The expansion of administrative discretion during emergencies has become a defining feature of contemporary governance, raising crucial questions about the balance between state efficiency and legal accountability. This study examines how governments are increasingly relying on administrative bodies to exercise broad discretionary powers during crises, such as armed conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic, and mass migration. The central inquiry explores how this reliance challenges the principles of legality, proportionality, and democratic oversight. Employing a qualitative methodology, the analysis focuses on the legal frameworks, executive decrees, and administrative measures that legitimise, implement, or fail to constrain discretion in times of emergency. The findings reveal a persistent trend toward normalising exceptional powers, often accompanied by limited judicial or parliamentary scrutiny. This tendency undermines the predictability of the law, weakens civil liberties, and erodes institutional accountability. The study ends by urging the need for rules and clear boundaries to make sure that discretion is used properly in government instead of being a way to circumvent the law.