Governments may have to take, steps which would otherwise be an infringement on the Fundamental Rights of individuals, such as acquiring a person’s land against his will, or refusing permission for putting up a building, but the larger public interest for which these are done must be authorized by the people (Parliament). Discretionary powers to the administration can be done away with. It is becoming more and more difficult to keep this power within limits as the government has many number of tasks to perform. Where discretion has to be used, there must be rules and safeguards to prevent misuse of that power. Systems have to be devised which minimise, if not prevent, the abuse of discretionary power. Government work must be conducted within a framework of recognised rules and principles, and decisions should be similar and predictable.

Which among the following is the most logical assumption that can be made from the above passage?

The correct option is: "The supremacy of rules and safeguards should prevail as opposed to the influence of exclusive discretion of authority."

Step-by-Step Explanation:

To determine the most logical assumption, let us analyze the key arguments and themes presented in the passage:

1. Necessity of State Actions vs. Individual Rights: The passage starts by noting that governments may need to take actions that infringe on fundamental rights (e.g., land acquisition) for the larger public interest, but stresses that such actions must be authorized by the parliament (the people).

2. Limiting Discretionary Powers: It highlights that discretionary powers given to the administration should ideally be eliminated, or at least kept strictly within limits. As government responsibilities grow, keeping these powers limited becomes increasingly challenging.

3. Need for Rules and Safeguards: The passage explicitly states: "Where discretion has to be used, there must be rules and safeguards to prevent misuse of that power." It emphasizes creating systems that minimize or prevent abuse.

4. Predictability and Rules: Finally, it concludes that government work must be conducted within a framework of "recognised rules and principles" so that decisions are "similar and predictable."

Evaluating the Options:

• Option 1 ("Government should always be given wide discretionary power...") directly contradicts the passage, which advocates for doing away with discretionary powers or strictly limiting them.

• Option 2 ("The supremacy of rules and safeguards should prevail as opposed to the influence of exclusive discretion of authority") perfectly aligns with the text. The passage repeatedly calls for reducing administrative discretion, establishing rules and safeguards, and ensuring governance is guided by recognized rules and principles rather than arbitrary administrative choices.

• Option 3 ("Parliamentary democracy is possible only if the Government has wider discretionary power") is incorrect because the passage does not argue that democracy requires wide discretionary powers; in fact, it suggests that parliamentary authority (rules authorized by the people) should limit and regulate such power.

Therefore, the assumption that rules and safeguards must reign supreme over uncontrolled discretionary authority is the most logical deduction from the passage.