U S vs India regulatory frameworks
📘 Regulatory Frameworks: U.S. vs. India
🔹 I. Overview: Structure of Regulation
| Aspect | United States | India |
|---|---|---|
| Legal System | Common law; federal system | Common law; quasi-federal with strong unitary bias |
| Key Regulatory Acts | Administrative Procedure Act (APA), various sectoral laws | Constitution of India, sectoral statutes like TRAI Act, SEBI Act |
| Regulatory Bodies | Independent agencies (e.g., EPA, FCC, SEC) | Statutory regulators (e.g., TRAI, SEBI, RBI) |
| Judicial Oversight | Strong, especially under Chevron/Skidmore doctrines | Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 |
| Accountability | Through Congress, courts, internal rulemaking | Through Parliament, courts, constitutional mandates |
🔹 II. United States: Regulatory Framework and Case Law
🔹 A. Key Principles:
Separation of powers
Due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments
Rulemaking and adjudication governed by Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Judicial review of agency action
🔹 B. U.S. Case Law (5+ Detailed Examples)
1. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Citation: 467 U.S. 837
Facts: EPA’s interpretation of “stationary source” under the Clean Air Act was challenged.
Issue: Should courts defer to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes?
Holding:
Created the Chevron two-step test:
Is the statute ambiguous?
If yes, is the agency's interpretation reasonable?
Courts must defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Significance:
✔ Established judicial deference to regulatory agencies
✔ Strengthened administrative discretion in rulemaking
2. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. v. State Farm (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Facts: NHTSA rescinded a rule requiring passive restraints in cars without explanation.
Issue: Can an agency rescind a rule arbitrarily?
Holding:
Agency action must be based on reasoned decision-making.
A sudden reversal without justification violates APA.
Significance:
✔ Set a “hard look” standard for judicial review
✔ Reinforced the need for transparency in regulatory reversals
3. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Citation: 529 U.S. 120
Facts: FDA tried to regulate tobacco under its general authority over drugs and devices.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that FDA lacked statutory authority to regulate tobacco.
Significance:
✔ Agencies cannot extend jurisdiction unless clearly authorized by Congress
✔ Highlighted the importance of legislative intent
4. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Citation: 549 U.S. 497
Facts: EPA declined to regulate greenhouse gases, claiming no authority.
Issue: Does the Clean Air Act allow EPA to regulate CO₂?
Holding:
EPA must regulate pollutants that endanger public health.
Failure to act was arbitrary and capricious.
Significance:
✔ Strengthened climate regulation via existing laws
✔ Expanded the definition of “pollutants”
5. J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Citation: 276 U.S. 394
Facts: The Tariff Commission was delegated power to adjust tariffs.
Holding:
Upheld Congress’s delegation of authority as long as it includes an “intelligible principle.”
Significance:
✔ Foundation of non-delegation doctrine
✔ Agencies can exercise power if guided by clear standards
🔹 III. India: Regulatory Framework and Case Law
🔹 A. Key Principles:
Parliamentary sovereignty with judicial review
Regulations must conform to constitutional rights (Articles 14, 19, 21)
Extensive use of tribunals and regulators (e.g., TRAI, SEBI, CCI)
Judicial review through Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts)
🔹 B. Indian Case Law (5+ Detailed Examples)
1. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Citation: AIR 1970 SC 150
Facts: A civil servant sat on a selection committee that chose him for promotion.
Holding:
Principles of natural justice apply even in administrative actions.
Bias invalidated the selection.
Significance:
✔ Broadened the scope of judicial review over administrative action
✔ Ended strict separation between administrative and quasi-judicial decisions
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: Passport was impounded without giving reasons or a hearing.
Holding:
Due process under Article 21 includes fair procedure.
Executive cannot act arbitrarily.
Significance:
✔ Introduced substantive due process in Indian jurisprudence
✔ All administrative action must be just, fair, and reasonable
3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 106
Facts: Government imposed newsprint control policy that limited newspaper size.
Holding:
Regulatory control that infringes freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) is unconstitutional.
Significance:
✔ Set limits on regulatory overreach impacting fundamental rights
4. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 477
Facts: Challenged the Mandal Commission’s reservation recommendations.
Holding:
Upheld reservation policy, but set 50% cap and excluded the “creamy layer.”
Significance:
✔ Enforced constitutional limits on regulatory social policy
✔ Showed the balance between regulation and equality
5. PUCL v. Union of India (2003) – Voter Disclosure Case
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 2363
Facts: Government refused to disclose criminal records of candidates.
Holding:
Citizens have a right to know under Article 19(1)(a).
EC must enforce disclosure of criminal and financial backgrounds.
Significance:
✔ Regulatory transparency mandated by courts
✔ Elevated information disclosure as a public right
6. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2G Case, 2012)
Citation: AIR 2012 SC 3725
Facts: Challenged arbitrary allocation of 2G spectrum licenses.
Holding:
Licenses granted arbitrarily were cancelled.
Public resources must be allocated fairly and transparently.
Significance:
✔ Introduced judicial scrutiny of regulatory decisions involving public assets
✔ Pushed for auction-based allocation, enhancing accountability
🔹 IV. Key Comparative Themes
| Theme | United States | India |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Deference | Chevron doctrine gives agencies leeway | Courts intervene robustly in administrative actions |
| Due Process | APA & 5th Amendment protections | Expanded under Article 21 post-Maneka Gandhi |
| Delegated Legislation | Controlled by "intelligible principle" doctrine | Subject to parliamentary scrutiny & constitutional norms |
| Transparency | Mandatory in rulemaking (APA) | Evolved through case law and RTI Act |
| Regulatory Independence | Strongly independent agencies (e.g., SEC, EPA) | Varies; some under tight government oversight |
| Rights-Based Oversight | Focus on economic freedoms | Strong emphasis on fundamental rights |
🧾 V. Conclusion
Both the U.S. and Indian regulatory frameworks rest on the idea of law-bound governance, but they differ in their approaches:
The U.S. system emphasizes agency autonomy, legislative delegation, and judicial deference, with procedures rooted in the APA.
India adopts a rights-centered model, where judicial oversight is more active, especially when regulatory actions infringe on constitutional rights.
While U.S. regulators enjoy broader discretion under the Chevron doctrine, Indian regulators are more closely scrutinized for reasonableness, fairness, and constitutional compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments