When a legal rule is not adequate to reach a conclusion, honorable judges use their discretionary power by seizing assistance from legal principles, which they are entitled to do. Although statutes of our country repeatedly mention judicial discretion, they do not precisely specify its limits. In the BLAST and Others v Bangladesh & Others (2015) 1 SCOB (AD) case, it was suggested that courts tend to passively echo statutory punishments. However, the same case also recognised those discretionary powers embedded in Bangladesh's penal provisions allow judges to adapt sentences based on the unique facts of each case. Civil cases in Bangladesh allow judges greater flexibility in handling preliminary issues and determining financial penalties, unlike criminal cases with stricter guidelines. However, one may ask: in the presence of clear and valid legal rule, does judicial discretion still hold any weight? The very essence of judicial discretion lies in its application when multiple permissible options coexist within the legal framework. While multiple lawful options may exist, discerning the one with the highest moral weight stands as the core function of judicial discretion.

The perception of discretion may vary among individuals, as it is influenced by personal values, cultural norms, and lived experiences. It hinges on what one person considers a discreet action that might differ enormously from another's perspectives. Contextual and individual experiences further influence how discretion is applied, making it a nuanced subjective judgment.

Despite conflicting legal provisions, in Riggs v Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889) the court (New York Court of Appeals) considered morality and societal norms using discretionary power. The core legal question in the case revolved around whether William A. Palmer, who murdered his grandfather, could still inherit his estate. The court, ultimately, decided against inheritance, ruling that his unlawful and morally unacceptable actions forfeited any benefits granted by the will. Judge Robert Earl speaking for the majority, sided with the plaintiffs. The court, guided by timeless principles of law and recognised maxims, determined that granting Elmer any advantage from his criminal act would be fundamentally unjust. Justice demands that no one be allowed to exploit their own wrongdoings, profit from their deceit, or leverage their injustice for personal gain. Acquiring property through criminal means is similarly condemned. When important judgments like this one arise, a disconnect between legal rulings and societal norms poses a serious concern. While strict interpretations safeguard order, clashes with fundamental morals necessitate judicial flexibility. After all, courts exist within a social fabric that grants them legitimacy, and their decisions should reflect shared social values.

Discretion permits legal actors to interpret and apply laws in a way that aligns with the contemporary perspectives. This adaptability supports maintaining the relevance and legitimacy of the legal system, as it can respond to changing public attitudes and expectations. However, while discretion is a potent tool, it must be utilised within the bounds of established laws and regulations. Meandering beyond these boundaries can undermine the principles of justice and fairness. Therefore, a delicate balance must be struck, permitting discretion without renouncing the overarching framework of legal principles. 

The writer is student of Law, North South University.