Content:-
Judicial control of delegated legislation is a critical aspect of maintaining the rule of law. It ensures that the powers conferred upon administrative authorities are exercised within the bounds of the enabling Act and the Constitution.
This control is exercised through judicial review, which can strike down any rule that is ultra vires the enabling Act or the Constitution. In India, judicial review of delegated legislation is subject to the normal rules governing the review of administrative action, with certain exceptions.
Unlike administrative actions, subordinate legislation cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
However, this gap is filled when such legislation is challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness and arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Grounds for Judicial Review
Judicial review of delegated legislation can be invoked on several grounds, including:
Ultra Vires the Constitution: The enabling Act itself may be ultra vires the Constitution if it violates either the implied or express limits of the Constitution. For instance, the legislature cannot delegate its essential power, as established in Re Delhi's case. Additionally, the enabling Act must not violate the scheme of distribution of power given in the Constitution or the provisions of Part III, which encompasses fundamental rights.
Ultra Vires the Enabling Act: Even if the enabling Act is intra vires, the constitutionality of the delegated legislation can still be challenged. In Narendra Kumar v Union of India (AIR 1960 SC 430), the court held that the law cannot be presumed to authorize anything unconstitutional. The case involved a challenge to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, where the court emphasized that delegated legislation must conform to the Constitution.
Substantive Ultra Vires: This occurs when delegated legislation exceeds the scope of authority conferred by the enabling Act or conflicts with the delegating statute. The efficiency of judicial review in such cases depends on the terms in which power is conferred on the executive and the width of substantive statutory provisions. For example, in Dwarka Nath v Municipal Corp. (AIR 1971 SC 1844), the Supreme Court held Rule 32 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as ultra vires because it exceeded the power conferred by the Act. The Act authorized the government to restrict the packing and labeling of any food article to prevent the public from being misled as to the quantity and quality of the article. Rule 32, however, required the name and business address of the manufacturer to be specified on every label, which the court found to be beyond the scope of the enabling Act.
Procedural Ultra Vires: In the making of delegated legislation the authority may be required by statute to follow certain procedures like pre-publication, consultation,publication, laying, etc. Rules become invalid on the ground of noncompliance with the prescribed procedure only if such procedure is mandatory. Non-compliance with the directory provisions does not render them invalid. As the courts would not quash delegated legislation when only directory, procedural norms are ignored by the rule-making authority.
In Raza Buland Sugar Co. case, the Supreme Court spelt out the judicial technique for determining whether a provision was mandatory or directory. The question whether a particular provision of a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision is the determining factor.
The following four tests are important to determine the question of procedural ultra vires: Purpose of the Act; Intention of the legislature to make it (i.e. procedure) directory or mandatory; Inconvenience caused to the parties (e.g. when rules not published in prescribed manner); and, the language of the provision in the Act.
Unreasonableness, Arbitrariness, and Discrimination: Delegated legislation can be challenged if it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or discriminatory, thus violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. For instance, in Air India v Nargesh Meerza (AIR 1981 SC 1829), the court quashed a service regulation that terminated the services of an air hostess on the first pregnancy, deeming it violative of Article 14. The court found the regulation to be discriminatory and arbitrary, as it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the employment of women.
Mala Fide: Administrative rule-making can be challenged on the ground of bad faith or ulterior purpose. For example, the Bombay High Court invalidated a rule under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which required manufacturers of eau de cologne to add a poisonous substance to render the product non-potable, as it was deemed an attempt to enforce prohibition policy under the guise of prescribing standards.
Cases Law on Judicial Control
Several landmark cases illustrate the application of judicial control over delegated legislation:
Dwarka Prasad v State of U.P. (AIR 1954 SC 224): The court held a rule under the U.P. Coal Control Order as ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) because it placed unreasonable restrictions by giving arbitrary powers to the executive in granting exemptions. The rule allowed the State coal controller to exempt any person from the license requirements, which the court found to be an excessive delegation of power and an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Ibrahim v Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1953 SC 79): The court declared rules for fixing bus stand sites as invalid, being in excess of the power conferred by the enabling Act. The enabling Act authorized the agency to make rules for the "control of transport vehicles," but the court found that the rules for fixing bus stand sites went beyond this authorization.
State of Karnataka v Ganesh Kamath (AIR 1983 SC 550): The court struck down Rule 5(2) as being inconsistent with the enabling Act. This rule provided that even though a person has passed the test for driving heavy motor vehicles, he cannot obtain a license unless he had already possessed a license for and had two years' experience driving a medium motor vehicle. The court found this rule to be in direct conflict with Section 7(7)(a) of the enabling Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which provided that a person who passes the test in driving a heavy vehicle is to be deemed also to have passed the test in driving any medium vehicle.
Air India v Nargesh Meerza (AIR 1981 SC 1829): The court quashed a service regulation that was discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The regulation provided for the termination of services of an air hostess on the first pregnancy, which the court found to be an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction on the employment of women.
W.B. State Electricity Board v Desk Bandhu Ghosh (AIR 1985 SC 722): The Supreme Court quashed a regulation that allowed arbitrary termination of services, deeming it unreasonable. Regulation 34 of the W.B.E.B’s Regulations provided that the services of a permanent employee could be terminated by serving three months' notice or on payment of three months' salary in lieu of the notice. The court found this regulation to be arbitrary and an unreasonable exercise of power.
Cases Where Delegated Legislation Was Upheld
Not all challenges to delegated legislation result in invalidation. Some rules have been upheld as intra vires the enabling Act:
L.M. Sundaram v Director of Legal Studies (AIR 1981 Mad. 198): The rules of the Bar Council of India prescribing standards for legal education were upheld. The rules required that for admission to the Bar, a person should have obtained a law degree after undergoing a regular course of three years and should have attended at least 60% of the classes in each subject. The court found that the expression "to lay down standards of such education" in Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, was capable of encompassing every ingredient necessary to constitute the end or ultimate level of education expected of a candidate applying for enrollment as an advocate.
Meenakshi Bhandari v Delhi University (AIR 1983 Del. 104): A rule prescribing percentage marks for admission to a law degree course was upheld. The court found that the Bar Council's power to lay down standards of legal education through rules included the authority to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for admission.
Ajay Canu v Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 156: A rule mandating the compulsory wearing of crash-helmets by drivers of two-wheelers was upheld. The court found that the rule was within the rule-making power delegated by the Motor Vehicles Act, which aimed to ensure the safety of drivers and the public.
Vital Mechanism
Judicial control of delegated legislation is a vital mechanism to ensure that administrative authorities do not exceed their powers and that the rule of law is upheld. Through judicial review, courts can strike down rules that are ultra vires the enabling Act or the Constitution, thereby maintaining a balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional propriety.
This control is exercised on various grounds, including substantive and procedural ultra vires, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, discrimination, and mala fide intentions. The judiciary's role in this regard is indispensable in safeguarding the rights and liberties of individuals against potential overreach by administrative authorities
Significance of Judicial Control
This control is primarily exercised through judicial review, which can invalidate any rule that is ultra vires the enabling Act or the Constitution. In India, judicial review of delegated legislation follows the normal rules governing the review of administrative actions, with some exceptions. Unlike administrative actions, subordinate legislation cannot be challenged on the grounds of violating the principles of natural justice. However, this gap is addressed when such legislation is challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness and arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Ensuring Constitutional Compliance
One of the primary significances of judicial control is to ensure that delegated legislation complies with the Constitution. The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that any delegated legislation does not violate constitutional provisions, including fundamental rights.
For instance, in Narendra Kumar v Union of India (AIR 1960 SC 430), the court held that even if the enabling Act is intra vires, the constitutionality of delegated legislation can still be considered because the law cannot be presumed to authorize anything unconstitutional.
Preventing Abuse of Power
Judicial control prevents the abuse of power by administrative authorities. By reviewing delegated legislation, courts ensure that administrative authorities do not exceed the powers conferred upon them by the enabling Act. This is crucial in maintaining a balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of individual rights.
For example, in Dwarka Prasad v State of U.P. (AIR 1954 SC 224), the court held a rule under the U.P. Coal Control Order as ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) because it placed unreasonable restrictions by giving arbitrary powers to the executive in granting exemptions.
Upholding the Rule of Law
Judicial control upholds the rule of law by ensuring that all actions taken by administrative authorities are within the legal framework. This prevents arbitrary and capricious actions by the executive, thereby protecting the rights and liberties of individuals.
In Air India v Nargesh Meerza (AIR 1981 SC 1829), the court quashed a service regulation that terminated the services of an air hostess on the first pregnancy, deeming it violative of Article 14. The court found the regulation to be discriminatory and arbitrary, as it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the employment of women.
Ensuring Reasonableness and Fairness
Judicial control ensures that delegated legislation is reasonable and fair. Courts review delegated legislation to ensure that it is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. This is particularly important in protecting the rights of individuals against unjust administrative actions.
In W.B. State Electricity Board v Desk Bandhu Ghosh (AIR 1985 SC 722), the Supreme Court quashed a regulation that allowed arbitrary termination of services, deeming it unreasonable. Regulation 34 of the W.B.E.B’s Regulations provided that the services of a permanent employee could be terminated by serving three months' notice or on payment of three months' salary in lieu of the notice. The court found this regulation to be arbitrary and an unreasonable exercise of power.
Maintaining Legislative Intent
Judicial control ensures that delegated legislation aligns with the intent of the legislature. Courts review delegated legislation to ensure that it does not go beyond the scope of the authority conferred by the enabling Act. This maintains the integrity of the legislative process and ensures that administrative authorities do not usurp legislative functions.
In State of Karnataka v Ganesh Kamath (AIR 1983 SC 550), the court struck down Rule 5(2) as being inconsistent with the enabling Act. This rule provided that even though a person has passed the test for driving heavy motor vehicles, he cannot obtain a license unless he had already possessed a license for and had two years' experience driving a medium motor vehicle.
The court found this rule to be in direct conflict with Section 7(7)(a) of the enabling Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which provided that a person who passes the test in driving a heavy vehicle is to be deemed also to have passed the test in driving any medium vehicle.
Protecting Public Interest
Judicial control protects public interest by ensuring that delegated legislation serves the public good and does not harm the interests of the community. Courts review delegated legislation to ensure that it is not enacted for ulterior motives or bad faith. For example, the Bombay High Court invalidated a rule under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which required manufacturers of eau de cologne to add a poisonous substance to render the product non-potable, as it was deemed an attempt to enforce prohibition policy under the guise of prescribing standards.
Comments