Rule making functions of Administrative bodies
Rule-Making Functions of Administrative Bodies: Detailed Explanation
1. What is Rule-Making in Administrative Law?
Rule-making (or delegated legislation) is the process by which administrative bodies, empowered by the legislature, formulate rules, regulations, or orders to implement and enforce laws. Since legislatures often cannot specify every detail, they delegate this authority to administrative agencies.
2. Nature and Purpose
Delegated Legislation: It’s law-making by administrative agencies under the authority granted by the parent statute.
Filling in Details: Legislatures set broad policies, while agencies make detailed rules for practical application.
Flexibility and Expertise: Administrative bodies have specialized knowledge and can respond quickly to changing conditions.
Types of Rules:
Rules: General norms applicable to many.
Regulations: More detailed prescriptions.
Orders: Specific commands or prohibitions.
3. Constitutional and Legal Basis
The constitution or enabling legislation delegates legislative powers.
The legislature retains ultimate control through powers like judicial review and legislative veto.
Rules must conform to the constitution and parent statute.
4. Limitations on Rule-Making
No Excess Delegation: The legislature must lay down guidelines for the agency.
Reasonableness and Fairness: Rules must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
Procedural Safeguards: Often require notice and opportunity to be heard before rule-making.
Judicial Review: Courts can strike down rules exceeding delegated powers or violating fundamental rights.
Key Case Laws on Rule-Making Functions
Case 1: A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) – India
Facts: Challenge against a trade union ban imposed by an administrative order.
Held: The Supreme Court stated that administrative authorities exercising rule-making powers must act within the limits of the enabling statute and not violate fundamental rights.
Significance: Established that rule-making powers are subordinate to constitutional safeguards.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – India
Facts: Government rules restricting passport issuance.
Held: Rules made by administrative agencies must comply with Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), including the requirement of reasonableness and fairness.
Significance: Administrative rule-making is subject to constitutional scrutiny for fundamental rights.
Case 3: Shri Ram Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1966) – India
Facts: The issue was about the validity of rules framed under an industrial act.
Held: The Court held that the delegation of legislative power must not be vague and the rule-making authority should follow prescribed procedures.
Significance: This case reinforced the “no delegation without guidelines” principle.
Case 4: K.C. Gandhi v. Union of India (1966) – India
Facts: The government promulgated a notification to suspend a license without following proper procedure.
Held: Such administrative rules or orders must not violate principles of natural justice.
Significance: Rule-making must follow procedural fairness and due process.
Case 5: Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) – India
Facts: The question was about the enforceability of certain rules by the electricity board.
Held: The Court ruled that rules framed by administrative authorities must be consistent with the statute and cannot override the parent Act.
Significance: Limits administrative rule-making within the scope of enabling statute.
Case 6: F.C. Jaina v. Union of India (1974) – India
Facts: Challenge to rules framed for regulation of mines.
Held: The court struck down rules that were ultra vires because they went beyond the powers granted by the enabling act.
Significance: Reinforces the principle of ultra vires (beyond the powers) in administrative rule-making.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| A.K. Roy v. Union of India | Rule-making must respect fundamental rights and limits. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Rules must be reasonable, fair, and constitutional. |
| Shri Ram Mills Ltd. v. Union | No delegation without clear guidelines. |
| K.C. Gandhi v. Union of India | Procedural fairness must be followed in rule-making. |
| Rajasthan Electricity Board | Rules must conform to parent statute, not override it. |
| F.C. Jaina v. Union of India | Rules must not exceed delegated legislative powers. |
Conclusion
Administrative bodies exercise rule-making powers to effectively implement laws. However, these powers are not absolute and are controlled by:
The enabling statute,
Constitutional safeguards,
Principles of natural justice,
Judicial review.
These checks ensure that administrative rule-making promotes lawful, fair, and just governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments