Comparative Analysis Of Judicial Control Over Delegated Legislation In India & England

Sarrah Nayar, VES College of Law

ABSTRACT

The Indian constitution provides for judicial review of delegated legislation to ensure it does not violate constitutional provisions or go beyond the scope of the parent act. The judiciary can review delegated legislation on grounds of incompetence, procedural irregularity, unreasonableness, and violations of fundamental rights. Judicial review of delegated legislation in England is grounded in parliamentary sovereignty and the ultra vires doctrine. Courts can invalidate delegated legislation that goes beyond the scope of the enabling act. Reasonableness and proportionality are also grounds for review. However, courts have traditionally been hesitant to question delegated legislation on substantive policy grounds. Deference to the executive combined with parliamentary control over legislation limits robust judicial review. This paper examines the judicial review of delegated legislation in India and England. It explores how the two countries, with contrasting legal systems, have developed mechanisms to regulate executive decision-making when legislative control over delegation is inadequate. It compares India's robust constitutional principles with England's parliamentary sovereignty and deference to centralized bodies. The goal of the paper is to understand these review processes across diverse democracies.

Keywords: judicial review, delegated legislation, ultra vires doctrine, India, England.