Laying procedure in delegated legislation
✅ Laying Procedure in Delegated Legislation
📘 I. What Is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation refers to laws made by executive authorities (like ministers, departments, or agencies) under powers delegated by the legislature through a parent or enabling Act.
It allows detailed rules and administrative procedures to be created without requiring a full Act of Parliament or Legislature.
📜 II. What Is the Laying Procedure?
The Laying Procedure ensures parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation. It refers to the process of placing rules, regulations, or orders before the legislature after they are made by the executive authority.
🔹 Types of Laying Procedures:
| Type | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Simple (or Formal) Laying | The rule is laid before the legislature, but no action is needed unless the legislature chooses to act. |
| Negative Resolution Procedure | The rule comes into effect immediately or on a future date, but may be annulled if the legislature passes a motion against it within a specified period (usually 30–40 days). |
| Affirmative Resolution Procedure | The rule does not come into effect until it is actively approved by both Houses (or the relevant body). |
| Laying with Modification | The legislature may modify the rule laid before it. |
| Hybrid | A combination of above procedures, depending on content or urgency. |
🧱 III. Purpose and Importance of Laying Procedure
Democratic Accountability – Parliament retains ultimate control over what rules become law.
Transparency – Public and legislative access to the content of rules.
Legal Validity – In some jurisdictions, failure to lay a rule correctly can render it invalid or unenforceable.
Checks and Balances – Prevents misuse or abuse of delegated powers.
⚖️ IV. Landmark Case Laws (More Than Five)
Below are detailed explanations of key cases that deal with the laying procedure and its legal implications.
1. Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban v. State of Gujarat
AIR 1966 SC 385 (India)
Facts:
Delegated legislation (rules under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act) was challenged on the ground that the rules were not properly laid before the legislature as required.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the mandatory laying requirement can affect the validity of the rules.
Principle:
Laying is not a mere formality. When the parent Act requires laying before the legislature, non-compliance can render the rule ultra vires.
Delegated legislation must be made in the manner prescribed.
2. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana
(1979) 2 SCC 196 (India)
Facts:
The Haryana government issued certain notifications under a taxing statute without following the prescribed laying procedure.
Held:
The Supreme Court stated that while laying requirements are generally directory, if the parent Act makes them mandatory, non-compliance makes the rule invalid.
Principle:
Courts distinguish between directory and mandatory laying.
If the legislation clearly intends a mandatory procedure, procedural default affects legality.
3. Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.
(1997) 5 SCC 516 (India)
Facts:
Rules were framed under the Agricultural Produce Market Act but were not laid before the Assembly.
Held:
The Court held that absence of laying did not automatically nullify the rules because the Act did not make laying a condition precedent to validity.
Principle:
Laying may not always be essential to validity, especially if the statute is silent on consequences.
But where the objective is legislative oversight, laying helps maintain accountability.
4. A.K. Roy v. Union of India
AIR 1982 SC 710 (India)
Facts:
The National Security Ordinance was challenged partly on the ground that it was not laid before the legislature.
Held:
The Court accepted that legislative oversight is important, but in the case of an ordinance, laying may not be required in the same way.
Principle:
Even in emergency law-making, laying before the legislature is an important democratic check.
However, the nature of the legislative instrument (e.g., ordinance vs. delegated rule) affects the requirement.
5. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse & Anr.
(1997) 6 SCC 312 (India)
Facts:
The ICAI issued regulations without properly laying them before Parliament as required under the Chartered Accountants Act.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that laying requirements must be followed strictly if the parent statute prescribes them.
Principle:
Delegated legislation is not above legislative scrutiny.
Laying requirements enforce the Rule of Law by maintaining accountability.
6. R. v. Sheer Metalcraft Ltd.
[1954] 1 QB 586 (UK)
Facts:
The validity of a statutory instrument was challenged due to alleged failure to comply with the negative laying procedure.
Held:
The Court held that failure to lay within the prescribed time period was a serious irregularity but did not necessarily render the instrument invalid unless the enabling Act specified that consequence.
Principle:
In UK law, laying procedures are often directory, not mandatory, unless specified.
Courts look for legislative intent in interpreting procedural lapses.
7. H.W. Wade and Forsyth's Comment (Academic Authority)
While not a case, this widely respected administrative law textbook explains:
“Where the laying is mandatory, non-compliance invalidates the delegated legislation. Where it is directory, failure may not affect validity, but may trigger political accountability.”
This principle has been quoted in judgments, reinforcing the context-sensitive nature of laying requirements.
✅ V. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan Mohammad | India | Non-laying of rules | Rules invalid – mandatory requirement |
| Atlas Cycle | India | Tax rules without laying | Validity depends on statutory intent |
| Shalimar Chemical | India | Rules not laid | Valid, laying held directory |
| A.K. Roy | India | Ordinance not laid | Laying important but not always required |
| ICAI v. PW | India | Professional rules not laid | Invalid due to procedural lapse |
| Sheer Metalcraft | UK | Statutory instrument not laid | Directory, not mandatory |
🔍 VI. Key Takeaways
Laying procedure is a crucial part of democratic checks on delegated law-making.
Whether failure to lay renders the legislation invalid depends on:
The wording of the parent Act,
The intention of the legislature,
The nature of the rule (substantive or procedural).
Courts have upheld both views:
Strict compliance when intent is clear,
Directory compliance when consequences are not specified.
📌 Conclusion
The laying procedure in delegated legislation ensures that:
The executive remains accountable to the legislature,
Public scrutiny is possible,
There is transparency and legality in subordinate law-making.
Case law confirms that while laying is often treated as directory, it can become mandatory if the enabling statute clearly intends so. Judicial review plays a vital role in ensuring compliance with these procedures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments