Regulations Cannot Restrict Legislature’s Power to Amend Statutes

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr. (2026) held that a regulation framed under a parent statute, being a piece of subordinate legislation, cannot curtail or fetter the power of a competent legislature to amend the statute in a manner that overrides such regulation. 

What was the Background of Rajesh Sharma v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The Appellant, Rajesh Sharma, served as an Executive Engineer (Group-A officer) with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation. 
• He was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, following which the Commissioner of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation dismissed him from service in 2011. 
• He challenged the dismissal on the ground that under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959, the competent authority to impose a major penalty (including dismissal) on a Group-A officer was the Corporation, and not the Commissioner. 
• The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his contention, set aside the dismissal, and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh penalty order. 
• The respondents challenged this before the Delhi High Court, which reversed the Tribunal's order in 2019 and upheld the Commissioner's authority to dismiss the Appellant. 
• Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court's order, made the following key observations: 

On the interpretative conundrum: 

• The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 did not originally specify the disciplinary authority for Group-A officers; accordingly, the 1959 Regulations designated the Corporation as the competent authority. 
• By the 1993 amendment, the parent legislation was modified to designate the Commissioner as the disciplinary authority under Section 59(d), adding the phrase "subject to any Regulation that may be made in this behalf." 
• The interpretative question was whether the phrase "subject to any Regulation that may be made" preserved the operation of the pre-existing 1959 Regulations.

On the meaning of "may be made": 

• The Court relied on Stroud's Judicial Dictionary to hold that the expression "may be" signifies futurity, referring only to regulations that may be framed after the 1993 amendment, and not to the already existing 1959 Regulations. 
• Reading the clause otherwise would render the words "may be made" redundant or superfluous, which is a construction that must be eschewed.

On the primacy of legislative power over subordinate legislation: 

• Regulations are a piece of subordinate legislation framed under the parent enactment. 
• What can be achieved by a subordinate legislation under a statute can always be achieved — and overridden — by an amendment to that statute by the competent legislature. 
• The existence of a regulation framed under an Act cannot fetter the legislative power to amend the Act in a manner that overrides the regulation. 
• Had the legislature not intended to override the 1959 Regulations, it would not have designated the Commissioner as disciplinary authority or used the forward-looking phrase "any Regulation that may be made."

What is Subordinate Legislation? 

Subordinate legislation refers to rules, regulations, bye-laws, notifications, and orders made by an authority (such as the executive, a statutory body, or a local authority) under powers delegated to it by the parent or enabling statute enacted by the legislature. It is also called delegated legislation. Key features are as follows: 

• Derivative in nature: Subordinate legislation derives its validity from the parent statute. Any provision of subordinate legislation that is ultra vires the enabling Act is void and of no effect. 
• Cannot override the parent Act: Since subordinate legislation is made under powers conferred by the legislature, it cannot exceed or contradict the provisions of the enabling Act. Where a conflict exists, the parent Act prevails. 
• Subject to legislative amendment: The legislature retains plenary power to amend the parent statute at any time. Such an amendment will automatically prevail over any inconsistent subordinate legislation made under an earlier version of the statute. 
• Judicial review: Courts can strike down subordinate legislation on grounds of being ultra vires the parent Act, violation of fundamental rights, or manifest arbitrariness. 
• Forms of subordinate legislation in India: These include statutory rules framed under specific Acts (such as service rules, procedural rules), regulations made by statutory bodies (such as SEBI Regulations, RBI Directions), bye-laws of local bodies (such as municipal corporations), and notifications and orders issued under enabling provisions.