Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review in Pakistan: A Study of Evolving Standards of Reasonableness

Administrative discretion is essential for effective governance, allowing state authorities to respond flexibly to complex social needs. In Pakistan, however, such discretion has often prompted concerns regarding arbitrariness, political influence, and threats to fundamental rights. This study examines how judicial review functions as a safeguard against misuse of discretionary powers, with particular focus on the evolving standards of reasonableness applied by superior courts. Using a doctrinal method, it analyses constitutional provisions, statutory schemes, and key judgments, alongside comparative perspectives from the United Kingdom and India. Findings show a shift in Pakistani jurisprudence from the narrow Wednesbury test toward broader doctrines of fairness, proportionality, and substantive reasonableness. Although judicial activism, especially under Article 184(3), strengthened accountability, it also blurred the line between judicial and executive authority. The study concludes that while courts have refined their review standards, Pakistan still lacks a consistent doctrinal framework. Clearer judicial tests and legislative guidance are needed to balance administrative flexibility with constitutional accountability.