Tariq Mahmood Awan
Administrative discretion—the legal authority granted to public officials to make decisions in areas where the law is silent, ambiguous, or permits choice—is both an essential and controversial aspect of executive governance. In Pakistan, where the legal and bureaucratic system is highly codified, discretion presents a paradox: while necessary for responsive governance, it is prone to misuse in the absence of clear legal and institutional checks. The challenge lies not in eliminating discretion, but in regulating it to serve the public interest, uphold the rule of law, and promote equitable governance.
In its ideal form, administrative discretion empowers officials to make context-specific decisions in areas like licensing, welfare delivery, land administration, and public procurement. When exercised within legal boundaries and guided by principles of fairness, reason, and transparency, discretion enables state institutions to be flexible, adaptive, and efficient. However, in Pakistan’s context, the misuse of discretionary powers—particularly in bureaucratic transfers, regulatory enforcement, and resource allocation—has contributed to widespread perceptions of arbitrariness, corruption, and political patronage, undermining public trust in governance.
Pakistan’s constitutional and legal framework does provide for the regulation of administrative discretion. Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution guarantee equality before law and due process, while judicial precedents have emphasized that discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and in accordance with established legal principles. Statutory laws governing civil servants, taxation, local government, and public procurement also outline parameters for discretionary authority. Yet, enforcement remains weak, often due to vague legal language, poor institutional oversight, and limited transparency in administrative decision-making.
International best practices offer instructive models. In the United States, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandates agencies to provide written justification for discretionary decisions and subjects them to judicial review under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. The United Kingdom applies the Wednesbury principle, under which courts can quash a decision deemed irrational or unfair. India, similarly, has strengthened judicial checks on executive discretion by invoking doctrines of legitimate expectation, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness. These systems demonstrate that discretion, while permissible, must be embedded within a culture of accountability and legality.
Pl, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality content.
In Pakistan, recent examples reflect both the risks and potential of discretion. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), for instance, wields wide discretionary powers that have at times been criticized for politically selective action. On the other hand, programmes like Ehsaas have demonstrated how digitized eligibility mechanisms and data transparency can limit human discretion and reduce corruption in welfare delivery. These contrasting outcomes show that discretion, if unregulated, can harm governance—but if institutionalized and technology-enabled, can enhance public service delivery.
A key factor in regulating discretion is the role of civil servants. Unfortunately, training and capacity-building in Pakistan’s bureaucratic system remain largely procedural. Officers are taught to follow rules, but not necessarily to interpret them ethically. There is limited emphasis on administrative law, constitutional literacy, or scenario-based learning in public interest decision-making. As a result, discretion is often exercised either rigidly or opportunistically, rather than judiciously. Reforming this requires investment in civil service training academies, integration of modules on discretion, and leadership development that rewards fairness, transparency, and public value.
Pakistan’s codified administrative culture demands that discretion be seen as an exception, not a norm. The current over-reliance on verbal orders, personal judgments, or political considerations in administrative matters erodes the legitimacy of government institutions. To correct this, laws granting discretion must include clear criteria, procedural safeguards, and mechanisms for review. Moreover, all major discretionary decisions—especially those affecting rights, benefits, or public resources—should be documented, justified in writing, and made accessible to the public through digital platforms.
Transparent use of discretion also requires stronger institutional oversight. Independent bodies such as ombudsman offices, human rights commissions, and administrative tribunals should be empowered to receive complaints, audit decisions, and recommend corrective actions. Parliamentary committees and provincial assemblies must also demand greater accountability from the executive branch on how discretion is used in service delivery, recruitment, land allotment, and licensing regimes.
Technology can serve as a critical tool in minimizing abuse of discretion. By digitizing government workflows, establishing audit trails, and automating rule-based decision-making (where applicable), the space for arbitrary action is significantly reduced. Pakistan’s experience with digital land records, e-procurement systems, and NADRA-based verification models shows that administrative discretion can be streamlined when supported by transparent processes and data integrity.
The future of administrative governance in Pakistan depends on how well it balances the flexibility offered by discretion with the discipline of law and institutional accountability. A reform agenda must be multi-dimensional: it must combine legal reform, civil service training, digital transformation, and citizen empowerment. Most importantly, discretion must be redefined—from a personal or political tool to a public responsibility. Only then can it contribute to the values of justice, fairness, and good governance that Pakistan’s Constitution envisions.
