Doctrine of Relevant Considerations: What an Authority Must Consider, What It Must Ignore and What It May Weigh

A discretion is conferred so that a judgment may be formed on the matters the statute regards as material. It follows that an authority which decides without considering something it was bound to consider, or which decides on something it was bound to ignore, has not exercised the discretion the statute conferred, whatever the merits of the result. The doctrine divides the universe of possible considerations into three classes: those the authority must take into account, those it must not, and the residue on which it may form its own view and whose weight is for it alone. Most of the difficulty in this field lies in the third class, because a court asked to say that too little weight was given to a relevant matter is being asked to decide the case itself. This topic sets out that division.

1. The Threefold Division

Class	Effect	Source
Mandatory considerations	Failure to consider vitiates the decision	Expressly stated in the statute, or necessarily implied from its subject matter and purpose
Prohibited considerations	Taking them into account vitiates the decision	Excluded expressly, or by necessary implication from the purpose of the power
Permissible considerations	The authority may consider them, and the weight is for it	Matters neither required nor forbidden, which the authority may properly regard as relevant

Where the statute is silent, whether a consideration is mandatory, prohibited or merely permissible is determined by construction: the court reads the Act to ascertain its policy and objects, and decides what the legislature must have intended the authority to take into account in giving effect to them.

2. Considering the Wrong Question

📖 Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Company Law Board, (1970) 1 SCC 727

Facts: The Company Law Board refused approval to the reappointment of a managing agent, on the ground that the conduct of the person concerned in earlier transactions, which had been the subject of an inquiry many years before, rendered him unfit. The Board relied almost entirely on that past conduct and did not examine his conduct in the intervening period or the circumstances as they stood at the time of the application.

Held: The Supreme Court set aside the refusal. It held that in deciding whether a person is fit to be entrusted with the management of a company, the Board is required to take into account his present activities and his conduct at the time the question falls to be decided, and not merely his past record: past conduct is undoubtedly relevant and may be taken into account, but it cannot be the sole or decisive consideration, and the authority must ask whether the person is fit now. The Court held that the Board, by treating the earlier transactions as concluding the matter and omitting to consider the applicant's subsequent conduct, had failed to take into account a consideration it was bound to consider, and the order was therefore vitiated notwithstanding that the past conduct was itself relevant material.

Ratio: An authority must address the question the statute requires it to decide. Relying on material that is relevant, while omitting a consideration the statute requires, vitiates the decision as much as relying on what is irrelevant.

3. Material Not Placed Before the Decision-Maker

📖 Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, (1979) 1 SCC 222

Facts: An order of preventive detention was made on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It emerged that the detenu had earlier retracted the confessional statements on which the proposal for detention largely rested, and that the fact of the retraction had not been placed before the detaining authority by the officers who prepared the proposal. The detention was challenged on the ground that the satisfaction had been formed without material the authority ought to have had.

Held: The Supreme Court quashed the detention. It held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be arrived at after taking into account all the vital facts and materials bearing on the question, and that where material of that character is withheld or not placed before the authority, whether deliberately or through inadvertence, the satisfaction is vitiated: the authority has formed an opinion on an incomplete picture, and the court cannot speculate whether it would have reached the same conclusion had the material been before it. The Court held that the retraction was a vital fact which might reasonably have influenced the decision, and that its non-placement rendered the order invalid irrespective of good faith on the part of the officers concerned.

Ratio: Satisfaction formed without vital material that ought to have been placed before the authority is vitiated, whether the omission was deliberate or inadvertent, and the court will not speculate on what the authority would have decided had the material been before it.

4. Illustrations of Each Class

Consideration	Class
Matters the statute expressly directs the authority to regard	Mandatory
Representations made by the person affected	Mandatory where a hearing is required
Vital material bearing on the question, including material favourable to the person	Mandatory (Ashadevi)
The current position, where the statute requires a present assessment	Mandatory (Rampur Distillery)
The personal or political affiliation of the applicant	Prohibited
A desire to injure or favour a particular person	Prohibited
Revenue considerations where the statute is concerned with public health or safety	Ordinarily prohibited, depending on the Act
Pressure from a superior or from an interest group	Prohibited, and also dictation
Administrative convenience and available resources	Ordinarily permissible, but cannot displace a statutory duty
Consistency with how similar cases have been decided	Permissible and generally desirable

5. The Question of Weight

Once it is established that a consideration is relevant and was taken into account, the weight given to it is ordinarily for the authority and not for the court. That is the boundary between this ground and a review on the merits, and it is why a petitioner who says that a relevant factor was given insufficient importance is usually making an appeal rather than raising a ground of review.

The court decides what is relevant, since that is a question of statutory construction.
The authority decides what weight to give it, since that is the judgment the discretion was conferred to make.
Manifest disregard is different from low weight. Where a consideration is nominally mentioned but plainly played no part, the court may find it was not in truth considered.
Where a statute prescribes a priority, the authority must give effect to it, and treating a subordinate factor as decisive is an error of law.
Where a fundamental right is affected, proportionality applies and the court weighs for itself, which displaces the ordinary rule about weight.

6. Consequences and Proof

The decision is vitiated and is ordinarily set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on the correct material.
Relief is usually remission rather than substitution, since the judgment belongs to the authority and not to the court.
Where an order rests on several grounds, one of which is irrelevant, the order may fall unless the court can say the authority would clearly have reached the same conclusion on the remaining grounds.
Reasons are the principal evidence, since an order that discloses what was considered can be tested and a non-speaking order cannot.
The file may be called for, and an authority that resists production invites an adverse inference.
Good faith is no answer, since the defect is the absence or presence of a consideration and not the honesty of the officer (Ashadevi).

⚠ The court decides relevance; the authority decides weight

Almost every argument in this field can be located on one side or the other of a single line. Whether a matter was one the authority was bound to consider or forbidden to consider is a question of construing the statute, and it is for the court, which is why this is a genuine ground of review rather than an appeal in disguise. How much a relevant matter weighed in the balance against other relevant matters is the judgment the legislature entrusted to the authority, and a court that reweighed it would be exercising the discretion itself. A petition that says the authority ignored the applicant's representations raises the first question and may succeed; one that says the authority did not give them enough importance raises the second and generally will not.

7. The Position in Summary

Considerations divide into mandatory, prohibited and permissible, the class being determined by express provision or by construction of the statute's policy and objects.
An authority must address the question the statute requires it to decide, and omitting a required consideration vitiates the decision even where the material relied on was itself relevant (Rampur Distillery).
Satisfaction formed without vital material that ought to have been placed before the authority is vitiated, whether the omission was deliberate or inadvertent (Ashadevi).
The court decides what is relevant, being a question of construction; the weight to be given to a relevant consideration is for the authority, save where a statutory priority applies or proportionality is engaged.
The consequence is that the decision is set aside and remitted, reasons are the principal evidence of what was considered, and the good faith of the officer is no answer.

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Abuse of Administrative Discretion (Topic 51): irrelevant considerations among the grounds.
Colourable Exercise of Power (Topic 185) and Fettering of Discretion (Topic 184).
Subjective Satisfaction and Judicial Review (Topic 49): satisfaction formed on incomplete material.
Reasoned and Speaking Orders (Topic 70): reasons as evidence of what was considered.
Grounds of Judicial Review (Topic 90) and Wednesbury Principle (Topic 181).
Constitution of India: Articles 14, 21, 22 and 226.