Procedure Control over delegated legislations
Procedure Control over Delegated Legislation
Delegated legislation refers to laws or regulations made by an authority (usually the executive) under powers given to it by the legislature through an enabling act. Because delegated legislation is created by bodies other than the legislature, procedural control is necessary to ensure that such powers are exercised properly and within limits.
What is Procedure Control?
Procedure control is one of the judicial methods used to supervise delegated legislation. It means that the courts check whether the procedures laid down in the enabling Act (parent Act) or other laws have been followed by the delegated legislating body before enacting the delegated legislation.
This control is based on the principle that failure to follow prescribed procedures results in invalidity of the delegated legislation, as it violates the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.
Key Aspects of Procedure Control:
Compliance with Enabling Act Procedures: The delegated authority must strictly follow the procedure prescribed in the parent Act.
Consultation or Approval: Some enabling Acts require consultation with specific bodies or prior approval from certain authorities before the delegated legislation is made.
Publication Requirements: Certain delegated legislations must be published or notified in the official gazette.
Time Limits and Formalities: The legislation must comply with time limits or formal requirements if mentioned.
Case Laws Explaining Procedure Control Over Delegated Legislation
1. Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala (1961)
Facts: The Agricultural Produce Market Committee passed certain rules for regulating market operations.
Issue: Whether these rules were valid when the procedure prescribed by the parent Act was not strictly followed.
Held: The court held that failure to comply with the procedure laid down in the parent Act rendered the delegated legislation invalid.
Principle: Courts will declare delegated legislation void if the procedural requirements laid down in the empowering Act are not followed.
2. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)
Facts: The Board was empowered to fix water rates and issue regulations under the enabling Act. However, the rates fixed were challenged on procedural grounds.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements strictly and held that any deviation could render the delegated legislation invalid.
Principle: The procedural conditions are mandatory and cannot be waived or ignored.
3. R. v. Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) (UK Case)
Facts: The Home Secretary failed to implement delegated legislation as per the enabling Act's procedural requirements.
Held: The House of Lords held that the failure to comply with procedural requirements or to exercise discretion as required could invalidate the delegated legislation.
Principle: Procedure control applies to ensure that delegated legislation is not only made but also implemented according to law.
4. Union of India v. S.L. Kapoor (1980)
Facts: A question arose regarding rules made under a statutory power. The validity was challenged based on non-compliance with prescribed procedures.
Held: The Supreme Court held that if the delegated legislation is made without observing procedural formalities, it is void.
Principle: Procedural non-compliance results in invalidity, reflecting the importance of procedure control.
5. Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1964)
Facts: The Excise authorities made rules under a parent Act but did not comply with certain mandatory procedural requirements.
Held: The Supreme Court invalidated the rules for failure to comply with the procedural safeguards laid down in the parent Act.
Principle: Strict adherence to procedure is essential; otherwise, the delegated legislation is liable to be struck down.
Summary of Judicial Approach to Procedure Control
Courts insist on strict compliance with procedures stipulated in the parent Act.
If the delegated legislation is made without fulfilling mandatory procedures (such as consultation, publication, approval), courts may declare it ultra vires (beyond powers).
The principle promotes transparency, accountability, and the rule of law in delegated legislation.
Additional Notes:
Procedure control is only one form of control; others include substantive control (looking at content) and parent Act control (control by legislature itself).
Courts distinguish between mandatory and directory procedural requirements — failure to follow mandatory procedures will invalidate the delegated legislation, whereas directory procedures may not always have this effect.
RELATED Blog
0 comments