Wednesbury's principle

Wednesbury's principle:

Perversity or irrationality of decisions is tested on the touchstone of Wednesbury's principle of reasonableness. Decisions that fall short of the standards of reasonableness are open to challenge in a Court of law often in writ jurisdiction of the Superior courts but no less in statutory processes wherever the same are available."

Lord Diplock enunciated three grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review, viz. (i) illegality (ii) irrationality and (iii) procedural impropriety, as follows:

"By "illegality" he means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision- making power and must give effect to it, and whether he has or has not, is a justiciable question; 

By "irrationality" he means "Wednesbury unreasonableness". It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided, could have arrived at it; and 

By "procedural impropriety" he means not only failure to observe the basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness, but also failure to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which the tribunal's jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice."

What is 'perverse'

What is 'perverse' has further been considered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No. 436 of 2000, titled 'Rubi Sood and another v. Major (Retd.) Vijay Kumar Sud and others, decided on 28.05.2015, in the following manner:-

"25..... A finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below can only be said to be perverse, which has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in miscarriage of justice, is open to correction, because it is not treated as a finding according to law.

Circumstantial evidence - proof

Circumstantial evidence - proof

If there is no eye witness of the incident, then the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.

The case of Queen-Empress Vs. Hosh Nak : 1941 All LJ 416 which is a locus classicus on the issue of circumstantial evidence. 

In the case of Hosh Nak (supra), it has been held that to prove an offence by circumstantial evidence four things are essential. They are:

(1) : That the circumstance from which the conclusion is drawn be fully established.

(2) : That all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis.

(3) : That the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) : That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.

In the case of Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1952 SC 343 it has been held by the SC:

There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

In the case of Khasbaba Maruti Sholke Vs. The State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 449 it was held by the Apex Court as under:

In order to base the conviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence the court must be certain that the circumstantial evidence is of such a character as is consistent only with the guilt of the accused. If, however, the circumstantial evidence admits of any other rational explanation, in such an event an element of doubt would creep in and the accused must necessarily have the benefit thereof.