of Public Interest and Benefit

The core justification for implying a duty from a power lies in the public nature of the power and the public benefit it is intended to serve. As emphasized in Gordhandas Bhanji, powers conferred for "public reasons involving the convenience, safety, morality and welfare of the public at large" carry an inherent duty of exercise.[11] This principle was reiterated in Aneesh D. Lawande And Others v. State Of Goa And Others[12], where the Supreme Court stated, "every public authority has a duty coupled with power. Before exercising the power one is required to understand the object of such power and the conditions in which the same is to be exercised."

Judicial Enforcement: The Writ of Mandamus

When a public authority fails to exercise a power coupled with a duty, the primary judicial remedy available is the writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court in Destruction Of Public & Private Properties v. State Of A.P.[13] affirmed that High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue mandamus to compel performance where a public authority has failed to exercise discretion conferred by statute, or has exercised it wrongly or mala fide. The Court in Gordhandas Bhanji also noted that performance of such a duty could be compelled under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (now Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, relating to mandatory injunctions, and the writ jurisdiction under the Constitution).[14]

Manifestations of the Doctrine Across Diverse Legal Fields in India

Licensing and Regulatory Regimes

The Gordhandas Bhanji case itself is a prime example in the context of licensing.[15] The principle extends to other regulatory functions. In State Of Punjab And Another v. Hari Kishan Sharma[16], while primarily dealing with the usurpation of the licensing authority's jurisdiction by the government, the underlying theme is that the designated statutory authority has the power, and implicitly the duty, to exercise its licensing functions as per the Act, and cannot abdicate this to another entity not so empowered.

Revenue and Taxation Law

As seen in Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd.[17], revenue authorities may have a duty to make a reference on points of law. Further, in Jaswant Rai And Another v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Revenue And Others[18], the Supreme Court held that the power of the Commissioner under Section 271(4-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (related to waiver or reduction of penalty) "is a power coupled with a duty to do justice and the Commissioner is under statutory obligation to exercise the power in favour of an assessee which has fulfilled all the conditions of the provisions."

Criminal Justice Administration

The doctrine finds application in criminal procedure as well. In Sanjay Jha v. State Of Bihar[19], the Patna High Court, relying on Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand[20], emphasized that the power of a Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to address public nuisance is a "public duty to the members of the public who are victims of the nuisance." More recently, in JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA[21], the Supreme Court held that the language of Section 385 of the CrPC, requiring an appellate court to call for records, imposes "an obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal be decided."

Service Jurisprudence and Administrative Adjudication

In service matters, the Kerala High Court in State Of Kerala & Another v. Saji T.M & Another[22] held that the Director's power under Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R) to sanction posts in Higher Secondary Schools, having regard to requirement, "is a power coupled with duty and it has to be exercised when circumstances warranting the exercise of that power are shown to exist." Similarly, in The Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) v. Mariyamma[23], the Kerala High Court reiterated the concept citing Gordhandas Bhanji. The duty to conduct a proper enquiry before imposing a major penalty, as discussed in M.P State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. And Another v. Jahan Khan[24], can also be seen as an aspect of exercising disciplinary power coupled with a duty to adhere to procedural fairness. The Bombay High Court in Premier Ltd., Mumbai And Another v. Union Of India And Others[25] stressed that the power to issue a show cause notice is coupled with a duty to adjudicate it promptly.

Statutory Compliance and Corporate Governance

The ruling in State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K Nangia And Another[26] regarding the nomination of persons by a company for its branches under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act illustrates the application of this doctrine in ensuring statutory compliance by corporate entities, where a seemingly permissive provision was held to impose a mandatory duty.

Contractual Dealings with Public Authorities

Even in contractual matters involving public bodies, the doctrine can be relevant. In M.P Oil Extraction And Another v. State Of M.P And Others[27], it was submitted that a renewal clause in an agreement with the State confers a contractual/administrative power coupled with a duty upon the authority, requiring its exercise to be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. While the court did not explicitly rule on this specific framing in the provided extract, the argument reflects the pervasiveness of the doctrine. The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority And Another v. Uee Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd. And Another[28], while upholding DDA's discretion in a tender matter, implicitly acknowledged the duty of public authorities to act lawfully and fairly in their decision-making processes, subject to judicial review on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

Conclusion

The doctrine of power coupled with a duty is a cornerstone of Indian administrative law, ensuring that public authorities are not merely repositories of power but are also bound by an obligation to exercise such power responsibly and for the public good. Originating from English jurisprudence and firmly embedded in Indian legal thought through landmark decisions like Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, this principle serves as a crucial check on administrative inertia and arbitrariness. It underscores the fiduciary nature of public power, mandating its exercise when the legislative intent and the circumstances so demand. By enabling courts to compel action through remedies like mandamus, the doctrine reinforces the rule of law and promotes accountability in governance, thereby safeguarding public interest and ensuring that statutory objectives are effectively realized.

References

  1. Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App. Cas. 214 (HL).
  2. Ibid, at pp. 222-223. This passage is quoted in Commissioner Of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (1952 SCC 0 16, Supreme Court Of India, 1951) [Ref 1, 13]; Aneesh D. Lawande And Others v. State Of Goa And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2013) [Ref 11]; State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K Nangia And Another (1980 SCC 1 258, Supreme Court Of India, 1979) [Ref 21]; Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd. v. Board Of High School And Intermediate Education, U.P And Another (Allahabad High Court, 1955) [Ref 9].
  3. Commissioner Of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (1952 SCC 0 16, Supreme Court Of India, 1951) [hereinafter Gordhandas Bhanji]. See also Ref 13 for direct quotes.
  4. Gordhandas Bhanji (Supreme Court Of India, 1951) [Ref 13].
  5. Summary of Judgment, Commissioner Of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (1951) [Ref 1].
  6. K.P. KHEMKA v. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMTED AND ORS (Supreme Court Of India, 2024) [Ref 10].
  7. State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K Nangia And Another (1980 SCC 1 258, Supreme Court Of India, 1979) [Ref 21].
  8. Ibid.
  9. Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd. v. Board Of High School And Intermediate Education, U.P And Another (Allahabad High Court, 1955) [Ref 9].
  10. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1950 SC 218 (B), as cited in Ref 9.
  11. Gordhandas Bhanji (Supreme Court Of India, 1951) [Ref 13].
  12. Aneesh D. Lawande And Others v. State Of Goa And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2013) [Ref 11].
  13. Destruction Of Public & Private Properties v. State Of A.P. (Supreme Court Of India, 2009) [Ref 18].
  14. Gordhandas Bhanji (Supreme Court Of India, 1951) [Ref 1, 13].
  15. Ibid.
  16. State Of Punjab And Another v. Hari Kishan Sharma . (1966 AIR SC 1081, Supreme Court Of India, 1965) [Ref 5].
  17. Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd. v. Board Of High School And Intermediate Education, U.P And Another (Allahabad High Court, 1955) [Ref 9].
  18. Jaswant Rai And Another v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Revenue And Others (1998 SCC 5 77, Supreme Court Of India, 1998) [Ref 23].
  19. Sanjay Jha v. State Of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2015) [Ref 14].
  20. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) 4 SCC 162 : AIR 1980 S.C 1622, as cited in Ref 14.
  21. JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 SCC ONLINE SC 485, Supreme Court Of India, 2023) [Ref 19].
  22. State Of Kerala & Another v. Saji T.M & Another (Kerala High Court, 2009) [Ref 12].
  23. The Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) v. Mariyamma (Kerala High Court, 2010) [Ref 24].
  24. M.P State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. And Another v. Jahan Khan . (2008 SCC L&S 1 9, Supreme Court Of India, 2007) [Ref 6].
  25. Premier Ltd., Mumbai And Another v. Union Of India And Others (2017 SCC ONLINE BOM 4114, Bombay High Court, 2017) [Ref 20].
  26. State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K Nangia And Another (1980 SCC 1 258, Supreme Court Of India, 1979) [Ref 21].
  27. M.P Oil Extraction And Another v. State Of M.P And Others (1997 SCC 7 592, Supreme Court Of India, 1997) [Ref 22].
  28. Delhi Development Authority And Another v. Uee Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd. And Another (2004 SCC 11 213, Supreme Court Of India, 2004) [Ref 8].