Delegated Legislation

Delegated Legislation

Meaning of Delegated Legislation: 

Legislature can delegate its power to legislation to any subordinate agency. Exercise of legislative power by such subordinate agency is known as delegated legislation.

This subordinate body acquires power from the act of the legislature. Power is transferred from the principal lawmaker to the lower body, which may be the executive, cabinet, council of minister, or a specific administrative agency, by the mechanism of delegation. Generally, delegation refers to the act of entrusting another authority or empowering another to act as an agent or representative.

Necessity of Delegated Legislation

Delegated legislation is necessary in administrative law to allow efficient and specialized implementation of laws by executive bodies, enabling swift action and addressing complex issues without overburdening the legislature. 

Efficiency and Specialization:

Delegated legislation allows the legislature to delegate law-making power to specialized bodies or agencies, like the executive, to address specific issues with expertise and speed. 

Flexibility and Adaptability:

It provides a mechanism for quick responses to evolving circumstances and allows for adjustments to laws without waiting for lengthy parliamentary processes. 

Addressing Complexity:

Complex issues often require detailed regulations that are best handled by experts within specific fields, which delegated legislation facilitates. 

Reducing Legislative Burden:

By delegating some law-making functions, the legislature can focus on broader policy issues and core legislative tasks, rather than getting bogged down in administrative details. 

Expertise and Local Knowledge:

Delegated legislation enables laws to be made by those with the necessary knowledge and experience, such as local authorities enacting regulations specific to their areas. 

Swift Action in Emergencies:

In crisis situations, delegated legislation allows for immediate action without the delay of parliamentary debates and procedures. 

Parliamentary Control over Delegated Legislation

Parliamentary control over delegated legislation ensures the executive doesn't abuse its power by scrutinizing the rules and regulations made under delegated authority, upholding the principles of responsible government and democratic accountability. 

Necessity of Parliamentary Control over Delegated Legislation

Preventing Abuse of Power:

Delegated legislation can be a powerful tool, and without proper oversight, the executive could potentially misuse its delegated authority. 

Maintaining Democratic Accountability:

Parliament, as the elected body, has a responsibility to ensure that the executive acts responsibly and within the bounds of the law. 

Upholding the Separation of Powers:

While the executive carries out the day-to-day functions of government, the legislature retains its ultimate authority to make laws, and this control helps to maintain the separation of powers. 

Mechanisms of Parliamentary Control:

Scrutiny Committees:

Parliament often establishes committees to scrutinize delegated legislation and ensure it is properly exercised. 

Debate on Enabling Acts:

Members of Parliament can debate the necessity, extent, and type of delegation when passing enabling Acts, providing an opportunity for broad oversight. 

Question Hour and Zero Hour:

These parliamentary sessions allow Members of Parliament to question the executive about delegated legislation and hold them accountable. 

Laying of Rules:

Some delegated legislation is required to be "laid" before Parliament, meaning it is formally presented for scrutiny and can be debated or rejected. 

Judicial Review:

Courts can review delegated legislation to ensure it is within the scope of the enabling Act and does not violate the Constitution. 

Public Participation:

Mechanisms for public consultation and participation in the development of delegated legislation can further enhance accountability and transparency. 

Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation,

Judicial control over delegated legislation, exercised through judicial review, ensures that executive authorities stay within the bounds of the enabling act and the constitution, preventing abuse of power and upholding the rule of law. 

Necessity of Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation

Preventing Abuse of Power:

Delegated legislation can be used to create rules and regulations that could potentially infringe upon fundamental rights or be arbitrary. 

Upholding the Rule of Law:

Judicial control ensures that delegated legislation remains within the scope of the enabling act and the constitution, preventing it from becoming an unchecked source of power. 

Judicial Review:

This is the process by which courts can examine the validity of delegated legislation and strike down any that is found to be ultra vires (beyond the scope of the enabling act or the constitution). 

How is Judicial Control Exercised?

Ultra Vires:

Courts can invalidate delegated legislation if it is found to be ultra vires, meaning it goes beyond the powers granted by the enabling act or violates the constitution. 

Substantive Ultra Vires:

This occurs when the delegated legislation is beyond the scope of the enabling act in terms of its subject matter or content. 

Procedural Ultra Vires:

This occurs when the delegated legislation is not made in accordance with the procedures outlined in the enabling act. 

Reasonableness:

Courts can also review delegated legislation for reasonableness, ensuring that it is not arbitrary or disproportionate. 

Fundamental Rights:

Delegated legislation cannot violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. 

Case References

In Re Delhi Laws Act:

The Supreme Court held that the enabling act was ultra vires because it permitted the executive to repeal existing laws, exceeding the constitutional limits. 

Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, P.A. Committee:

The court reviewed the delegation of power to extend an existing act to a municipal area, ensuring that the delegation was within the permissible limits. 

Chandra Bhan's case:

The court held that the delegation of legislation must be reasonable and should not suffer from any unreasonableness.