Procedural Control over Delegated Legislations
✅ Procedural Control over Delegated Legislation in India
📌 What is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation refers to laws or rules made by an executive authority (like a government department or agency) under powers given to it by the primary (parent) legislation passed by the legislature.
In other words, Parliament or State Legislatures delegate some legislative powers to the executive to make rules, regulations, notifications, etc., to implement the law effectively.
🔍 Why Is Control Over Delegated Legislation Needed?
Because:
It involves law-making by non-elected bodies.
It may lead to abuse or misuse of power.
It can sometimes infringe on fundamental rights.
Ensuring accountability and transparency is essential.
⚖️ Types of Control Over Delegated Legislation
| Type of Control | Who Exercises It? |
|---|---|
| Legislative Control | Parliament/State Legislature |
| Judicial Control | Courts (via judicial review) |
| Procedural Control | Prescribed procedures (focus of this answer) |
📑 Procedural Control Over Delegated Legislation
Procedural control refers to the mandatory procedures laid down either in the parent Act or in the Constitution, which must be followed before or after making delegated legislation.
If these procedures are not followed, the delegated legislation can be declared ultra vires (beyond powers) and invalid.
🧷 Key Procedural Requirements
Publication: Delegated legislation must be published in the Official Gazette.
Laying Before the Legislature: It must be placed before Parliament or State Legislature.
Consultation: Sometimes, prior consultation with stakeholders or advisory bodies is required.
Public Participation: In some cases, rules must be published in draft form inviting objections.
Approval/Confirmation: Some rules need prior approval or subsequent confirmation by the legislature.
⚖️ Landmark Cases Explaining Procedural Control
Here are six landmark judgments where Indian courts discussed and enforced procedural control over delegated legislation:
1. Harla v. State of Rajasthan (1951)
Citation: AIR 1951 SC 467
Facts: The Jaipur Opium Act was passed without any publication or notification.
Issue: Was the law valid without being made known to the public?
Held: The Supreme Court held that a law affecting rights must be published, and mere existence of a rule is not enough.
Significance: Publication is a necessary procedural requirement for delegated legislation to have legal force.
2. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 579
Facts: The Bihar government re-promulgated ordinances without placing them before the legislature.
Issue: Whether repeated re-promulgation without legislative approval is valid.
Held: The Supreme Court declared this practice unconstitutional, holding that failure to follow the laid down procedure (i.e., placing ordinances before legislature) was a fraud on the Constitution.
Significance: Emphasized that executive cannot bypass legislative control, and procedural steps must be strictly followed.
3. J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2007)
Citation: AIR 2007 SC 2893
Facts: Certain rules were made under the Companies Act without proper consultation.
Issue: Was non-consultation with advisory bodies a procedural lapse?
Held: The Court held that statutory procedures (like consultation) are not empty formalities. Non-compliance invalidates the delegated legislation.
Significance: Reinforced the binding nature of procedural safeguards.
4. Hukum Chand v. Union of India (1972)
Citation: AIR 1972 SC 2427
Facts: Rules under Income Tax Act were not laid before Parliament.
Issue: Whether failure to lay rules affects their validity?
Held: The Supreme Court held that laying procedure is mandatory, and failure to do so may make the rules invalid, depending on whether the laying clause is mandatory or directory.
Significance: Clarified that nature of the laying clause (mandatory or not) affects the legal validity of rules.
5. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1979)
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 1149
Facts: A notification under the Haryana Municipal Act was not properly published.
Issue: Whether lack of publication invalidates the delegated legislation?
Held: The court held that publication is essential to bring any delegated legislation into force.
Significance: Reaffirmed Harla v. State of Rajasthan, i.e., no delegated legislation is valid unless published properly.
6. B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1059
Facts: Certain land acquisition rules were not published or made known to affected persons.
Issue: Is knowledge of the delegated legislation essential for enforcement?
Held: The court held that delegated legislation must be notified or published so that affected parties are aware of it.
Significance: Reinforced due process and the need for procedural transparency.
📘 Types of Laying Procedures (Legislative Oversight)
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Simple Laying | Rule laid before legislature, no further action required. |
| Negative Resolution | Rule takes effect immediately but can be annulled within a period. |
| Affirmative Resolution | Rule comes into force only after legislature’s approval. |
| Laying with Modification | Legislature can modify the rule after laying. |
✅ Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Key Procedural Control Highlighted |
|---|---|
| Harla v. Rajasthan | Publication is mandatory |
| D.C. Wadhwa v. Bihar | Legislative approval must not be bypassed |
| J.K. Industries v. UOI | Mandatory consultation cannot be skipped |
| Hukum Chand v. UOI | Laying before Parliament affects validity |
| Atlas Cycle v. Haryana | Notification/publication essential |
| B.K. Srinivasan v. Karnataka | Affected parties must have knowledge |
🧾 Conclusion
Procedural control is a vital mechanism to ensure that delegated legislation is made lawfully, transparently, and democratically. It:
Prevents arbitrary rule-making by the executive,
Ensures accountability,
And safeguards constitutional governance.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements like publication, laying before the legislature, consultation, or public notice can render the delegated legislation invalid.
The judiciary in India has consistently upheld these procedural safeguards as essential components of the rule of law and democratic administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments