Judicial control of delegated legislation
Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation
1. Introduction
Delegated legislation (also called subordinate or subsidiary legislation) refers to rules, regulations, bylaws, or orders made by persons or bodies other than the legislature, under powers delegated to them by a statute (parent Act).
Because delegated legislation has the force of law, it is essential that courts maintain control over it to ensure it stays within the bounds of the authority granted by the legislature and does not violate fundamental legal principles.
2. Need for Judicial Control
Delegated legislation is made by executive authorities who are not directly elected.
It allows detailed law-making without burdening the legislature.
However, it can be misused or ultra vires (beyond powers).
Courts act as a safeguard to prevent abuse and protect individual rights.
Judicial control ensures delegated legislation is legal, reasonable, and within statutory limits.
3. Grounds of Judicial Control
Courts can strike down delegated legislation on the following grounds:
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Ultra Vires | The delegated legislation goes beyond the powers conferred by the parent Act. |
| Procedural Impropriety | Failure to follow the prescribed procedure for making the legislation. |
| Unreasonableness | The legislation is arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable (Wednesbury unreasonableness). |
| Inconsistency with Parent Act | Contradiction or conflict with the enabling statute. |
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | The delegated legislation violates constitutional rights or basic legal principles. |
4. Types of Ultra Vires
Substantive Ultra Vires: The content or substance of the rule exceeds the authority.
Procedural Ultra Vires: Failure to follow mandatory procedures.
Unconstitutional Ultra Vires: Delegated legislation violates constitutional provisions.
5. Judicial Control Methods
Judicial Review: Courts examine delegated legislation’s legality.
Writ Petitions: Challenging the validity via writs (like certiorari, prohibition, mandamus).
Declaration of Invalidity: Courts declare the delegated legislation void or unenforceable.
Interpretation: Courts may interpret ambiguous delegated legislation to align with the parent Act.
6. Landmark Cases on Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation
🔹 1. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) (UK)
Facts: The Home Secretary promised to introduce a compensation scheme for firefighters but failed to do so. Instead, delegated legislation was made that contradicted the promise.
Issue: Whether the Secretary acted ultra vires by not implementing the scheme.
Holding: Court held that the Secretary’s failure to implement was unlawful.
Significance: Demonstrated that delegated authorities must act within their statutory powers and in good faith.
🔹 2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) (India)
Facts: Challenge to the administrative rules made by a government authority.
Issue: Whether administrative delegated legislation can be challenged on grounds of unreasonableness and procedural violation.
Holding: Supreme Court held that delegated legislation is subject to judicial review, especially if it affects fundamental rights or is unreasonable.
Significance: Affirmed the scope of judicial review over delegated legislation in India.
🔹 3. R. v. Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board, ex parte AGC (Advances) Ltd. (1978) (UK)
Facts: The Training Board issued an order that was challenged for being beyond the powers granted.
Issue: Whether the delegated legislation was within the authority.
Holding: Court held the legislation was ultra vires as it exceeded statutory limits.
Significance: Reinforced the doctrine of ultra vires as a key control mechanism.
🔹 4. Bromley London Borough Council v. Greater London Council (1983) (UK)
Facts: GLC issued regulations affecting public housing.
Issue: Whether the delegated legislation was inconsistent with the parent Act.
Holding: The court struck down the regulations for inconsistency.
Significance: Showed the court’s power to invalidate inconsistent delegated legislation.
🔹 5. Shivkant Shukla v. Union of India (1976) (India)
Facts: Challenged administrative rules made by authorities that allegedly infringed on personal liberties.
Issue: Whether administrative delegated legislation violated fundamental rights.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that any delegated legislation violating fundamental rights is void.
Significance: Strengthened the constitutional control over delegated legislation.
🔹 6. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (UK)
Facts: The local authority imposed a condition restricting Sunday cinema openings.
Issue: Whether the decision was unreasonable.
Holding: Court laid down the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness, holding that a decision is unlawful if so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance: Established the test for unreasonableness in judicial control of administrative actions including delegated legislation.
🔹 7. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) (India)
Facts: Challenge to rules framed under the Companies Act.
Issue: Whether rules violating procedural safeguards are invalid.
Holding: Supreme Court held that failure to follow mandatory procedure renders delegated legislation void.
Significance: Emphasized procedural compliance as a ground for judicial review.
7. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Legal Principle | Impact on Judicial Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fire Brigades Union (1995) | UK | Legitimate expectation and ultra vires | Enforced statutory compliance and fairness |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) | India | Judicial review of delegated legislation | Expanded scope of judicial scrutiny |
| R. v. AHFI Training Board (1978) | UK | Ultra vires | Confirmed limits on delegated powers |
| Bromley LBC v. Greater London Council (1983) | UK | Inconsistency with parent Act | Invalidated conflicting delegated legislation |
| Shivkant Shukla v. Union of India (1976) | India | Fundamental rights | Void delegated legislation violating rights |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses (1948) | UK | Wednesbury unreasonableness | Test for reasonableness in administrative actions |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) | India | Procedural ultra vires | Emphasized mandatory procedural compliance |
8. Conclusion
Judicial control of delegated legislation is a crucial check on administrative authority. Courts ensure that:
Delegated legislation stays within the scope of powers granted by the legislature.
Procedural rules prescribed by the parent Act are followed.
The delegated legislation is reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.
Fundamental rights are respected.
Any delegated legislation breaching these principles can be struck down as ultra vires.
This control preserves the rule of law, prevents administrative overreach, and protects citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments