In modern legal systems, statutes enacted by the legislature often leave detailed rule-making to the executive. This practice of delegating legislative powers gives rise to delegated or subordinate legislation. While it allows for administrative flexibility, conflicts can sometimes arise between the parent (or enabling) legislation and the rules, regulations, or notifications made under it.
To ensure that such delegated legislation remains within constitutional and statutory bounds, courts have developed specific interpretative techniques. These techniques serve to balance legislative supremacy, executive efficiency, and constitutional accountability.
This essay will discuss the principles and techniques used by Indian courts to resolve conflicts between enabling statutes (parent legislation) and subordinate legislation.
Understanding Delegated Legislation
Delegated legislation refers to laws or rules made by an authority other than the legislature, but under the authority of a statute passed by the legislature. These include:
- Rules
- Regulations
- Orders
- Notifications
- By-laws
Such legislative delegation is necessary in areas requiring technical expertise, flexibility, or swift action. However, all delegated legislation must remain subordinate to the parent Act and within its framework.
When Conflict Arises
A conflict occurs when:
- A delegated rule appears to contradict a provision of the parent Act.
- The subordinate legislation oversteps the scope of the authority granted.
- There is inconsistency or repugnancy between the two.
To address such conflicts, courts use interpretative strategies that uphold the rule of law, legislative intent, and constitutional mandates.
Interpretative Techniques Adopted by Courts
1. Doctrine of Ultra Vires
This is the most fundamental technique. The court examines whether the subordinate legislation is intra vires (within powers) or ultra vires (beyond powers) of the enabling Act.
- Substantive Ultra Vires: When the content of the delegated legislation goes beyond the scope or object of the parent statute.
- Procedural Ultra Vires: When the procedure prescribed in the parent Act for making delegated legislation is not followed.
Example:
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills (1968), the court struck down a tax imposed by delegated legislation that was not authorized by the parent Act.
2. Principle of Harmonious Construction
Wherever possible, courts try to reconcile the provisions of the parent Act and the subordinate legislation so both can co-exist.
- The goal is to harmonize apparent inconsistencies.
- The subordinate legislation is read down or interpreted narrowly to avoid conflict.
Example:
In Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2009), the Supreme Court harmonized rules and statutory provisions to maintain consistency.
3. Presumption in Favour of Constitutionality
Delegated legislation, like statutes, is presumed to be valid and constitutional, unless proven otherwise. Courts begin with the assumption that the rule-maker acted within legal limits.
- However, this presumption can be rebutted by showing unconstitutionality or inconsistency.
4. Test of Consistency with Parent Act
Delegated legislation must not be inconsistent with the substantive provisions or policy of the parent statute.
- If inconsistency is found, the parent Act prevails.
- Courts assess whether the rule is repugnant to the object, scope, or provisions of the enabling statute.
Example:
In General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav (1988), a rule was struck down for being inconsistent with the parent statute.
5. Rule of Reasonableness
Courts assess whether the subordinate legislation is reasonable and non-arbitrary.
- If it imposes disproportionate restrictions, it may be invalid.
- A rule that is excessively burdensome or defeats the object of the statute will not be sustained.
This is aligned with Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 19 (Reasonable restrictions) of the Constitution.
6. Doctrine of Repugnancy
Though primarily used in federal conflicts (between central and state laws), this doctrine is occasionally applied to resolve internal conflicts.
- If a subordinate rule contradicts the Act, it becomes void to the extent of repugnancy.
7. Doctrine of Occupied Field
If the parent statute already fully occupies a field, no further delegated legislation should be made that overlaps or alters the statutory provision.
- This is particularly relevant when multiple authorities are empowered to legislate.
8. Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation
Indian courts have upheld the principle that delegated legislation is subject to judicial review. The scope of review includes:
- Legislative competence
- Violation of fundamental rights
- Violation of procedural requirements
- Manifest arbitrariness or mala fides
In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985), the Supreme Court laid down the grounds for judicial review of delegated legislation.
9. Principle of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
This principle means the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others. If the parent statute explicitly provides certain powers, it implies that other powers were intentionally not granted.
- Courts will not allow subordinate legislation to add to or subtract from the express provisions of the Act.
10. Interpretation in the Light of Legislative Intent
If the intention of the legislature is clear, then subordinate legislation must be interpreted or modified to align with that intent.
- Courts may refer to Objects and Reasons, parliamentary debates, or Law Commission reports to assess legislative purpose.
Judicial Standpoint on Delegated Legislation
Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that delegated legislation cannot override, contradict, or be independent of the parent statute.
In State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006), the Supreme Court held that rules made under an Act must be consistent with the parent statute and are open to challenge on various grounds.
This upholds the hierarchical supremacy of parliamentary legislation and safeguards against executive overreach.
Conclusion
In the Indian legal framework, parent legislation is supreme, and all delegated legislation is subordinate to it. While delegated legislation serves the purpose of administrative efficiency and practical implementation, it cannot go beyond or deviate from the intent, scope, or policy of the parent Act.
To ensure accountability and legal consistency, courts have developed robust interpretative techniques that preserve the legislative intent, protect fundamental rights, and ensure constitutional conformity.
These techniques play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the legal system, checking executive overreach, and ensuring that delegated legislation serves as an aid, not a hindrance, to justice.
Code to Remember
Mnemonic: “HURRICANE COP”
- H – Harmonious Construction
- U – Ultra Vires Doctrine
- R – Reasonableness Test
- R – Repugnancy Doctrine
- I – Interpretation aligned with Legislative Intent
- C – Consistency with Parent Act
- A – Assumption of Constitutionality
- N – Narrow Interpretation
- E – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
- C – Constitutionality Review
- O – Occupied Field Doctrine
- P – Presumption of Validity
