Wednesbury unreasonableness

From Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948), where Lord Greene MR held that a court can interfere with an administrative decision only if the authority took into account irrelevant matters, ignored relevant ones, or reached a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it. Lord Diplock in CCSU (1985) called this ground “irrationality”, alongside illegality and procedural impropriety.

The test is deliberately strict: the court does not ask whether it would have decided differently, only whether the decision is outside the range of reasonable responses. Indian courts adopted it in Tata Cellular for administrative action and contracts. Where fundamental rights are affected, Indian courts apply the stricter proportionality test instead, and courts use Wednesbury mainly for ordinary administrative decisions and punishments in service law.

Example

Dismissing a clerk for being five minutes late once is so disproportionate that it is Wednesbury unreasonable.

In Indian law

• Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (English Court of Appeal, 1948)
• Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (House of Lords, 1985)
• Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 INSC 283

See also

proportionality · judicial review · administrative discretion · ultra vires

Read more in the study notes

• Government contracts and state liability: the administrative-law angle (Administrative Law)
• Arbitral award and setting aside under section 34 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems)
• The Speaker and parliamentary privileges (Constitutional Law II)
• Emergency provisions (Constitutional Law II)
• Judicial review, judicial activism and judicial accountability (Indian Constitutional Law - New Challenges)
• Judicial review: notions, foundations and theories (Judicial and Legislative Process)