Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation in India

What Is Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation?

Delegated legislation is law made by an authority other than the legislature under power conferred by a parent Act. It includes rules, regulations, statutory orders, schemes, notifications and bye-laws. Because the delegate derives its authority from statute, courts can test whether the subordinate instrument remains within the legal boundaries fixed by the Constitution and the enabling legislation.

Judicial control is therefore different from legislative control over delegated legislation. Parliamentary scrutiny asks whether the executive has used delegated power appropriately and within the legislature’s expectations. Judicial review asks whether the instrument is legally valid and constitutionally enforceable.

This topic should also be read with our guides on Delegated Legislation in India, Doctrine of Ultra Vires, and Excessive Delegation.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

Articles 32 and 226 preserve constitutional judicial review. When subordinate legislation violates a fundamental right, exceeds the parent Act, conflicts with another statute, ignores a mandatory procedural condition or otherwise transgresses constitutional limits, the Supreme Court or High Courts may test its validity.

The official text of the Constitution is available from the Legislative Department, Government of India.

Delegated legislation stands lower in the normative hierarchy than the Constitution and primary legislation. It cannot override either. That principle reflects the Rule of Law: every public authority must identify a lawful source for its power and remain within the limits of that source.

The Six Grounds in P. Krishnamurthy

State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 is the standard Indian authority for judicial review of subordinate legislation. The Supreme Court stated that there is a presumption in favour of validity and that the burden lies on the challenger, but recognised six principal grounds of invalidity:

Read State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy.

Presumption of Validity and the Challenger’s Burden

Courts do not strike down subordinate legislation merely because another regulatory choice might appear preferable. The instrument carries a presumption of validity. A petitioner must identify a recognisable constitutional or statutory defect.

This is particularly important where the challenge alleges inconsistency with the overall object or scheme of an Act rather than a direct contradiction with a specific section. P. Krishnamurthy directs courts to proceed cautiously in such cases and examine the nature, object and scheme of the parent law, the area delegated and the actual terms of the impugned rule.

Indian Express Newspapers: Subordinate Legislation Has Less Immunity Than an Act

In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641, the Supreme Court explained that subordinate legislation does not enjoy the same degree of immunity as legislation enacted by a competent legislature.

It may be challenged on grounds available against plenary legislation and, additionally, because it does not conform to the statute under which it was made, conflicts with another statute, or is manifestly arbitrary in the special public-law sense applicable to subordinate legislation.

This distinction remains central. A rule-maker cannot claim legislative freedom equivalent to Parliament. The delegate is always tethered to the parent Act.

Read Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

Conflict with the Parent Act

The most common form of judicial control is a parent-Act challenge. The delegate may supplement the statute but cannot supplant it. A rule is vulnerable where it:

• creates a substantive disability not contemplated by the Act;
• removes a statutory right that Parliament preserved;
• adds a qualification or disqualification outside the statutory framework;
• alters the object or scheme of the enactment;
• uses a general rule-making clause to defeat a specific substantive provision;
• purports to enlarge jurisdiction beyond what the Act confers.

The correct method is source-based: identify the enabling provision, interpret the impugned rule, then test whether the rule fits within the scope and purpose of the delegated power.

General Rule-Making Power and Enumerated Heads

Many statutes use a broad clause such as power to make rules “for carrying out the purposes of the Act,” followed by specific subjects introduced with words such as “without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power.”

Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (2024) 13 SCC 241, synthesised the law on this structure. Enumerated heads are ordinarily illustrative where the statute expressly preserves the general power. A rule does not become ultra vires merely because it does not fit neatly within one listed item. The real question is whether it remains ancillary to the Act and advances its statutory purpose.

But general power cannot be used to create substantive rights, obligations or disabilities that the parent Act itself does not contemplate.

Manifest Arbitrariness in Subordinate Legislation

Manifest arbitrariness is not an invitation to ordinary merits review. Courts do not invalidate a rule simply because it is harsh, debatable or administratively imperfect. The standard is substantially higher.

The inquiry asks whether the subordinate instrument is capricious, irrational, without an adequate determining principle, manifestly unjust or oppressive, or so disconnected from the parent statute that the legislature could not reasonably have intended to authorise it.

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113, the Supreme Court clarified that manifest arbitrariness of subordinate legislation must primarily be tested against its conformity with the parent statute. This is an important distinction from judicial review of plenary legislation.

Read Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India.

For the wider administrative-law standard, see our Doctrine of Reasonableness guide.

Cellular Operators Association v. TRAI: A Modern Example of Invalid Regulations

Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI, (2016) 7 SCC 703, is a leading modern example. The Supreme Court struck down the Telecom Consumers Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 concerning compensation for call drops.

The Court held that although TRAI possessed wide regulation-making power, the power had to be exercised consistently with the TRAI Act and in furtherance of its purposes. The impugned regulation disturbed the statutory balance, was manifestly arbitrary, and also failed constitutional scrutiny.

The case is important because it demonstrates that breadth of delegated power does not eliminate judicial control. Even a specialist regulator with broad technical authority must act within the statutory purpose, relevant material and constitutional standards.

Read Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI.

Procedural Invalidity

Delegated legislation may also fail because the authority did not follow a mandatory procedure prescribed by the parent Act. Common procedural requirements include:

• prior publication of draft rules;
• mandatory consultation with a statutory body;
• approval or concurrence of another authority;
• Official Gazette publication;
• prescribed notice periods;
• laying before Parliament or a State Legislature where the statutory scheme makes compliance legally material.

The distinction between mandatory and directory procedure depends upon statutory text, purpose and consequence. A procedural requirement specifically made a condition of legal operation cannot ordinarily be treated as optional.

This is one reason why laying before Parliament and Gazette publication must be analysed separately.

2026 Supreme Court: Viraj Impex and Mandatory Publication

Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 80, provides a current illustration of procedural control. Where the parent statute prescribed publication in the Official Gazette, the executive could not substitute another mode and treat the subordinate measure as legally operative earlier than the prescribed statutory publication.

The case reinforces a straightforward proposition: when Parliament prescribes the legal mode by which delegated law must be brought into force, the delegate must comply with that mode. Administrative convenience cannot replace statutory procedure.

2026 Supreme Court: Ram Chandra Choudhary and the Structured Test

Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., 2026 INSC 347, decided on 10 April 2026, is an important current restatement of judicial review of subordinate legislation.

The Supreme Court applied P. Krishnamurthy and relied upon the structured principles stated in Naresh Chandra Agrawal. It emphasised that the reviewing court should identify the source of power, determine the meaning of the subordinate legislation, and then decide whether the instrument is consistent with and within the scope of the delegated authority.

The Court upheld the impugned co-operative bye-laws because their source was traceable to the Act and Schedule, they supplemented rather than supplanted the statutory framework, and they advanced the purpose of the enactment. The excessive-delegation challenge also failed because statutory policy and oversight were sufficiently structured.

Read Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., 2026 INSC 347.

Invalid Sub-Delegation as a Judicial Review Ground

A rule or order may also be invalid because the person or authority making it lacked power to do so. If the legislature delegated power to Authority A, Authority A cannot ordinarily transfer the law-making function to Authority B unless the statute expressly or impliedly permits further delegation.

This is analysed separately in our article on Sub-Delegation in Administrative Law.

Fundamental Rights Review

Subordinate legislation must independently satisfy fundamental-rights scrutiny. A rule validly made within the parent Act can still be unconstitutional if it violates Article 14, imposes an unreasonable restriction under Article 19, infringes Article 21, discriminates impermissibly or conflicts with another protected constitutional guarantee.

This means two inquiries should be kept separate:

• statutory vires: did the delegate remain within the Act?
• constitutional vires: even if within the Act, is the rule consistent with the Constitution?

A practitioner should plead both distinctly where facts support both grounds.

Conflict with Another Statute

Subordinate legislation must yield not only to its parent Act but also to other binding primary legislation. A rule-maker cannot use delegated power under one enactment to nullify, contradict or override another Act unless the constitutional and statutory scheme clearly permits such operation.

This hierarchy is central to Indian Express Newspapers and P. Krishnamurthy: subordinate legislation remains subordinate to plenary law.

Severability and Reading Down

A successful challenge does not always require the entire rule or regulation to disappear. Courts may preserve valid portions where the invalid part is severable and the remainder can function consistently with legislative intent.

P. Krishnamurthy recognises that a partially invalid rule may be saved to the extent the valid portion is severable. Courts may also read down language where a narrower construction keeps the instrument within the parent Act or the Constitution without effectively rewriting the law.

Reading down has limits. A court cannot manufacture an entirely new rule or repair a delegation that lacks any statutory foundation.

Legislative Decisions vs Administrative Decisions

Judicial review of subordinate legislation is not identical to review of an individual administrative order. Requirements such as personal hearing, reasons and natural justice do not automatically attach in the same manner to a generally applicable legislative instrument.

However, where the parent statute itself prescribes consultation, publication or another procedural safeguard, failure to comply can make the delegated legislation procedurally ultra vires. The legal source of the procedure matters more than labels.

A Ten-Step Test for Challenging Delegated Legislation

How to Plead the Challenge under Article 226

A strong writ petition should avoid vague assertions that a rule is “arbitrary” or “beyond power.” It should connect each pleaded defect to the statutory architecture.

1. set out the impugned provision verbatim;
2. quote the enabling section and any general or specific rule-making heads;
3. identify the statutory object and substantive provision allegedly contradicted;
4. state whether the challenge is substantive ultra vires, procedural ultra vires, constitutional invalidity, repugnancy or manifest arbitrariness;
5. show how the delegate crossed the statutory boundary;
6. identify mandatory procedural non-compliance with dates and documents;
7. separately plead the fundamental-right violation where applicable;
8. deal with the presumption of validity and explain why the threshold for interference is met;
9. address severability and the appropriate relief;
10. annex the parent Act, Gazette instrument, amendments, relevant records and prior versions.

For writ-jurisdiction strategy, see our Article 226 Writ Petition in India pillar.

Leading Supreme Court Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

Can delegated legislation be challenged under Article 226?

Yes. A High Court may review subordinate legislation for constitutional invalidity, ultra vires, repugnancy, mandatory procedural breach and other settled grounds.

What is the leading case on judicial review of subordinate legislation?

State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517, is the standard authority setting out six principal grounds of challenge.

Can a rule be struck down merely because it appears unreasonable?

No. For subordinate legislation, the recognised arbitrariness standard is manifest arbitrariness or exceptional unreasonableness, not ordinary disagreement with policy.

Can a rule create rights or disabilities not found in the Act?

A general rule-making power is ancillary. It cannot ordinarily be used to create substantive rights, obligations or disabilities outside the statutory framework.

Does parliamentary laying make a rule immune from challenge?

No. Legislative scrutiny and judicial review are complementary. A rule laid before Parliament may still be invalid if unconstitutional or ultra vires.

Can only part of a rule be struck down?

Yes, where the invalid portion is severable and the remainder can operate consistently with legislative intention.

What is the recent Supreme Court position?

Ram Chandra Choudhary, 2026 INSC 347, reaffirmed the structured ultra vires method: locate the source of power, interpret the subordinate instrument, and test whether it conforms to the parent Act’s text, object and scheme.

Related Fastrack Legal Solutions Guides

Authoritative Outbound Sources

• Constitution of India — Legislative Department
• India Code — Central Acts and Rules
• State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy — Supreme Court
• Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — Supreme Court
• Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI — Supreme Court
• Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., 2026 INSC 347 — Supreme Court

Conclusion

Judicial control of delegated legislation is ultimately an exercise in legal hierarchy. A rule-maker has no free-standing legislative sovereignty. Every subordinate instrument must remain traceable to the parent statute, comply with mandatory procedure, respect other primary legislation and satisfy the Constitution.

The most effective judicial-review method is disciplined and source-based: locate the enabling power, identify the rule’s true legal effect, compare it with the text, object and scheme of the Act, test statutory procedure, then separately apply constitutional scrutiny. P. Krishnamurthy supplies the six-ground framework; Indian Express, Cellular Operators, Association for Democratic Reforms, Naresh Chandra Agrawal and the 2026 decision in Ram Chandra Choudhary show how that framework operates in modern public law.