Showing posts with label imp-rulings-subordinate-legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label imp-rulings-subordinate-legislation. Show all posts

Monday, 21 April 2025

Agricultural Market Committee vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd - The effect of these principles is that the delegate which has been authorised to make subsidiary Rules and Regulations has to work within the scope of its authority and cannot widen or constrict the scope of the Act or the policy laid down thereunder.

 Supreme Court (07.05.1997) in Agricultural Market Committee vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd  [Appeal (civil)  3359 of 1997 ] held that;- 

  • Legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative functions and what can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation necessary for implementing the purposes and objects of the Act concerned.

  • While what constitutes an essential feature cannot be delineated in detail it certainly cannot include a change of policy. The legis-lature is the master of legislative policy and if the delegate is free to switch policy it may be usurpation of legislative power itself.

  • The essential legislative function consists of the determination of the legislative policy and the Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative function in favour of another.

  • The effect of these principles is that the delegate which has been authorised to make subsidiary Rules and Regulations has to work within the scope of its authority and cannot widen or constrict the scope of the Act or the policy laid down thereunder. 

  • It cannot, in the garb of making Rules, legislate on the field covered by the Act and has to restrict itself to the mode of implementation of the policy and purpose of the Act.


Excerpts of the order;

# 21. Delegated Legislation has been defined by Salmond as "that which proceeds from any authority other than the sovereign power and is therefore dependent for its continued existence and validity on some superior or supreme authority." (See Salmond, Jurisprudence, 12th Edn.

 

# 22. Delegated Legislation is not a new phenomenon. Ever since the Statutes came to be made by Parliament, the Delegated Legislation also came to be made by an authority to which the power was delegated by the Parliament. It is no use going back into the pages of history or to look to the Statute of Proclamations 1539, under which Henry VIII was given extensive powers to legislate by proclamations, what is intended, to be emphasised is that there has always been, and continues to be, need for delegated legislation. The exigencies of the modern State, especially the social and economic reforms, have given rise to the making of Delegated Legislation on a large scale (by authorising the Government, almost in every Statute passed by Parliament or the State Legislature to make Rules) so much so that a reasonable fear could have arisen among the people that they were being ruled by the Bureaucracy.

 

# 23. The reasons for giving delegated power to the Government to make Rules are many, but the most prominent and dominant reasons are:

  • (i) The area for which powers are given to make delegated legislation may be technically complex, so much so, that it may not be possible and may even be difficult to set out all the permutations in the Statute.

  • (ii) The Executive may require time to experiment and to find out how the original legislation was operating and thereafter to fill up all other details.

  • (iii) It gives an advantage to the Executive, in the sense that a Government with an onerous legislative time schedule may feel tempted to pass skeleton legislation with the details being provided by the making of Rules and Regulations.

 

# 24. The power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole under Article 245 of the Constitution and other relative Articles and when the Legislatures enact laws to meet the challenge of the complex socio-economic problems, they often find it convenient and necessary to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice for carrying out the policy laid down by the Acts as part of the Administra-tive Law. The Legislature has to lay down the legislative policy and principle to afford guidance for carrying out the said policy before it delegates its subsidiary powers in that behalf (See : Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay and Others, [1961] 1 SCR 341. This Court in another case, namely, The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and Another, AIR (1968) SC 1232 as also in an earlier decision in In Re : The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, The Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, and The Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, [1951] SCR 747 has laid down the principle that the Legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative functions and what can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation necessary for implementing the purposes and objects of the Act concerned.

 

# 25. In Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [1979] 1 SCC 137, Krishna Iyer, J. laid down the following tests for valid delegation of legislative power. These are :

  • "(1) the legislature cannot efface itself :

  • (2) it cannot delegate the plenary or the essential legislative function;

  • (3) even if there be delegation, Parliamentary control over delegated legislation should be a living continuity as a constitution-al necessity."

 

It was further observed as under :

  • "While what constitutes an essential feature cannot be delineated in detail it certainly cannot include a change of policy. The legis-lature is the master of legislative policy and if the delegate is free to switch policy it may be usurpation of legislative power itself."

 

# 26. The principle which, therefore, emerges out is that the essential legislative function consists of the determination of the legislative policy and the Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative function in favour of another. Power to make subsidiary legislation may be entrusted by the Legislature to another body of its choice but the Legislature should, before delegating, enunciate either expressly or by implication, the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegates. These principles also apply to Taxing Statutes. The effect of these principles is that the delegate which has been authorised to make subsidiary Rules and Regulations has to work within the scope of its authority and cannot widen or constrict the scope of the Act or the policy laid down thereunder. It cannot, in the garb of making Rules, legislate on the field covered by the Act and has to restrict itself to the mode of implementation of the policy and purpose of the Act.

-----------------------------------------

Sunday, 16 February 2025

Imp. Rulings; Delegated or Subordinate Legislation

Imp. Rulings; Delegated or Subordinate Legislation

Index; 

  1. SCI (2024.07.30) in Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. [2024 INSC 558, Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023]

  2. SCI (2006.03.24) in Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala [(2006) 4 SCC 327]

  3. SCI (2006.03.24) in State of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. [(2006) SCC 517],

-------------------------------------------------------

1). SCI (2024.07.30) in Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. [2024 INSC 558, Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023] held that;  

  • # 27. The basic principle underlying the concept of delegated legislation is that the legislature cannot directly exert its will in every detail.34 It lays down the legislative policy and delegates the subsidiary or ancillary powers to the delegated or subordinate authorities to carry out the legislative policy.35 It is now a settled legal principle that the legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions to the delegated authority.36 The legislature can entrust subsidiary or ancillary legislation to the delegate. Before such delegation, the legislature should enunciate the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegated authority.37 As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.38

  • # 28. Although delegated legislation enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, it does not enjoy the same immunity as the parent legislation. It is now well established39 that delegated legislation can be challenged on the following grounds:

(i) lack of legislative competence to make delegated legislation;

(ii) violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution;

(iii) violation of any provision of the Constitution;

(iv) failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act;

(v) repugnance to any other enactment; and

(vi) manifest arbitrariness.

  • # 29. Modern legislation often contains provisions enabling the delegate of the legislature to frame subordinate legislation. The statutory provision for delegation is often couched in general terms empowering the delegate the power to frame rules “to carry out the purposes of this Act” or a particular segment of the statute contained in a Chapter. The general provision is then followed by a provision enumerating specific matters on which the delegate may frame rules. 

  • A similar legislative scheme is reflected in Sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates Act. Where a rule-making power is conferred upon the delegate in general terms, a subsequent enumeration of matters on which the delegate may frame rules is illustrative and does not limit the scope of the general power. The enumerated matters in such a situation provide guidelines for the delegated authority while framing rules in exercise of the general power.

[ Link Synopsis ]

--------------------------------

2). SCI (2006.03.24) in Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala [(2006) 4 SCC 327] held that: 

  •  "# 17. A rule is not only required to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Act where under it is made, but the same must be in conformity with the provisions of any other Act, as a subordinate legislation cannot be violative of any plenary legislation made by the Parliament or the State Legislature.

  • # 37. Furthermore, the terms and conditions which can be imposed by the State for the purpose of parting with its right of exclusive privilege more or less has been exhaustively dealt with in the illustrations in sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the general power to make rules is contained in sub-section (1) of Section 29. The provisions contained in sub-section (2) are illustrative in nature. But, the factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 29 are indicative of the heads under which the statutory framework should ordinarily be worked out. 

  • # 43. The submission of Mr. Iyer that there exists a distinction between carrying out the provisions of the Act and the purpose of the Act, is not relevant for our purpose. The power of delegated legislation cannot be exercised for the purpose of framing a new policy. The power can be exercised only to give effect to the provisions of the Act and not dehors the same. While considering the carrying out of the provisions of the Act, the court must see to it that the rule framed therefore is in conformity with the provisions thereof. 

  • # 46. In Hotel Balaji and Others v. State of A.P. and Others (1993 Supp (4) SCC 536), whereupon Mr. Iyer placed reliance, it is stated: "The necessity and significance of the delegated legislation is well accepted and needs no elaboration at our hands. Even so, it is well to remind ourselves that rules represent subordinate legislation. They cannot travel beyond the purview of the Act. Where the Act says that rules on being made shall be deemed "as if enacted in this Act", the position may be different. (It is not necessary to express any definite opinion on this aspect for the purpose of this case.) But where the Act does not say so, the rules do not become part of the Act."

———--------------------------------

3). SCI (2006.03.24) in State of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. [(2006) SCC 517], ruled that any subordinate legislation or part thereof, which does not conform to the object, scheme and provisions of the parent Act under which it is made, is invalid.

  • # 12. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a sub-ordinate Legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a sub-ordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds :-

  • a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-ordinate legislation.

  • b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

  • c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. 

  • d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.

  • e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment .

  • f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where court might well say that Legislature never intended to give authority to make such Rules). 


The same ratio is held in;

  • I.T.C Bhadrachalam Paper Boards and another vs Mandal Revenue Officer, AP and others (1996) 6 SCC 634,

  • Gupta Modern Breweries vs State of J&K and Others (2007) 6 SCC 317, and

  • Cellular Operators Association of India and others vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Others (2016) 7 SCC 703.

-------------------------------------------------

It is represented on behalf of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that under ‘Delegated Legislation’ could not issue a ‘Notification’ with retrospective effect or to deprive the rights already accrued to the parties at the time of filing of the petition and refers to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions (1) Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta V. ‘W.R. Nath & Ors.’, April 11, 1962, AIR 1963 SC 274 (ii) ‘Bakul Cashew Co. & Ors.’ V. ‘Sales Tax Officer & Anr.’ Quilon, March 12, 1986, 1987 AIR 2239, 1986 SCR (1) 610.

--------------------------------------------------

With regard to the competency of this Tribunal to deal with subordinate/delegated legislation, we must visit the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others (1997) 3 SCC 261 (para 93) to say that Tribunals cannot test the vires of the Parent Legislation, because the Tribunal itself is the creature of the said Statute, but they are competent to test the vires of subordinate/ delegated legislation. We are aware that the source for establishment of Administrative Tribunals has come from Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deriving its strength from Article 323A of Constitution of India. However for this Adjudicating Authority is also a Tribunal akin to any other Tribunal, then this Tribunal is fastened with a duty not to get deviated from implementation of the provisions of the Statute by looking at the Regulations not consistent with the provisions of the Statute.

----------------------------------------------------