Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

Administrative Law
Project
ON-
“Retrospective Operation of
Delegated Legislation”
--SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE PROJECT--

SUBMITTED TO:-
Mr..Girish R.,
FACUTLY FOR Administrative Law,
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Gujarat National Law University Page 1

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

SUBMITTED BY:-
Prateeti Gaur
IV Semester, 09B085
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.),
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to thank a few people without whose help this project
would not have been completed. With immense pleasure I express my
special and sincere thanks to our Administrative Law professor Mr. Girish R,
without whose help the completion of this project would have been a dream for
us.

I am also thankful to the University for providing us an opportunity to work on

this project.

I am also thankful to all our friends who provided us support throughout the
completion of this project. Without their valuable support, I would never have
been able to get ahead in our project.

I would like to thank all those people who had been of great help for us.

Last but not the least; I am thankful to the almighty and my parents for their
blessings and never ending support.

I am grateful to all of you, THANK YOU.

THANKING ONE AND ALL,

PRATEETI GAUR

09B085

Gujarat National Law University Page 2

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Research methodology

Aims and Objectives :-

To make a study of and analyze the control of delegated legislation through
judicial control.

Methodology: -
The sources for this paper are the books, journals, reporters available in the
Gujarat National Law University library. The online libraries and resources from
the internet have also been used. Hence the research is doctrinal in nature.

Gujarat National Law University Page 3

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

List of abbreviations

• AC -Appeal Case
• ACJ –American Communication Journal

• AIR - All India Reporter

• ALL ER- All England Law Reports

• Art- Article

• Ch- Chapter

• Co.-Company

• Corp.-Corporation

• Edn-Edition

• Hon’ble-Honourable

• HL-House of Lords

• M.P.-Madhya Pradesh
• Maha- Maharashtra
• Para- paragraph
• SC-Supreme Court

• SCC-Supreme Court Cases

Gujarat National Law University Page 4

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

• SCR- Supreme Court

LIST OF CASES

• Hukam chand v. union of india AIR 1972 SC 2427

• Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit, 2006 9 SCC 90

• Baku Cashew Co. v. S.T. Officer, quilon, AIR 1987 SCC 2239

• Income tax officer v. M.C. Ponnoose

• Gurucharan Singh v. State AIR 1974 SC 385

• A.V Nachane v. Union Of India AIR 1982 SC 1126

• Mathra Pd. & sons v. State of Punjab (1962) 13 STC 180 (SC)

• T.K. Musaliar v. M.V. Potti AIR 1956 SC 246

Gujarat National Law University Page 5

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Table of contents

• Delegated legislation
• Need for delegated legislation
• Reasons for control over delegated legislation
• Retrospective rules
• Case laws on retrospective operation
• Retrospective effect with reference to constitutional
law
• Principle of ultra vires
• Constitutionality of delegated legislation
• Conclusion

Gujarat National Law University Page 6

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION :
‘Delegated Legislation’ means the exercise of legislative power by an
agency which is subordinate to the legislature. It is a bureaucratic
legislation. It involves transfer of legislative power from the legislature to
the executive. The democratic safeguards that apply to a legislature are
absent in case of the delegated legislation. Hence, some controls and
safeguards are needed in that area.

Delegated (or secondary) legislation is law made by ministers under

powers given to them by parliamentary acts (primary legislation) in order
to implement and administer the requirements of the acts. It has equal
effect in law although ministers can be challenged in the courts on the
grounds that specific pieces of delegated legislation are not properly
based on powers given by acts. In the United Kingdom, delegated
legislation, typically, is made through the force of statutory instruments in
the form of ministerial regulations, orders in council, and codes of
practice. The amount and scope of delegated legislation has grown as a
result of the increasing pressure on parliamentary time.

Gujarat National Law University Page 7

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Statutes are legislation made by Parliament, and need the consent of the
House of Commons and the HL, as well as the Monarch before they
become law. Before Bills are introduced into Parliament they will go
through a green and white paper process, allowing for public consultation.
The parliamentary debates on proposed legislation will also be made
public, allowing the parliamentary law-making process to appear open
and clear. The House of Commons can be considered to have the most
influence over legislation, since the House of Lords cannot veto a Bill, but
simply make amendments and slow the process, as the House of
Commons can send a Bill, without agreement from the House of Lords, for
Royal Assent after a year. The House of Commons is also democratically
elected, and as such its influence can be seen as fair and democratic,
allowing those voted for by the public to have the most power over
legislation. Parliament initially has the ability to limit the powers of bodies
and individuals creating delegated legislation, and set down procedure to
be followed in their creation; and if those creating the delegated
legislation do go beyond their powers, then the legislation will be void.
Effective check on delegated legislation is the Joint Select Committee on
Statutory Instruments, or the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee reviews all statutory instruments and draws the attention of
parliament to certain points, if the statutory instrument; imposes a tax, is
made under an Act which states it cannot be challenged in court, is
designed to have retrospective effect, may be beyond powers or an
unusual use of them, or is badly drafted or in need of clarification.

Delegated legislation has been imposed with certain restrictions to avoid

any kind of arbitrariness. The retrospective operation of delegated
legislation is a power given to the executive with certain implied
restrictions. Any power given to the executive if considered by the court
to be ultra vires can be declared ultra vires and struck down. This project
deals with the meaning of delegated legislation, its need and reasons to
put control over it. The power of making retrospective rules and also the
implied restrictions on the same has been dealt with the help of case
laws.

Gujarat National Law University Page 8

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Delegated legislation is not created by Parliament; instead it is the

responsibility of other bodies, which have been given their power by
Parliament. There are three types of delegated legislation; statutory
instruments, which are laws made by government departments, bye-laws,
which are laws made by local authorities, or public corporations, and
orders in Council, which are made by the government in times of
emergency. Delegated legislation is considered necessary for a number of
reasons; one is that Parliament does not have the time available to
debate all of the laws necessary, and as such other bodies are needed to
make rules, and do so much faster than Parliament, therefore delegated
legislation is often used for emergency and urgent problems where
legislation is needed quickly and would take too long through Parliament.
Another factor to consider is that some areas of legislation require
technical knowledge, such as building regulations, and Parliament would
not have the expertise to create the necessary legislation; this is similar
for local bye-laws, on issues such as traffic control, which require specific
local knowledge. Finally statutes passed by Parliament may cause
problems and queries, and delegated legislation could be used to provide
specific details not included within the Act.

Gujarat National Law University Page 9

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

NEED FOR DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Delegated legislation is necessary for a number of reasons: parliament

does not have time to contemplate and debate every small detail of
complex regulations, as it only has a limited amount of time to pass
legislation, delegating legislation will allow however thoroughly debated
regulations to pass through as well as saving parliamentary time.

Delegating legislation allows law to be made more quickly than

parliament, which is vital for times of emergency. Parliament takes longer
as it does not sit all the time and its procedures is generally quite slow
and complex due to the several stages each bill has to pass through.
Delegated legislation can also be amended or revoked relatively easily, so
that the law can be kept up to date and so that the law can meet future
needs that arise such as areas concerning welfare benefits, illustrating a
great deal of flexibility in the system. Otherwise statutes can only be
amended or revoked by another complicated and time-consuming statute.

MPs do not usually have the technical knowledge/expertise required in for

example drawing up laws on controlling technology, ensuring
environmental safety, and dealing with different industrial problems or
operating complex taxation schemes whereas delegated legislation can
use experts who are familiar with the relevant areas. Jacqueline Martin
has suggested instead for parliament to debate the main principles
thoroughly, but leave the detail to be filled in by those who have expert
knowledge of it.

Another argument for the need of delegated legislation is that parliament

may not always be the best institution to recognize and deal with the
needs of local people. As a result local people elect councilors from
certain districts and it is their responsibility to pass legislation in the form
of by-laws to satisfy local needs.

Gujarat National Law University Page 10

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Reasons for Controls over delegated legislation

There are many important reasons why it is necessary to have controls

over delegated legislation. Currently delegated legislation is made by non-
elected bodies away from democratically elected politicians (parliament) ,
as a result many people have the power to pass delegated legislation,
which provides a necessity for control, as without controls bodies would
pass outrageous unreasonable legislation which was attempted in the
past; in the Strictland V Hayes Borough Council (1986) where a bylaw
prohibiting the singing or reciting of any obscene language generally, was
held to be unreasonable and as a result the passing of this delegated
legislation was rejected. As delegated legislation is not made by
Parliament, and therefore not those democratically elected by the public
to be responsible for legislation, apart from delegated legislation created
by elected local authorities, it is important to have sufficient controls.
Sub-delegation is a problem with delegated legislation, as the creation of
the legislation is delegated further, such as by a government minister,
who was originally given the power to make delegated legislation by the
enabling act, to civil servants within the department. This means power is
taken even further from those elected and continues to make delegated
legislation appear undemocratic and in need of strict controls.

Another point to consider is that delegated legislation is generally made

privately, rather than being debated as parliamentary legislation is, and
thus, although the enabling act may require some public consultation,
delegated legislation could be seen as much less open and publicised
than statutes. Also, although delegated legislation is published, the vast
quantities produced and complex wording mean delegated legislation is
criticised for being difficult for people to fully understand, and therefore
may not be very open to public scrutiny or involvement in its creation.

Thus the main reason that controls over delegated legislation are
necessary is because it is not created by Parliament, and often not even

Gujarat National Law University Page 11

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

those given the responsibility by Parliament, but is further sub-delegated.

This means that the public are not able to elect those making legislation,
as they are with Parliament, and thus those making delegated legislation
are not accountable to the people, so delegated legislation can seem
undemocratic and a particular problem if it is used for more important
policies, and not simply administrative rules.

Below I describe cases where controls over delegated legislation have

been essential in order to avoid authorities abusing there powers, the
particular cases are: R v Secretary of State for Education and
Employment, ex parte National Union of Teachers (2000) and
Commissioners of Custom and Excise v Cure and Deely Ltd (1962).

Another issue which occurs making controls over delegated legislation

vital is sub legislation, which is where law making is handed down another
level to people other than those who were given the original power to do
so, to implement important policies. Creating criticism that our law is
made by civil servants (who may know hardly anything about the law) and
just a rubber stamped by the Minister of that apartment, this requires law
passed by these civil servants to be checked by the scrutiny committee of
parliament or the courts.

Finally delegated legislation can share the same issues as Acts of

Parliament such as obscure wording that can lead to difficulty in
understanding the law, which again makes controls necessary as
parliament or the courts can stop unclear legislation, which will affect the
lives of hundreds of people from passing.

The most common reason for objecting delegated legislation in the courts
is due to ultra vires- where legislation goes beyond its power that
parliament granted under the enabling Act, whilst the validity of statute
can never be challenged by the courts due to parliamentary sovereignty.

Procedural ultra vires occurs when procedures under the enabling act
have failed to be followed and refers mainly to the situation where a
public authority has over stepped its powers. An example of ultra vires

Gujarat National Law University Page 12

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

occurred in R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex

parte National Union of Teachers (2000) a High Court judge ruled that a
statutory instrument setting conditions for appraisal and access to higher
of pay for teachers was beyond the powers given under the Education Act
1996 as a result the statutory instrument was declared void. This case
demonstrated a clear example of where delegated legislation can lead to
abuse of powers and why it is necessary to have controls over delegated
legislation.

The problem with enabling Acts is that it provides Ministers with high
discretionary powers as a result Elliott and Quinn demonstrate a phrase
such as the minister may make such regulations as he sees fit for the
purpose of bringing the Act into operation to be quite common; this
means it is rare for anything to lead to ultra vires leaving judicial review
effectively frustrated (Elliott and Quinn).

Under the principle of substantive ultra vires, the courts are able to
intervene to prevent or remedy an abuse of power by public authorities.
This occurred in the Commissioners of Custom and Excise V Cure and
Deely Ltd (1962), where the power of the commissioners to make
delegated legislation under the Finance Act 1940 was challenged. Under
this Act the commissioners determined the amount of tax due where a tax
return was submitted late however the High Court invalidated this and
argued that the commissioners had given themselves powers far beyond
what parliament had empowered, there job was to only collect the
amount of tax due. This is another case whether it has been clearly
demonstrated without controls many authorities will abuse the powers
ultra vires and again demonstrates why it is necessary to have control
over delegated legislation. In this demonstration control by the courts has
proved to be highly effective.

Gujarat National Law University Page 13

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

RETROSPECTIVE RULES
Legislature may enact laws with retrospective effect but a delegate
cannot exercise a similar power and give retrospectivity to the rules made
by it unless the parent statute gives it a power to do so either expressly
or by necessary implication. In other words we can say that a general
power to make laws for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the
act, does not entitle the government to make rules.1

Moreover in the Ashok Lanka case, it was held that ordinarily, a

subordinate legislation cannot be given retrospective effect but a
clarificatory notification can be given retrospective effect.2

Also while referring to another case the Supreme Court commented

that “an authority which has the power to make subordinate legislation

1
Hukam chand v. union of india AIR 1972 SC 2427
2
Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit, 2006 9 SCC 90

Gujarat National Law University Page 14

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

cannot make it with retrospective effect unless it is so authorized by the

legislature which has conferred the power on it”3.

The main intention lying behind the preposition is that retrospective

rule may prejudicially effect vested rights and so it is proper that only the
Legislature, and not its delegate, makes retrospective rules. And in
accordance to this, the courts declare retrospective rules invalid unless
the authority making them has power to do so under the parent statute.

“An authority which has the power to make subordinate legislation

cannot make it with retrospective effect unless it is so authorized by the
Legislature which has conferred that power on it.”

There are plenty of examples in which the court has accepted the above
proposition, a few of them are cited below

i) In Hukam Chand4 case the court said that “The government

cannot amend the rules with retrospective effect if no such
power has been specifically given by the parent statute.

ii) In Income tax officer v. M.C. Ponnoose case, a notification

issued by the government investing tehsildar with the powers to
tax recovery with retrospective effect was held invalid the court
said that the parent statute gave no power to the government to
make rules with retrospective effect.

iii) Further in Gurucharan Singh v. State5, a legislative order having

been held invald, a fresh order was issued. A clause in the new
order stated that anything done or action taken under the old
order should be deemed to have been taken under the new
order. The court declared the clause invalid on the ground of
retrospectivity.

3
Baku Cashew Co. v. S.T. Officer, quilon, AIR 1987 SCC 2239
4
Ibid
5
AIR 1974 SC 385

Gujarat National Law University Page 15

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

iv) In A.V Nachane v. Union Of India,6 it was held that retrospective

amendment of the rules cannot nullify the effect of the writ
issued but the court earlier on the subject. These rules will
operate prospectively only as far as that judgment was
concerned.

The Supreme court in this regard has explained that the Court disfavor
retrospective operation of laws because it disfavors retroactive operation
of law because it may prejudicially affect vested rights. There could be no
objection to the notification fixing the date of commencement of the act
after its enactment but from a date earlier than the date of notification.
The act as such has not been given a retrospective operation. There is no
question of affecting any vested rights.

The supreme court as clearly mentioned in most of the cases that;

“the rules operate prospectively. Retrospective statute permits

framing of rules with retrospective effect, the exercise of power must not
operate discriminately or in violation of any constitutional rights so as to
affect vested rights.”

We may even see a few cases wherein the courts have relaxed the
rule against retrospectivity of rules, mainly because it was against the
interest of the affected person.

For example in Mathra Pd. & sons v. State of Punjab7, when the
Government issued a notification exempting a commodity from sales tax
in the middle of the financial year, but failed to specify the date from
which the notification was to be operative, the Supreme Court ruled that it
would be operative from the beginning of the financial year. The reason
given in this context by the Supreme Court was that the sales tax was a
yearly tax under the law and it was made payable on the annual taxable

6
AIR 1982 SC 1126
7
(1962) 13 STC 180 (SC)

Gujarat National Law University Page 16

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

turnover of a dealer. Hence the exemption from tax must operate for the
whole year in the absence of any clear indication to the contrary. This
interpretation obviously confers a benefit on the taxpayers.

Further in T.K. Musaliar v. M.V. Potti 8 The Supreme Court upheld

a notification dated July 26, 1949 bringing an Act enacted on July 1. 1949,
into force from July 22, 1949, on the ground that the date fixed for the
operation of the Act was subsequent to the date of its enactment.

Retrospective Rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution

Under Art. 309 of the constitution, Government can make service

rules for Government servants. The rulemaking power conferred by Art.
309 has been helt to be broad enough to permit making of rules with
retrospective effect. Thus, service rules can be made under Art. 309 with
retrospective effect. A constitution bench ok Supreme Court in B.S.
Vadera v. Union of India9 held that rules made under proviso to article 309
of the constitution of India are legislative in character and therefore could
be made with retrospective effect. The same principle was reiterated in
many other decisions

Art. 309 in the first instance, confers powers on the legislature to

enact legislation to regulate and define service conditions of Government
employees. Failing the enactment of such a law, the Government is
authorized to make rules for the purpose. Therefore the courts have taken
the view that the Government made rules fill a “hitus” until the legislature
legislated, and the rule making power is co-existed with the legislative
powers. And since a legislature can enact with retrospective effect, so can
the Government make service rules with retrospective effect. But
retrospective rules made under Art. 309 cannot contravene Art. 14, 16 or

8
AIR 1956 SC 246
9
AIR 1969 SC 118

Gujarat National Law University Page 17

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

31 of the Constitution. Such rules cannot affect vested rights of an

employee.

Firther in State of Andhra Pradesh v. D.J. Rao10, a service rule made

under Art. 309, gave power to the governor to relax the rigour of the
general rules in such a manner as may appear to him to be just and
equitable. The Supreme Court interpreted this rule as authorizing the
governor to make provisions with retrospective effect. The court argued
that the power was to be exercised in the interest of justice and equity.
When some injustice comes to the notice of the Government, justice may
have to be done by exercising the power with retrospective effect,
otherwise the object and purpose of the rule in question will be largely
frustrated.

The government power to make retrospective service rules has

been in practice not been exercised with caution and circumspection. In
some States, service rules have become a plaything in the hands of the
government as rules are changed with every change in Government,
sometimes with long retrospective effect, to benefit some specific
individuals.

To curb such a tendency, the court has ruled that retrospective

operation of a rule will be struck down if there exists no reasonable nexus
between the concerned rule and its retrospectivity. Such a nexus may be
shown either from the face of the rule or by extrinsic evidence. In
B.S.Yadav v.State of Haryana11 case, the court refused retrospective
operation of the concerned rule as it found no nexus between the rule and
its retrospectivity. This is a new principle evolved by the court to test the
validity of retrospective rules.

But the date from which the rules are made to operate must be
shown to bear, either from the face of the rules or by extrinsic evidence,
10
AIR 1977 SC 451
11
AIR 1981 SC 561

Gujarat National Law University Page 18

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules, especially

when the retrospective effect extends over a long period.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that retrospective rules ought not
to operate criminately or in violation of any constitutional right so as to
affect vested rights. For example as held in K. Narayanan v. State of
Karnataka12 a service rule made in 1985 was given effect to from 1976.
The rule was quashed as it operated viciously against the existing
personnel. The court said that, there is no nexus between framing a rule,
and making it retrospective with effect from 1976. The retrospective
operation of the impugned rule attempts to disturb a system which has
been existing for more than twenty years. And that too without any
rationale. Absence of nexus apart, no rule can be made retrospectively to
operate unjustly and unfairly against other.

A retrospective rule can be challenged under Art. 14 and 16

of the constitution if it adversely affects vested rights and is
discriminatory.

Art. 309 envisages legislation by the legislature as regards service

mattes, Government’s rule making power is transient in nature. But it is
surprising that even though over fifteen years have passed by since the
Constitution became operative, service mtters continue to be governed by
rules. The reason is that no Government wants to give up its large
leverage over its employees. In Yadav case, the Supreme Court advised
the government against making retrospective service rules as it causes
frustration, discontent and demoralization among civil servants by
falsifying the just expectations of the officers.

12
AIR 1994 SC 55

Gujarat National Law University Page 19

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Art. 148(5) of the constitution also gives rule-making pwer to prescribe

conditions of service of persons serving in the Audit and Account
Department. Subject to any law made by Parliament, service rules can be
made by the president in consultation with the Compeller and Auditor-
General. Because of the phraseology of Art. 148(5) being different from
Art. 309, Art 148(5) has been interpreted as not authorizing making of
retrospective rules.

Doctrine of Ultra Vires

The validity of delegated legislation may be adjudged by the courts on the

ground whether it is ultra vires or intra vires the parent act. the doctrine of ultra
vires is the basic doctrine in administrative law. The doctrine envisages that an
authority can exercise only so much power as is conferred by law.

An action of a n authority is intra vires when it falls within the parameters of the
power conferred on it, but ultra vires when it goes outside those limits.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Renusagar13, the SC held that “if the exercise of
power is in the nature of subordinate legislation, the exercise must conform to
the provisions of the statute. All the conditions of the statute must be fulfilled.

The doctrine of ultra vires is concerned with the question : is the rule challenged
within the scope of the authority conferred on the rule maker by the parent
statute. The court does not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of
the rules. It is for the rule maker to decide, as a matter of policy, how to
implement the provisions of the statute and what measures to take efficaciously
achieve the objects and purposes of the act. it is not for the courts to examine
the merits or demerits of such a policy.

Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

The courts may be asked to consider the constitutionality of delegated legislation itself. The
emanating delegated legislation may be in conflict with some provision of the constitution.

13
AIR 1988 SC 1737, para 75 : (1988) 4 SCC 59

Gujarat National Law University Page 20

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

In Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narayan v. State of Uttar Pradesh14, a few provisions of the U.P.
Coal Control Order, 1953 made under s. 3(2) of the essential supplies act, 1946 were
declared ultra vires as infringing article art. 19(1)(g), a fundamental right guaranteed by the
constitution.

In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India15, the Supreme Court specifically considered the point
whether the question of unconstitutionality of delegated legislation made under a valid act
could be raised or not. The Non Ferrous Metal Order, 1958 was made under the essential
commodities act, 1955.

In an earlier case16, the validity of the essential commodities act had been upheld. The
question in Narendra now was whether the constitutional validity of the order made under the
act could be canvassed under art. 19(1)(g). The court held that though a law may not be
unconstitutional, an order made there under may yet be challenged under the constitution,
because the law could not be presumed to authorize anything unconstitutional.

In Air India v. Nargheesh Mirza17, the Supreme Court declared certain regulations
pertaining to the conditions of service of air hostesses in Air India., an undertaking of the
central government18, as discriminatory under article 14 of the constitution.

The courts may be asked to consider the question of constitutionality of delegated legislation
itself. The parent statute may be constitutional, but the delegated legislation emanating there
under may be in conflict with some provision of the constitution. The delegated legislation
will be invalid in that case and the frame of reference to assess the validity of delegated
legislation is the constitution.

Art.14 guarantees ‘equal protection of the laws’ and ‘equality before the law’. It has emerged
to be the most potent constitutional provision to control rule making. Delegated legislation
has been declared invalid in a number of cases under art.14 on such grounds as being

14
AIR 1954 SC 224, Para 8 : 1954 SCR 803

15
AIR 1960 SC 430 : (1960) 2 SCR 375

16
Hari Shankar Bagla v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 465 : (1955) 1 SCR 380, Jain Cases, Ch. III, 56.
17
AIR 1981 SC 1829, para 37 : (1981) 4 SCC
18
On public sector undertakings AIR 1981 SC 1829, para 37 : (1981) 4 SCC

Gujarat National Law University Page 21

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

arbitrary, or discriminatory or on the ground of unreasonableness19. A rule vesting unguided

and uncontrolled discretion in the government to retire any government servant at any time
after completing 30 years of service was held invalid and, thus, was “capable of being used
arbitrarily and with an uneven hand20.”

Conclusion
19
Raj Pal Sharma v. Haryana, AIR 1985 Sc 1263; Nidmarti v. State of maha., (1986) 2 SCC 534
20
Senior Supt. Of post office v. izhaar hussain, AIR 1989 SC 2262; jain, cases, 432

Gujarat National Law University Page 22

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Delegated legislation has become a part of modern administrative process. The

question no longer arises as to whether delegated legislation is desirable or not
but what controls and safeguards ca and ought to be introduced so that the rule
making power conferred on the administration is not misused or misapplied.
Delegated legislation is purely a bureaucratic legislation. It involves the transfer
of legislative power from the legislature to the administration. The normal
democratic safeguards which usually operate in case of legislation by a
representative legislature are absent. Therefore, it is necessary to have an
effective control mechanism so that the benefits and advantages of the
institution of delegated legislation are minimized. Framing of retrospective rules
is a power given to the executive by the legislative but with certain implied
restrictions. The restrictions clearly require that executive can make rules which
have retrospective effect but it should be in compliance with the constitutional
law. In various case laws the basic point that Court has kept in mind is that if
delegated legislations makes any law that has not been included in the Parent
Act then it can be declared as ultra vires and struck down. For any rule to have
retrospective effect it is necessary for it to be mentioned in the parent act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gujarat National Law University Page 23

 Retrospective operation of delegated legislation

Gujarat National Law University Page 24