Remedies Against Unlawful Regulations: Scope

Introduction

A regulation is a rule made by an administrative or statutory authority under powers granted by legislation. Regulations help implement laws, but they must remain within the authority delegated by the legislature and comply with the Constitution. A regulation may be unlawful if it exceeds statutory powers, violates fundamental rights, ignores mandatory procedures, is arbitrary, or conflicts with the parent Act.

In India, the principal remedy is judicial review. Courts examine whether the authority had legal power to make the regulation, followed the required procedure, and acted within constitutional limits. The scope of relief may include striking down the regulation, declaring it inapplicable, quashing an administrative action based on it, or directing the authority to reconsider the matter lawfully.

Case laws

1. State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517
The Supreme Court laid down the principal grounds for challenging subordinate legislation: lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions, inconsistency with the parent statute, conflict with other laws, and manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The Court also held that the validity of a regulation must be tested against the purpose and scheme of the enabling Act. This is the leading authority on remedies against unlawful regulations.

VoxJuris+1

2. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
The Supreme Court held that subordinate legislation is open to judicial review on grounds including constitutional invalidity and inconsistency with the parent statute. The case confirms that delegated rules and regulations do not enjoy the same immunity as primary legislation.

VoxJuris+1

3. Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187
The Court explained that rules made under constitutional or statutory authority must remain within the parent law and conform to the Constitution. Rules may be invalid where they are unreasonable, arbitrary, or unrelated to the purpose for which the power was delegated.

Indian Kanoon+1

Scope of remedies

The principal remedies include:

Writ petition under Article 226: A person affected by an unlawful regulation may approach the High Court for judicial review. The Court may quash the regulation or restrain its unlawful application.

Article 32 petition: Where a regulation violates a fundamental right, a person may approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Declaration of invalidity: A court may declare a regulation ultra vires the parent Act or unconstitutional.

Quashing consequential action: An order, penalty, licence refusal, or other action based on an invalid regulation may also be challenged.

Partial invalidation: If the unlawful part is severable, the court may strike down only that portion and preserve the remainder.

The court generally does not replace the regulator’s policy judgment with its own. Judicial review focuses on legality, constitutional compliance, statutory authority, and manifest arbitrariness—not whether the court would have made a different policy choice.

E-PARLIAMENT+1

Conclusion

The scope of remedies against unlawful regulations in India is broad but governed by judicial-review principles. Articles 226 and 32 provide constitutional routes for challenging unlawful delegated legislation. P. Krishnamurthy supplies the central legal test, while Indian Express Newspapers confirms that subordinate legislation is reviewable. Depending on the defect, courts may invalidate a regulation, limit its operation, or quash actions taken under it.