Delegated (or subordinate) legislation is law made by an executive authority (minister,

government department, regulator) under a statute passed by the legislature. It is necessary

because Parliament cannot draft every technical detail. But delegation creates risks: excessive
power, lack of democratic accountability, defective procedure, or rules beyond the authority
granted. Controls try to keep the benefit of flexibility while limiting abuse.

There are two levels of control:

 At the point of delegation — how much power Parliament authorises the executive
to exercise (the content and limits of the parent Act).
 At the point of exercise — how the delegated power is actually used when
subordinate rules/orders are made (this is where parliamentary control mainly
operates).

2. What is parliamentary control?

Parliamentary control = the various ways in which the legislature supervises, scrutinises,
approves or annuls delegated legislation. Its purpose is democratic oversight: letting people’s
representatives check that the executive’s rules stay within the law, are reasonable and follow
required procedures.

3. The “laying” procedure — what it is and

how it works
“Laying” means formally placing a piece of delegated legislation before the legislature (or
both Houses) for scrutiny. The existence of a laying requirement means Parliament is
informed about what the executive has made and can take action if necessary.

Common variants of laying procedures (statutes will specify which applies):

 Negative (or annulment) procedure: The delegated instrument becomes law

immediately (or on a set date), but Parliament may annul it by passing a resolution
within a specified period. If Parliament does nothing, the instrument stays valid. This
is a commonly used device for routine rules.
 Affirmative (or approval) procedure: The instrument does not become law until
Parliament actively approves it (a positive vote/resolution). Used for important or
controversial instruments.
 Laying only for information: The instrument is required to be laid before Parliament
but no further parliamentary vote is provided. This gives transparency but little
control.
 Super-affirmative procedure (used in some jurisdictions): Requires additional steps
— longer scrutiny, mandatory government response to committee reports, or a
parliamentary vote only after committee review.

Key features to understand:

  Laying creates opportunity for scrutiny (debate, committee examination, motions
to annul/approve) — but it does not by itself guarantee effective control.
 Failure to lay where the statute requires it can be a procedural defect and grounds for
challenge, though consequences vary by statute and court precedents.
 Practical effect depends on political realities: majority discipline, parliamentary time,
committee capacity.

4. Parliamentary control in practice —

India (and brief comparison)
 India: Parliamentary control is an implicit constitutional/ordinary-law function
because the executive is responsible to Parliament. Indian Acts commonly require that
rules/regulations/orders be laid before Parliament or state legislatures. India uses:
1. Direct general control — debates, questions, notices, motions, calling
attention, adjournment motions, private members’ resolutions etc. (these let
MPs raise and publicise problems with delegated rules).
2. Laying and resolution procedures — many statutes require laying of rules;
some provide negative/affirmative resolution pathways.
3. Committee scrutiny — especially the Committee on Subordinate
Legislation (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha) which examines whether instruments
exceed the parent Act, are retrospective without authority, or are defective in
form or procedure. The Committee reports to the House and can recommend
annulment or corrective action.
 United Kingdom: The UK developed the modern laying system (Statutory
Instruments and the 1946 regime). Scrutiny committees (e.g., Joint Committee on
Statutory Instruments) and the negative/affirmative procedures are widely used.
 United States: Congress generally exercises less direct control over executive rule-
making; courts and the Administrative Procedure Act (notice-and-comment
rulemaking) are stronger checks. Congressional control is more limited.

1. Direct Special Control — Laying

 What it means: Once the government makes rules/regulations under a law, these
must be “laid” (placed) before Parliament.
 Purpose: To let Parliament supervise and, if needed, modify or cancel those rules.
 Memorandum: When a Bill proposes delegation, it should include a note
(memorandum) explaining why delegation is needed and whether it is exceptional or
routine.
 Problem: In practice, these notes are often short, unhelpful, and not detailed.

2. Types of “Laying”
After rules are made, they are laid before Parliament in three ways:

(a) Simple laying

  Rules come into effect immediately once placed before Parliament.
 Parliament is just informed, but it cannot change or cancel them.
 Rarely used.

(b) Laying subject to negative resolution

 Rules take effect immediately once laid.

 But within 40 days, Parliament can annul (cancel) or modify them by passing a
resolution.
 Very common in India.
 Works as a check because Ministers sometimes modify rules to avoid criticism.
 In India, unlike the UK, Parliament can modify as well as annul.

(c) Laying subject to affirmative resolution

 Rules have no effect until Parliament approves them by resolution.

 Debate is necessary in every case → consumes time.
 Rarely used because it defeats the purpose of quick law-making.
 Example: Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (UK) —
imposed a 40-day limit for approval.
 Indian courts: Affirmative = mandatory, Negative = directory (not strict).

⚖️Key Case: Atlas Cycle Industries v State of Haryana (1979)

Issue:

Should the rules be invalid if not laid before Parliament?

Court's View:

 It depends on the exact wording of the law:

 If the law makes laying a condition before the rules can work → it is mandatory.
 If not, then laying is just directory (optional), and rules are still valid

. Court’s view on Laying

Courts have clarified how laying provisions work:

1. Jan Mohammad v. State of Gujarat (1966):

o If rules cannot be laid in first session (e.g., no legislature existed during
WWII), it does not make them invalid unless the law clearly says so.
2. D.K. Krishnan (1956):
o If the Act says laying is a condition precedent → rules have no effect until
laid.
o If laying is a condition subsequent → rules cease to have effect if later not
laid.
o If law just says “shall be laid” (no details) → it is directory, not mandatory.
o
5. Strengths of parliamentary control by
laying
 Provides democratic legitimacy — rules are visible to elected representatives.
 Flexibility — different procedures (affirmative/negative) allow tailoring of scrutiny
to the importance of the rule.
 Committee expertise can produce detailed technical review and reports.
 Can correct or annul bad rules without court action (political remedy).

6. Weaknesses & practical limits

 Volume and complexity: huge number of instruments means little time for detailed
debate.
 Executive dominance / party discipline: government majorities and whips often
prevent independent scrutiny or annulment.
 Delay and formality: many instruments are merely “laid” for information; Parliament
may lack capacity to examine effectively.
 Technical nature: MPs may lack technical expertise; committees may be under-
resourced.
 Laying is procedural, not substantive: merely being laid does not prevent misuse
unless Parliament acts.

7. Typical grounds for

parliamentary/committee criticism of an
instrument
 Exceeds or is ultra vires the parent Act (goes beyond delegated authority).
 Imposes taxation or penalty beyond enabling provision.
 Retrospective operation without authority.
 Unclear or defective drafting (vagueness).
 Failure to follow mandatory procedure (consultation, publication, laying).
 Delegation too broad or vague (Henry VIII–type clauses).

8. Remedies and consequences

 Parliament can annul instruments (if empowered) or pass fresh legislation.
 Committees report and shame or recommend changes — political pressure may
follow.
  Courts: judicial review may strike down instruments that are ultra vires,
unreasonable, or produced in breach of mandatory procedure (including sometimes
failure to lay, depending on statute and facts).

3. Indirect Control – Through Committees

This is Parliament's way to keep a check on the rules made by the
Executive, without interfering every time

Committee on Subordinate Legislation -Formed in 1953 by the Lok

Sabha.
Delegated legislation (rules, regulations, etc.) follows the limits of power
granted by the Constitution or the Act.

Functions of the Committee (Rule 320):

 Whether rules follow the purpose of the Act.
(Are they aligned with the object of the main law?)

 Whether rules include something that should have been in the main Act.
(Are they trying to do more than what they are allowed to?)

 Whether the rules impose any tax.

(Generally, taxation must come from Parliament.)

 Whether rules block judicial review.

(If a rule says people cannot approach the court, it's suspicious.)

 Whether there was delay in publication or laying.

(Transparency is important.)

🛡️3. Procedural Control

These are mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability when
rules are made by the government.

 Procedural controls include:

 Publication of rules

 Consultation

 Participation of the public

 Audit of rules for those who are affected

📢 (1) Publication (Post-natal Publicity)
Why Publication Is Important:
There’s a legal saying: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”.But this is only
fair if the law is publicly [Link], publication is essential , people must
know the rules to follow them.

🔹 What Happens Without Publication?

In legislative law, there’s lots of publicity.

But in delegated legislation, rules are often made quietly by

administrators, without much [Link], publication becomes a critical
safeguard to prevent abuse of power.

Comparative View:
 England: Statutory Instruments Act ensures publication.

 USA: Federal Register makes publication mandatory.

 India: No general law that requires publication of delegated

legislation.

Harla v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467)

Overview of the Case

The landmark case of Harla v. The State Of Rajasthan (1951) addresses a fundamental
principle in administrative law concerning the validity of legislation. The petitioner, Harla,
challenged his conviction under Section 7 of the Jaipur Opium Act, 1923, arguing that the
Act was never duly promulgated or published, rendering it invalid. The Supreme Court of
India, presided over by Justices Bose and Vivian, delivered a verdict that emphasized the
indispensability of promulgation and publication in the legislative process, aligning with the
tenets of natural justice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Jaipur Opium Act, 1923, passed by the Council of Ministers
through a mere Resolution, lacked validity due to the absence of promulgation or
publication in the Official Gazette. Consequently, the Act did not become operative, and
Section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, which purported to preserve existing regulations,
did not rescue the invalid statute. The conviction of the appellant was overturned, and the
fine imposed was set aside.

Analysis

Precedents Cited
The judgment extensively references English legal principles and analogous cases to
reinforce its stance. Notable among them are:

 Halsbury's Laws of England: Emphasizes that Acts of Parliament become law upon
Royal Assent, while Royal Proclamations require publication in the Gazette.
 Johnson v. Sargant ([1918] 1 K.B. 101; 67 L.J.K.B. 122): Established that certain
Orders do not become operative until made known to the public.
 Cases under Rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules: Demonstrated the application
of promulgation principles in Indian jurisprudence.

These precedents underline the universal legal principle that for laws to bind individuals,
they must be accessible and known to the public, ensuring transparency and accountability
in governance.

The Court's legal reasoning pivots on the doctrine of natural justice, which mandates that
laws must be made known to those they govern. The mere passage of a Resolution lacks the
procedural rigor required for legislation. The absence of promulgation or publication
violates the principles of fairness and transparency, making the law inoperative. The Court
further delineates that Section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, does not retrospectively
validate an invalid law. Additionally, attempts to retroactively enforce the Act through
amendments were futile, as the original deficiency in promulgation remained unaddressed.

The comparison with English law elucidates that even in jurisdictions with robust legislative
frameworks, promulgation and publication are indispensable for law validity. This
comparison reinforces the judgment's assertion that without these procedural steps, a law
cannot justly bind individuals.
Govind Lal vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee.

Background

 The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 said that if new agricultural
items (like ginger, onion, etc.) were to be added under the law, a notification must be
issued.
 This notification had to be published in:
1. The Official Gazette, and
2. In a Gujarati newspaper with circulation in that area.

So, the law required double publication.

Issue (Main Question)

 The dispute was: Is it compulsory to publish the notification in both places (Gazette
and Gujarati newspaper), or is one enough?
 In other words, is this rule mandatory or just directory (optional/flexible)?

Court’s Observations

1. The use of the word “shall” usually means something is mandatory, not optional.
2. The Legislature clearly wanted wider publicity so that traders and farmers could know
about changes and raise objections if needed.
3. Publishing only in the Gazette was not enough, because ordinary people rarely read
Gazettes. A Gujarati newspaper ensured that affected people got the information.
4. Therefore, publication in both Gazette and Gujarati newspaper was compulsory (a
"double mandatory" requirement).

Decision

 The Supreme Court held that since the notification was not published in a Gujarati
newspaper, it was invalid.
 Rules like these are vital and cannot be ignored.
 If a law says “must be published in Gazette and in a local newspaper,” then both must
be followed.
 Failure to follow cannot be excused or covered up by technical clauses.

Simple Takeaway
  When a law requires publication in a specific way (Gazette + newspaper), both must
be done.
 Skipping one makes the notification legally invalid.
 The reason is to ensure that affected people (like farmers and traders) actually know
about changes, so their rights are protected.

Sonik Industries ,Rajkot vs Muncipal Corporation,Rajkot

Background

 Under Section 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, rules about tax
on buildings and lands had to be published.
 Rajkot Municipality made such rules, got them sanctioned by the State Government,
and then published a notice in a Gujarati newspaper (“Jai Hind”) saying:
o The rules had been sanctioned,
o They were available for inspection at the municipal office, and
o Copies could be purchased.
 Sonik Industries challenged this, saying:
o The actual rules themselves should have been published in the newspaper,
o Not just a notice referring to them.

Issue (Main Question)

 Did Section 77 require the entire rules to be published in the newspaper, or was it
enough if only a notice (stating where to find the rules) was published?
 In other words: Was the publication procedure strict and mandatory (rules
themselves in newspaper), or was substantial compliance (notice + inspection)
sufficient?

Court’s Observations

1. Sections 75–77 describe the full process:

o Municipality frames draft rules.
o Public objections are invited.
o State Government sanctions the rules.
o Then, the rules must be published.
2. The purpose of publication is to inform the public so they know the final form of the
rules and how taxes will affect them.
3. In this case:
o The notice in the newspaper mentioned the sanction of the State Government
and where the rules could be inspected or purchased.
o This gave enough information to the public.
 4. The Act did not specifically say how the rules should be published (whether the full
text must be in the newspaper).
o Since the law was silent on the exact method, the court applied the principle
of substantial compliance.
o Meaning: If people, by reasonable effort, can get knowledge of the rules, then
publication is valid.

Decision

 The Supreme Court held that the requirement of publication was satisfied.
 Publishing a notice in the newspaper (with details about sanction and where the
rules could be inspected or purchased) was enough.
 The actual printing of full rules in the newspaper was not mandatory.

 In Govind Lal’s case (previous one you showed), publication in both Gazette +
newspaper was mandatory.
 But in Sonik Industries case, the court said the mode of publication is more
flexible.
 As long as the public can reasonably know about the rules (through notice +
inspection), it counts as valid publication.
Consultation in Delegated Legislation
🔹 What is it?
Consultation refers to the process where affected individuals or bodies are
given a chance to participate in the rule-making process before the rules
are finalized. This enhances transparency, public involvement, and
democratic participation.
🔹 Indian Context
In India, there is no general requirement to consult affected persons
before making rules unless explicitly mentioned in the parent statute.
The phrase used is often "subject to previous publication", which means:
 Rules must be published in draft form.
 Objections and suggestions must be invited.
 Those must be considered by the rule-making authority.
 Forms of Consultation:
 With a named body (e.g., RBI under the Banking Companies Act).
 With Administrative Boards.
 With statutory boards related to a subject.
 With interested persons (e.g., Municipalities publishing draft rules for public
feedback).
 Preparation of rules by affected interests (e.g., mine owners under the Mines Act
draft rules themselves).

Rajnarain Singh Vs. The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna and Ors.
Consultation was seen as policy, not mandatory.
 Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur-Mandatory for municipalities
to consult.
 Banwarilal Agarwalla v State of Bihar (1961): When law mandates
consultation, it must be followed.

Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation

🔹 What is it?
This is where courts review delegated legislation to ensure it is legal,
constitutional, and within limits set by the enabling Act.
🔹 Grounds for Judicial Review:
 If the Enabling Act is unconstitutional (e.g., if it violates fundamental
rights or improperly delegates legislative power).
 If the delegated legislation itself violates the Constitution or goes
beyond the authority granted in the enabling Act (ultra vires).
🔹 Important Doctrines and Examples:
 Ultra vires doctrine: If a rule exceeds the scope of authority granted,
it can be struck down.
 Natural justice & fundamental rights: Courts intervene if rules
violate Articles 14 (equality) or 19 (freedom).

Key Cases:
 Narendra Kumar v Union of India (1960): Delegated legislation must
not go beyond what is authorized, even if enabling law is valid.
 Dwarka Prasad v State of U.P. (1954): Rule giving excessive
arbitrary powers struck down for violating Article 19(1)(g) (right to
trade
But this power isn’t unlimited. The executive can only make rules within
the limits set by the law passed by the legislature (called the enabling
Act).
"Ultra vires" is a Latin term meaning "beyond the powers."So, if the
executive makes a rule that goes beyond the authority given by the
enabling Act, it is said to be ultra vires, and courts can strike it down
(cancel it).
 Substantive Ultra Vires
 This happens when the rule or law made:
 Is beyond the scope of power given by the law
 Or is against the purpose or policy of the main law
 The rule breaks the core rules or goes too far.

Dwarka Nath v Municipal Corp (1971)

Rule 32 required manufacturers to put their address on food [Link] the
law only gave power to make rules about quality and quantity of [Link],
the court said: This rule goes beyond the power = Ultra Vires

Ibrahim v Regional Transport Authority (1953)

The authority made rules about where bus stands should [Link] the law
only allowed making rules about control of vehicles, not bus stands.
So, the court struck it down = Ultra Vires
State of Karnataka v Ganesh Kamath (1983)
Rule said: Even if you pass the heavy vehicle test, you can’t get a license
unless you also have experience in medium [Link] the Motor
Vehicles Act said: If you pass the heavy vehicle test, you’re automatically
qualified for medium vehicles [Link], this rule contradicted the main law
→ Struck down as Ultra Vires

Substantive Ultra Vires means-The rule/law is invalid because it is beyond

the authority [Link] down such rules to protect the power of the
original law.

(b) Procedural Ultra Vires — Explained Simply

What does it mean?
Procedural Ultra Vires happens when a rule or delegated legislation is
invalidated because proper procedure was not followed or the rule is:
 Unreasonable
 Arbitrary (random or unfair)
 Discriminatory
 Or made with bad faith (wrong intentions)
It means the rule may have been within the scope of power, but the way it
was made or what it does violates constitutional principles like equality
(Article 14) or freedom (Article 19).
Important Grounds (with case examples)
1. Unreasonable / Arbitrary / Discriminatory
These rules may-Treat people unfairly,Violate Article 14 (equality )Or
Article 19 (freedom)

Case: Air India v Nargesh Meerza (AIR 1981 SC 1829)

Air India had a rule: An air hostess would be fired after her first
[Link] court said: This is unfair and [Link], the rule
was struck down for violating Article 14.
Case: WBSEB v Desh Bandhu Ghosh (AIR 1985 SC 722)
A rule allowed termination of a permanent employee with 3 months’
notice or 3 months’ [Link] court said: This gives unlimited power to
fire [Link]’s arbitrary, so it was struck down.
Case: R.S. Dass v Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 593)
Rule allowed junior officers to be promoted over seniors, but without any
recorded [Link] court said: This is unreasonable.

Case: Meenakshi v Delhi University (1989)

Delhi University required students to study last 2 years in Delhi for
admission to medical [Link] held this was arbitrary and unfair.

Case: Maharashtra State Board v Paritosh (AIR 1984 SC 1543)

Rule didn’t allow students to see their answer [Link] upheld the
rule, saying administrative authorities know [Link] said: Only clearly
unfair rules can be struck down.
Takeaway: Courts don’t interfere unless a rule is very unjust or
unfair.

2. Mala Fide (Bad Faith)

Means: The rule is made with a wrong purpose — not for the purpose it
was meant for.
Case: Drug and Cosmetics Rule
Rule required perfumes to have a poisonous substance (to make it unfit
for use).Government said it was to set “quality standards.”Court said: This
was actually to enforce prohibition (ban on alcohol).
So, the rule was struck down for being mala fide (bad intention).

Cases where delegated legislation was valid (Intra Vires)

These are examples of rules that were upheld — meaning, courts agreed
they were within the law’s limits.
Case: L.M. Sundaram v Director of Legal Studies (1981)
Rule said: Law student must complete 3 years and attend 60%
[Link] said: This is within the power of the Bar Council to set
standards of legal education.
Case: Meenakshi Bhandari v Delhi University (1983)
Rule said: Students must meet certain percentage marks to enter law
school.
Court said: That’s valid — universities can set eligibility standards.

Case: Deepak Sibal v Punjab University (1989)

Bar Council rule said: Law students can’t study other professional courses
(like CA).Court said: That’s discriminatory — students can work or study
as they [Link] was struck down.

Case: Ajay Canu v Union of India (1988)

Rule made wearing helmets [Link] said: Valid — safety rules
are part of Motor Vehicle Act powers