Court Cannot Substitute Its Decision for Governor's Discretion: Supreme Court

Limits of Judicial Review in Administrative Decisions

In a significant ruling on the separation of powers and administrative law, the Supreme Court has overturned an order by the Uttarakhand High Court that mandated the payment of an extraordinary pension to the widow of a deceased government doctor. The Apex Court highlighted that the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981, place the authority to grant such relief squarely within the discretion of the Governor.

The Bench stated that when a statutory framework confers discretionary power on a specific authority—in this case, the Governor—to make an administrative decision based on enumerated considerations, the Court must refrain from taking that decision itself. The High Court's mandate was deemed improper because the competent authority had not yet evaluated or formally rejected the pension application on arbitrary grounds.

The Supreme Court clarified that if an authority fails to act or acts arbitrarily, the proper judicial remedy is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the authority to consider the matter afresh according to the law, not to bypass the authority entirely. The widow has now been permitted to formally apply for the pension to the Competent Authority for a time-bound decision.