Administrative Law
Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation
Apply substantive and procedural ultra vires, constitutional review and the leading grounds for challenging delegated legislation.
The short answer
A court tests whether delegated legislation respects the Constitution, the parent Act, other statutes and mandatory procedure.
The main grounds of challenge
Start with the legal hierarchy: the Constitution controls the parent Act, and both control the delegated instrument.
Constitutional invalidity
A rule may be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights, another constitutional provision or the law-making competence governing its subject.
Substantive ultra vires
The instrument is invalid when its content exceeds the enabling power, conflicts with the parent Act or is repugnant to another binding enactment.
Manifest arbitrariness
A delegated rule lacking a determining principle or showing capricious, irrational operation may fail Article 14 and the standards of its parent law.
Procedural ultra vires
Failure to follow a mandatory condition such as prior publication, consultation, approval or prescribed rule-making procedure can invalidate the instrument.
How a court approaches the rule
Delegated legislation carries a presumption of validity, but it does not enjoy the same breadth of immunity as primary legislation.
Read the enabling section closely
Identify the authorised maker, subject, purpose, conditions, procedure and any express limits. General convenience cannot enlarge the enacted power.
Compare rule with statutory scheme
A rule that defeats, replaces or rewrites the parent Act cannot survive merely because its language appears administratively useful.
Review legality, not wisdom
Courts do not ordinarily choose the best regulatory policy. They ask whether the rule has legal authority and stays within constitutional limits.
Choose the proper relief
The court may quash the whole instrument or a severable part, declare it inapplicable, or require lawful reconsideration, depending on the defect.
Leading cases and what they establish
Read each authority for the proposition it proves, the legal question it answers and the reasoning that supports the result.
State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy
(2006) 4 SCC 517
Facts: Rules regulating quarrying were challenged as exceeding the enabling statute and as being arbitrary and inconsistent with the governing legal scheme.
Legal question: On what grounds can a court invalidate delegated or subordinate legislation?
Held: Subordinate legislation may be challenged for constitutional violation, lack of competence, excess of statutory authority, conflict with other law, manifest arbitrariness and failure of mandatory procedure.
Reasoning: The Court organised the recognised grounds, including constitutional violation, lack of competence, excess of statutory authority, conflict with other law, manifest arbitrariness and failure of mandatory procedure.
Why it matters: Use it as the principal checklist for grounds of judicial review.
Read the judgmentLachmi Narain v. Union of India
(1976) 2 SCC 953
Facts: The Central Government used a statutory power to extend a State taxation law to Delhi with modifications that affected important features of the adopted scheme.
Legal question: Could a power to extend an enactment with restrictions or modifications be used to change its essential character?
Held: The delegate must remain within the affirmative grant and every express condition or restriction attached to the power.
Reasoning: No. The delegate must stay within the grant, and modification language cannot be read to alter the identity, structure or essential purpose of the law.
Why it matters: Use it when a notification claims a broad power to modify the statutory scheme.
Read the judgmentUsing this topic in a legal answer
A clear answer sequence
- Set out the hierarchy of Constitution, parent Act and rule.
- Identify the precise enabling power.
- Classify the defect as constitutional, substantive or procedural.
- Apply the P. Krishnamurthy grounds.
- Address severability and the appropriate remedy.
Points that are often confused
- Challenging a rule only because it seems unwise.
- Using excessive delegation against the rule when the real challenge is to the parent Act.
- Failing to identify the exact enabling provision and alleged excess.
Open the revision and self-check sheet
Rules to retain
- Constitution and parent Act control the rule.
- Content can be substantively ultra vires.
- Mandatory procedure can invalidate.
- Manifest arbitrariness is a recognised ground.
- Courts review legality, not policy preference.
Questions to test understanding
- What is substantive ultra vires?
- Which instrument is attacked for excessive delegation?
- When can only part of a rule be struck down?
Questions students ask
Can delegated legislation violate a Fundamental Right?
No. It is law within Article 13 and remains subject to Fundamental Rights and other constitutional limitations.
Is unreasonableness alone enough to strike down a rule?
The threshold is demanding. The challenge should be tied to manifest arbitrariness, constitutional protection or failure to conform to the purpose and standards of the parent Act.
Primary sources and further reading
- Constitution of India, Legislative Department
- Supreme Court restatement of the P. Krishnamurthy grounds
- Supreme Court discussion of statutory limits in Lachmi Narain
This article is written for legal education. Verify the governing provision, applicable amendments and complete judgment before relying on a proposition in practice.