Mala Fides in Administrative Law

What Are Mala Fides in Administrative Law?

Mala fides means bad faith. In public law, however, the concept is wider than personal hostility. A public authority receives power for a legally defined purpose. If that power is deliberately diverted to another object, exercised to settle scores, used to favour a private person, or deployed on considerations unrelated to the statute, the resulting action may be struck down as mala fide, colourable or a fraud on power.

The doctrine is therefore an aspect of the rule of law: the repository of public power is a trustee of that power and cannot convert statutory authority into an instrument for private, political, retaliatory or collateral ends.

This doctrine fits within the larger framework explained in our Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review in India guide.

Malice in Fact vs Malice in Law

Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 is frequently cited for the proposition that legal malice means exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those for which it was intended. The State, being an impersonal legal entity, is ordinarily accused of malice in law rather than personal spite.

Colourable Exercise of Power and Fraud on Power

A colourable exercise occurs when the authority appears to act for a lawful purpose but the real object is different. The form of legality cannot save a decision whose substance reveals misuse of power.

The expressions colourable exercise of power, fraud on power, improper purpose and malice in law often overlap. The decisive inquiry is: what was the power legally entrusted to achieve, and what was it actually used to achieve?

Improper Purpose: The Core Public-Law Test

Every statutory power has an object. Even broadly worded discretion must be exercised to further that object. An authority acts for an improper purpose when the true objective of the action falls outside the legislative purpose.

Common examples include:

• using transfer power to punish a civil servant for making a complaint;
• using disciplinary proceedings to obstruct an otherwise lawful promotion or appointment;
• using land acquisition to benefit a politically influential private person rather than the stated public purpose;
• using licensing power to eliminate a competitor for collateral reasons;
• using preventive or regulatory power to achieve a punitive result not authorised by the statute;
• invoking public interest as a label while the record discloses personal retaliation or favouritism.

S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab

S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, is one of the foundational Indian cases on mala fide administrative action. The case concerned adverse service action against a government doctor. The Supreme Court examined whether statutory powers had been exercised for extraneous and retaliatory considerations.

The importance of the decision lies in its recognition that even where an authority possesses formal power, the order can fail if that power is exercised in bad faith or for an extraneous object. Jurisdiction and purpose must coexist: lawful power used for an unlawful end is not a lawful exercise of power.

State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh: Public Power Is a Trust

In State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, the Supreme Court dealt with land-acquisition proceedings alleged to have been manipulated for collateral ends. The judgment remains a leading exposition of colourable exercise of power.

The principle is subtle. Personal hostility by itself is not always enough. If power is genuinely used to fulfil the lawful statutory object, the existence of unpleasant motive may not automatically invalidate the act. But where the true object is an end different from the one for which power was entrusted, or the authority is influenced by considerations outside the statutory purpose, the action becomes legally bad.

Burden of Proof: Why Mala Fides Are Hard to Prove

Courts repeatedly warn that allegations of mala fides are easier to make than prove. Administrative action carries a presumption of bona fides. The person alleging bad faith bears a heavy burden and must plead and establish facts of a high degree of credibility.

Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 and Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 524 emphasise that vague or general allegations are insufficient. The court needs admitted facts, proved facts, reliable documentary material or compelling logical inferences from circumstances.

The Supreme Court reiterated these principles recently in R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 1441. The Court again referred to the heavy burden on a person alleging mala fides and the need for detailed particulars where malice in fact is alleged.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment in R. Ashoka, 2025 INSC 1441.

How Can Mala Fides Be Proved?

Direct evidence of bad faith is uncommon. Public officials rarely record an unlawful motive in the impugned order. Courts therefore permit mala fides to be established from surrounding circumstances, provided the inference is strong and not speculative.

Useful indicators may include:

• an unusual sequence of events immediately after a dispute, complaint or court order;
• departure from normal procedure without explanation;
• selective action against one person while similarly placed persons are ignored;
• shifting reasons at different stages of litigation;
• use of material known to be false or irrelevant;
• repeated attempts to achieve indirectly what courts or tribunals have already restrained;
• decision-making by a person personally affected by earlier litigation involving the applicant;
• suppression of favourable material from the competent authority;
• timing that strongly suggests retaliation;
• the absence of any rational connection between stated purpose and actual action.

These factors must be assessed cumulatively. Suspicion alone does not prove mala fides, but a coherent chain of objective facts can support an inference of bad faith.

Personal Mala Fides: Implead the Decision-Maker

Where malice in fact is alleged against a named officer, minister, committee member or other decision-maker, that person should ordinarily be impleaded eo nomine—by name and in an individual capacity—so that the allegation can be answered.

State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 and later authorities hold that a court should not record a serious finding of personal mala fides against an individual who was not made a party and had no opportunity to respond. Ratnagiri Gas & Power applies the same principle.

2026 Supreme Court: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India

Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 101, decided on 30 January 2026, is a significant current authority on mala fide exercise of public power and institutional bias.

The petitioner, a former Army officer who later joined the Indian Revenue Service, had repeatedly succeeded before tribunals and courts concerning his consideration for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. The Supreme Court examined a long sequence of departmental actions, prior litigation and the role of an officer connected with earlier contempt proceedings.

The Court reiterated that the rule of law is undermined when statutory or administrative power is exercised for purposes extraneous to those for which it is conferred, influenced by irrelevant considerations, or actuated by malice in law. It held that such action cannot be sustained and that judicial review addresses the decision-making process itself.

The Court ultimately set aside the relevant Search-cum-Selection Committee minutes concerning the petitioner and directed fresh consideration excluding the officer whose participation created the apprehension of bias.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 101.

Mala Fides and Bias: Related but Different

Bias and mala fides may arise from the same factual matrix, but they are not identical. Bias asks whether the decision-maker’s impartiality is compromised or reasonably appears compromised. Mala fides asks whether power was used in bad faith or for an unlawful collateral purpose.

A person may be disqualified for reasonable apprehension of bias even where actual malicious intent cannot be proved. Conversely, malice in law can invalidate action even without personal bias because the power itself was diverted to an unauthorised purpose.

For the broader fairness framework, see our Principles of Natural Justice guide.

Mala Fides and Article 14

Mala fide action is normally incompatible with Article 14. State power influenced by personal vendetta, favouritism, collateral purpose or irrelevant considerations is the opposite of equal and rational administration.

But it is not always necessary to prove mala fides to succeed under Article 14. An order can be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory even if no personal ill will is established. This distinction is important because Article 14 may supply an alternative ground when the evidence is insufficient to prove bad faith but the decision still lacks a lawful rational basis.

See our dedicated Doctrine of Reasonableness in Administrative Law article.

Extraneous and Irrelevant Considerations

Malice in law often appears through the use of irrelevant considerations. The statutory scheme determines what matters can lawfully influence the decision.

For example, if a selection authority must assess professional merit, an unrelated personal dispute should not become a decisive consideration. If a transfer power exists for administrative deployment, it should not be used as disguised punishment. If land is acquired for a public purpose, the State cannot manipulate the process to benefit a particular private person.

A challenge should therefore identify:

1. the statutory purpose;
2. the factors legally relevant to that purpose;
3. the extraneous factor actually relied upon;
4. the causal link between that factor and the decision.

Mala Fides, Consistency and Legitimate Expectation

In some cases, an abrupt departure from an established policy or repeated prior assurance can support an inference that the stated administrative reason is not the real reason. That does not automatically prove bad faith, but unexplained inconsistency may become important circumstantial evidence.

The distinct doctrine of legitimate expectation is explained in our Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in India guide.

Mala Fides and Proportionality

A disproportionate measure does not necessarily prove mala fides. Proportionality asks whether a restriction or sanction is excessive relative to its legitimate purpose; mala fides focuses on whether the power was used for a collateral or unlawful purpose.

However, an extreme mismatch between the stated objective and the measure adopted can sometimes reinforce an inference that the stated reason is pretextual. The doctrines may therefore operate together while remaining analytically distinct.

For the four-stage test, see our Doctrine of Proportionality in India article.

Mala Fides in Article 226 Proceedings

High Courts can review mala fide administrative action under Article 226. The remedy depends on the nature and stage of the decision:

• certiorari may be used to quash an order already made;
• mandamus may compel fresh lawful consideration by the competent authority;
• prohibition may prevent continuation of proceedings infected by jurisdictional or public-law illegality;
• declaratory or consequential relief may be appropriate depending on the statute and facts.

See our Writ of Certiorari in India and Article 226 Writ Petition in India guides.

How to Plead Mala Fides Properly

Documents That Can Prove Bad Faith

Common Pleading Mistakes

• calling every adverse order “mala fide” without factual particulars;
• failing to identify the statutory purpose said to have been diverted;
• confusing legal malice with personal hostility;
• not impleading the individual accused of malice in fact;
• relying only on suspicion or temporal proximity;
• ignoring the presumption of administrative bona fides;
• failing to distinguish bias from mala fides;
• not pleading alternative grounds such as arbitrariness or irrelevant considerations;
• seeking broad accusations instead of precise judicially manageable relief.

Leading Supreme Court Cases on Mala Fides

Frequently Asked Questions

What is mala fide exercise of administrative power?

It is the use of public power in bad faith, for an improper or collateral purpose, on extraneous considerations, or because of personal hostility that materially influences the decision.

What is the difference between malice in fact and malice in law?

Malice in fact means actual personal ill will or vendetta. Malice in law means objectively wrongful use of statutory power for an unauthorised purpose and does not require proof of personal spite.

Who has to prove mala fides?

The person alleging mala fides bears the burden. Courts presume administrative action to be bona fide until that presumption is rebutted by cogent facts, documents or compelling inferences.

Must the officer accused of mala fides be made a party?

Where personal malice in fact is alleged, ordinarily yes. The individual should be impleaded by name so that the serious allegation can be answered.

Can mala fides be proved by circumstantial evidence?

Yes. Direct proof is uncommon. A compelling chronology, selective treatment, shifting reasons, ignored material and other objective circumstances may collectively establish bad faith.

Is every arbitrary action mala fide?

No. An order may be arbitrary under Article 14 without proof of bad faith. Mala fides is a more specific allegation concerning improper purpose, irrelevant considerations or personal bad faith.

Related Fastrack Legal Solutions Guides

Authoritative Outbound Sources

• Constitution of India — Legislative Department
• Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 101 — Supreme Court of India
• R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 1441 — Supreme Court of India
• Supreme Court Reports — Official Search
• Supreme Court of India — Landmark Judgment Summaries

Conclusion

Mala fides is among the most serious grounds in administrative law because it alleges corruption of the very purpose for which public power was entrusted. For that reason, the doctrine is both powerful and demanding. Courts will strike down colourable or bad-faith action, but they will not infer mala fides from disappointment, suspicion or broad accusation.

The strongest case identifies the lawful statutory purpose, the collateral end actually pursued, the specific extraneous considerations, the decision-maker involved, the sequence of objective facts and the documentary material from which bad faith necessarily or compellingly emerges.