Parliamentary control of delegated legislation
Parliamentary Control of Delegated Legislation
What is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation (also called subordinate or secondary legislation) refers to laws or regulations made by an authority (usually the executive or a specific administrative body) under powers delegated to them by the legislature (Parliament).
Why? Parliament delegates legislative powers to administrative bodies or ministers to handle detailed rules and regulations because Parliament cannot deal with every minor detail.
Why is Parliamentary Control Needed?
Delegated legislation allows efficient law-making but raises concerns:
The executive may misuse delegated powers.
Lack of direct scrutiny as delegated legislation is often not debated as fully as primary legislation.
Safeguarding democracy: Parliament must ensure that delegated laws conform to the parent Act and constitutional norms.
Hence, Parliamentary control is essential to:
Maintain democratic accountability.
Prevent abuse or ultra vires (beyond powers) use.
Ensure transparency and legitimacy.
Types of Parliamentary Control
Enabling/Parent Act Controls: Limits and conditions in the Act authorizing delegated legislation.
Procedural Controls: Prescribed methods for drafting and enacting delegated laws.
Affirmative Resolution Procedure: Delegated legislation becomes law only after explicit parliamentary approval.
Negative Resolution Procedure: Delegated legislation becomes law unless annulled by Parliament within a certain time.
Scrutiny Committees: Parliamentary committees examine and report on delegated legislation.
Judicial Review: Courts review delegated legislation for ultra vires or procedural flaws.
Important Case Laws on Parliamentary Control of Delegated Legislation
1. Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Shanmugam (1959) (India)
Facts: A delegated rule was challenged for being ultra vires (beyond the powers conferred by the parent Act).
Held: Courts emphasized that delegated legislation must strictly adhere to the scope of authority in the parent Act.
Principle: Parliamentary control ensures delegated legislation does not exceed the enabling statute.
2. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) (India)
Context: Although primarily about inheritance rights, this case touched upon the need for clear statutory mandates when laws affect fundamental rights.
Relevance: Parliamentary control requires that delegated legislation not infringe fundamental rights unless explicitly authorized by Parliament.
Lesson: Parliamentary oversight must ensure delegated legislation aligns with constitutional rights.
3. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) (India)
Facts: Delegated legislation relating to defense areas was challenged.
Held: Court ruled that Parliament cannot abdicate its legislative functions to the executive without clear guidance.
Principle: The “principle of non-delegation” mandates that fundamental policy decisions remain with Parliament.
Lesson: Parliamentary control prevents excessive delegation on core legislative policy matters.
4. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) (UK)
Facts: Home Secretary promised to introduce a compensation scheme but failed to implement it.
Held: The Court held that delegated powers must be exercised as per Parliament’s intent.
Relevance: Parliamentary control ensures that delegated legislation or executive promises align with the enabling Act.
5. CIT v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board (1954) (India)
Facts: A regulation made under a delegated power was challenged.
Held: The court ruled that Parliament can delegate powers but must lay down clear principles and policies.
Principle: Parliamentary control requires enabling Acts to provide adequate guidance to delegate authorities.
6. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK)
Facts: Delegated administrative action affected an individual’s rights without following proper procedures.
Held: Courts emphasized the need for procedural fairness in delegated legislation and actions.
Lesson: Parliamentary control ensures delegated legislation respects natural justice.
7. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) (India)
Facts: Delegated legislation was challenged for lacking proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Held: The Court held that there must be effective parliamentary control through affirmative or negative procedures.
Principle: Parliamentary control mechanisms are essential for the validity of delegated legislation.
Detailed Explanation of Selected Cases
Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Shanmugam (1959)
The case emphasized strict adherence to the parent Act.
The Court invalidated delegated rules that extended beyond powers granted.
Parliamentary control through precise enabling provisions is necessary to check executive overreach.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
The Court examined limits on delegation.
Declared that Parliament cannot delegate its essential legislative functions without clear principles.
Ensured Parliament retains control over major policy decisions, delegating only technical or administrative details.
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Highlighted the requirement for the executive to act according to Parliament’s will.
Where delegated legislation is used, it must be consistent with Parliament’s intent and promises.
Courts support parliamentary control by enforcing adherence to enabling statutes.
Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
Addressed procedural fairness within delegated powers.
Confirmed that Parliament’s enabling Acts imply compliance with natural justice.
Parliamentary control includes oversight of procedural safeguards in delegated legislation.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
Reinforced the necessity of parliamentary procedures (affirmative/negative resolutions).
The Court stressed Parliament’s role in scrutinizing and controlling delegated legislation.
Ensured democratic oversight.
Conclusion
Parliamentary control is fundamental to maintaining the balance between efficient governance and democratic accountability.
It involves legal, procedural, and substantive oversight of delegated legislation.
Courts play a vital role by reviewing delegated legislation for ultra vires acts, lack of procedural fairness, and violation of constitutional principles.
Parliamentary control mechanisms—such as affirmative and negative resolutions, scrutiny committees, and judicial review—work together to ensure delegated legislation serves the public interest without executive overreach.
RELATED Blog
0 comments