Abstract

Delegated legislation, also known as secondary or subordinate legislation, serves as a vital tool in current governance, enabling administrative bodies to enforce and administer laws passed by houses. The constitutionality of this trial, still, remains a subject of consummate significance, given the capability for abuse of power and breaches of fundamental rights. This paper conducts a relative analysis of the constitutionality of delegated legislation in named countries, with a focus on the United States, the United Kingdom, and India.

The study explores the constitutional structures of these countries, questioning the enabling bills, judicial interpretations, and the principles that govern the delegation of legislative authority. It delves into the legal challenges and disputes that have risen dealing delegated legislation and assesses how these challenges have been addressed through judicial review and legislative oversight.

A relative analysis of the findings reveals striking similarities and differences in the approaches to delegated legislation among the named countries. While the United States emphasizes a strict separation of powers, the United Kingdom demonstrates a more flexible approach with administrative sovereignty at its core, and India adopts a mix of both, incorporating the principles of administrative republic and constitutional supremacy.

This article contributes to the understanding of how different constitutive structures impact the constitutionality of delegated legislation, slipping light on the nuanced connections between administrative agencies, houses, and the judicature. \

Keywords- Constitutionality, Comparative Analysis, Constitutional Frameworks, Legal Challenges, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights, Administrative Agencies, Enabling Act, Separation of Powers.

Introduction

Delegated legislation, frequently appertained to as secondary or subordinate legislation, constitutes a vital point of contemporary governance. It’s a medium by which legislative authority is conferred upon executive agencies, allowing them to draft bylaws, regulations, and rules that are necessary in the perpetration and administration of laws passed by legislative bodies. This delegation of legislative power has come a necessary element of current government structures, directed at advancing effectiveness, rigidity, and technical moxie in the development of legal morals. still, the constitutionality of delegated legislation has long been a subject of substantial debate and scrutiny.

The purpose of this research paper is to claw into the intricate and multifaceted nature of delegated legislation with a subjective focus on its constitutionality, anatomized through a relative lens. In doing so, this paper seeks to achieve several interrelated objects. First and foremost, it aims to give a comprehensive understanding of the conception of delegated legislation, expounding its origins, elaboration, and the core principles underpinning its operation. Second, this paper intends to explore the specific constitutional structures of named countries and their approaches to the practice of delegated legislation.

The compass of this research encompasses an examination of the constitutionality of delegated legislation in three distinct authorities the United States, the United Kingdom, and India. These countries have been named due to their different legal and constitutional systems, which show unique approaches to the delegation of legislative authority. The United States, embedded in a system of checks and balances, exhibits a robust tradition of judicial scrutiny and a strict separation of powers, impacting the constitutionality of delegated legislation. The United Kingdom, with its doctrine of administrative sovereignty, features a different paradigm, wherein Parliament can delegate legislative authority with fairly few constraints. India, operating within a constitutional frame that blends rudiments of administrative republic and constitutional supremacy, offers yet another perspective.

In light of the significance of delegated legislation in contemporary governance, this research paper serves as an essential donation to the ongoing dialogue circling its constitutionality. By examining the practice in different authorities and analyzing their constitutional frames, this paper offers perceptivity into the multifaceted relationship between delegated legislation, constitutional principles, and the rule of law. also, it provides precious assignments and perspectives that can inform future legal and policy reforms, fostering higher translucency, responsibility, and constitutional adherence in the practice of delegated legislation.

Background

Defining Delegated Legislation

Delegated legislation, generally referred to as secondary or subordinate legislation, is a legal process through which a legislative body, similar as a parliament or congress, delegates a portion of its legislative authority to executive agencies or bodies.[1] This delegation empowers these executive realities to produce detailed rules, regulations, orders, or bylaws to enforce, administer, and apply the laws enacted by the legislature. While the primary legislation passed by the legislative body sets out the broad principles and objects, delegated legislation fills in the specifics, frequently dealing with specialized or detailed matters that bear technical moxie or frequent adaptations. The authority to produce delegated legislation is granted through an enabling enactment, which defines the compass and limits of the power delegated.

Part in the Legislative Process

The part of delegated legislation in the legislative process is necessary, as it facilitates the effective perpetration of laws and regulations. This practice is particularly essential in ultramodern, complex societies where the legislative body may not retain the time, moxie, or capacity to draft and revise detailed rules for every area of governance. Delegated legislation allows executive agencies to acclimatize to changing circumstances, insure thickness in the operation of laws, and address practical issues that arise in the course of law enforcement.

Delegated legislation frequently covers a wide range of areas, including environmental regulations, public health rules, safety norms, and administrative procedures. It’s a pivotal tool for public policy perpetration and serves as a flexible means to address evolving challenges within the legal frame.

Reasons for Delegating Legislative Authority

Several compelling reasons bolster the delegation of legislative authority to executive bodies:

[2]Expertise: Administrative agencies constantly retain technical knowledge and moxie in their separate disciplines, making them well- suited to draft regulations tailored to address complex technical and scientific issues.
Efficiency: Delegated legislation expedites the perpetration of laws by allowing executive agencies to respond fleetly to arising issues without the need for new legislation. elasticity It provides a flexible frame for rule- making, enabling the adaptation of regulations in response to changing circumstances.
Expert Input: Delegated legislation frequently includes input from stakeholders, experts, and the public, icing a broader perspective and reducing the threat of crimes.
Specialized Detail: Delegated legislation addresses specialized and procedural matters that are impracticable for houses to address exhaustively.

Despite these advantages, the practice of delegated legislation isn’t without its challenges and concerns, particularly in terms of constitutionality.

Implicit Challenges and enterprises Related to Constitutionality

The constitutionality of delegated legislation has been the subject of considerable debate and scrutiny. enterprises and challenges include:

Lack of Responsibility: Delegated legislation may warrant the same position of translucency and public scrutiny as primary legislation. This raises enterprises about responsibility, especially when regulations have a significant impact on the public.
Separation of Powers: Delegating legislative authority to executive bodies may be seen as blurring the separation of powers, especially in systems with strict divisions between the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches.
Vagueness and Overbreadth: Delegated legislation can occasionally be drafted vaguely or exorbitantly, raising concerns about the implicit abuse of power and overreach.
Fundamental Rights: Regulations created through delegated legislation may inadvertently or designedly infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms, challenging constitutional scrutiny.
Lack of Uniformity: Differences in how countries approach and apply delegated legislation can lead to a lack of uniformity in legal systems, potentially impeding legal consistence and monotony.

Delegation of Legislative Authority

How Legislative Authority is Delegated to executive Bodies?

The delegation of legislative authority to executive bodies is a complex and multifaceted process that varies by governance.[3] It generally involves a series of legal, constitutional, and procedural way, aiming to empower executive agencies to produce detailed rules and regulations that align with the broader pretensions of primary legislation. crucial aspects of this delegation process include

Enabling acts: Delegation begins with the passage of primary legislation, frequently referred to as an” enabling act” or” parent act.” The enabling enactment is the legal frame that grants administrative agencies the authority to enunciate delegated legislation. It outlines the compass of authority, the subject matter, the purposes, and the constraints under which administrative agencies can operate.
Broad Guidelines: Enabling bills give administrative agencies with broad guidelines and objects that delegated legislation should aim to achieve. These guidelines assure that the delegated rules and regulations are harmonious with the intent of the legislature.
Procedures: Enabling bills may define specific procedures that administrative agencies must follow when drafting and enforcing delegated legislation. These procedures may include conditions for public discussion, notice and comment days, or stakeholder involvement.
Limits and Safeguards: Enabling bills generally establish limits and safeguards to help the abuse of delegated legislative authority. These limits can take the form of “non-delegation” clauses, which specify the boundaries of authority, or vittles that bear adherence to fundamental rights and constitutional principles.
Review and Oversight: Some enabling bills include mechanisms for legislative review and oversight of delegated legislation. These mechanisms may involve granting houses the power to review and conceivably disapprove of regulations or providing for parliamentary panels to check administrative conduct.
Judicial Review: Enabling bills may also address the part of the bar in reviewing the constitutionality and lawfulness of delegated legislation. In numerous legal systems, courts have the authority to assess the conformity of regulations with the enabling enactment and the constitution.

Enabling bills and Powers Granted by the Legislature

The content and language of enabling bills vary significantly among different countries and legal systems. The powers granted to administrative bodies, as well as the constraints assessed by houses, depend on the legislative intent, the constitutional frame, and the specific requirements of each governance.

In the United States, for illustration, enabling bills frequently give broad, yet circumscribed, authority to administrative agencies. The principle of non-delegation, embedded in the U.S. Constitution, requires that Congress give an” accessible principle” for agencies to follow when making rules. This is an attempt to strike a balance between legislative authority and administrative moxie.
In the United Kingdom, by discrepancy, the doctrine of administrative sovereignty allows Parliament to delegate authority with fairly many constraints. Enabling bills may grant executive bodies significant optional powers, provided they operate within the broader legal frame.
India’s constitutional structure incorporates a mix of both parliamentary democracy and constitutional supremacy. The Indian Parliament delegates authority to administrative agencies but frequently retains a stronger part in oversight compared to the U.K., subject to judicial review. Enabling bills in India frequently set out detailed procedures and bear discussion with affected parties.

The specific enabling bills and the powers granted therein play a pivotal part in shaping the extent and compass of delegated legislation, and, accordingly, the constitutional questions that may arise regarding its validity.

Constitutional Frameworks

Country 1: United States

Constitutional Framework for Delegated Legislation

In the United States, the delegation of legislative authority to administrative bodies is deeply ingrained within the constitutional framework. The U.S. Constitution, which established the federal government’s tripartite system of governance, outlines the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The U.S. Constitution also serves as the foundational document that underpins the delegation of legislative authority to administrative agencies.

Relevant Provisions and Case Law

The “Non-Delegation Doctrine”: The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit the delegation of legislative power, but the “non-delegation doctrine” has emerged as a foundational principle. This doctrine requires that Congress provide an “intelligible principle” in the enabling statute, ensuring that the delegation is not overly broad or unconstrained. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in cases like [4]Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001) and [5]Mistretta v. United States (1989) have upheld the principle of non-delegation, affirming that Congress must provide adequate guidance to administrative agencies when delegating authority.
Separation of Powers: The constitutional framework underscores the separation of powers, which guides the constitutionality of delegated legislation. The judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring that regulations align with the scope and intent of the enabling statute and that they do not impermissibly intrude on the powers of the legislative or judicial branches.

Principles Governing Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

Intelligible Principle: The “intelligible principle” test is a central element in assessing the constitutionality of delegated legislation in the United States. It requires that Congress provide a clear and understandable standard in the enabling statute, ensuring that administrative agencies do not wield arbitrary or unchecked authority.
Judicial Review: The principle of judicial review plays a significant role in upholding the constitutionality of delegated legislation. Courts review the actions of administrative agencies to ensure that they conform to the constitutional and statutory constraints, as exemplified in cases like Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (1980).

Country 2: United Kingdom

Constitutional Framework for Delegated Legislation

The United Kingdom, with its doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, provides a distinct constitutional framework for delegated legislation. The UK Parliament, as the supreme legislative authority, enjoys plenary powers to delegate authority to administrative bodies.

Relevant Provisions and Case Law

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The fundamental constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty enables the UK Parliament to delegate legislative authority without constitutional constraints. The principle has been affirmed in cases like [6]R (Jackson) v. Attorney General (2005).
Affirmative and Negative Resolution Procedures: The UK Parliament often employs affirmative and negative resolution procedures to scrutinize delegated legislation. Affirmative resolutions require parliamentary approval before regulations come into force, while negative resolutions allow regulations to take effect unless Parliament objects.

Principles Governing Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

Parliamentary Oversight: Parliamentary committees and debates play a vital role in overseeing the constitutionality of delegated legislation in the UK. While the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty allows delegation, the requirement for parliamentary approval ensures some level of accountability.
Judicial Review: Judicial review is a less prominent aspect of assessing the constitutionality of delegated legislation in the UK compared to countries like the United States. Courts may intervene in cases where regulations appear to conflict with the primary legislation or breach fundamental rights.

Country 3: India

Constitutional Framework for Delegated Legislation

India operates within a constitutional framework that combines elements of parliamentary democracy and constitutional supremacy. Delegated legislation in India is influenced by the Constitution of India, which establishes a federal system of governance.

Relevant Provisions and Case Law

Constitution of India: The Constitution of India, particularly Article 73 and Article 246, delineates the powers of the Union and the States concerning delegated legislation.

Case Law: The Indian Supreme Court has played a significant role in shaping the constitutionality of delegated legislation. Notable cases like [7]B.R. Enterprises v. State of Bihar (1999) have emphasized the need for regulations to conform to the enabling statute and constitutional principles.

Principles Governing Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

Supremacy of the Constitution: Delegated legislation in India must adhere to the supremacy of the Constitution. Courts, including the Supreme Court, possess the authority to invalidate regulations that violate constitutional provisions.
Parliamentary Oversight: India’s parliamentary system provides for extensive oversight of delegated legislation, with parliamentary committees scrutinizing regulations to ensure they conform to legislative intent.

In the subsequent sections of this research paper, we will explore how these constitutional frameworks impact the constitutionality of delegated legislation, particularly regarding the separation of powers, non-delegation doctrine, and judicial review.

Legal Challenges and Controversies

Court Cases and Legal Disputes in Different Countries

Country 1: United States

[8]A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated delegated legislation under the National Industrial Recovery Act, finding that the statute did not provide an intelligible principle for delegation. It was a landmark case establishing the non-delegation doctrine.

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act, emphasizing that Congress had provided a clear and intelligible principle to guide administrative rule-making.

Country 2: United Kingdom

[9]R (Factortame Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Transport (No. 8) (2002): This case involved legal challenges to a UK statutory instrument related to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The House of Lords ruled that certain provisions were incompatible with EU law, highlighting the importance of compliance with higher legal standards.

[10]Privacy International v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019): In this case, the UK Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of surveillance legislation and found that some aspects of the legislation failed to provide adequate safeguards, necessitating amendments.

Country 3: India

[11]B.R. Enterprises v. State of Bihar (1999): This Indian Supreme Court case emphasized that delegated legislation must conform to the principles outlined in the enabling statute and should not transgress constitutional limits.

[12]Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Although not directly related to delegated legislation, this case highlighted the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and the rule of law, which are relevant to the constitutionality of delegated legislation in India.

Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Frameworks

United States

Non-Delegation Doctrine: The United States adheres to a well-defined non-delegation doctrine. Delegation is permissible only when Congress provides an “intelligible principle.” This principle ensures that legislative authority is delegated with clear boundaries and a rational basis.
Judicial Review: The U.S. relies significantly on judicial review to assess the constitutionality of delegated legislation. Courts scrutinize regulations to ensure they conform to the enabling statute and the Constitution.

United Kingdom

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The UK’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to delegate legislative authority with relatively few constraints. Enabling statutes may grant administrative bodies significant discretion.
Parliamentary Oversight: The UK emphasizes parliamentary oversight, with parliamentary committees and debates playing a pivotal role in reviewing delegated legislation. Regulations may be approved or disapproved through parliamentary resolutions.

India

Constitutional Supremacy: India’s constitutional framework combines elements of parliamentary democracy and constitutional supremacy. Delegated legislation must adhere to the Constitution and the principles outlined in the enabling statute.
Judicial Review and Parliamentary Oversight: India employs both judicial review and parliamentary oversight to ensure the constitutionality of delegated legislation. The Indian Supreme Court plays a central role in assessing regulations, and parliamentary committees scrutinize them.

Commonalities and Differences in Approaches to Delegated Legislation

Non-Delegation Principle: The United States stands out for its non-delegation principle, which emphasizes the need for an “intelligible principle” in enabling statutes. The UK and India do not have as explicit a non-delegation doctrine.
Judicial Review: All three countries employ judicial review to some extent, albeit with varying degrees of prominence. The United States relies heavily on judicial review, while the UK and India use it in conjunction with parliamentary oversight.
Parliamentary Oversight: The UK and India have robust parliamentary oversight mechanisms, but the specifics differ. In the UK, regulations may be subject to approval or disapproval, while in India, parliamentary committees scrutinize regulations without veto power.

In conclusion, these countries offer diverse approaches to delegated legislation within their constitutional frameworks. The United States emphasizes clear delegation principles and robust judicial review, while the UK embraces parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary oversight. India, as a hybrid system, leverages both judicial review and parliamentary scrutiny to ensure constitutionality.

Judicial Review

Role of Courts in Reviewing the Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

Judicial review plays a critical part in upholding the constitutionality of delegated legislation in numerous countries. It involves a process by which courts assess the legitimacy, conformity, and constitutionality of regulations created by administrative bodies. The ideal of judicial review is to assure that delegated legislation adheres to the enabling act and respects constitutional principles. The effectiveness of judicial review varies among countries and is told by the legal traditions, constitutional frames, and judicial gospel.

Crucial Cases Where Courts Upheld or Invalidated Regulations

United States

[13]Chevron U.S.A. ,Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.( 1984): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Chevron doctrine, which provides that courts should postpone to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a nebulous enactment. This case exemplifies how courts frequently postpone to administrative agencies’ expertise in reviewing delegated legislation.

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.( 2001): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of regulations under the Clean Air Act. This case underscores the courts’ part in assessing whether Congress handed a comprehensible principle for delegation.

United Kingdom

[14]R( Miller)v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union( 2017): The UK Supreme Court ruled that the UK government couldn’t spark Composition 50 without parliamentary blessing. While not directly related to delegated legislation, this case illustrates the part of judicial review in icing adherence to constitutional norms.

[15]R(Bancoult)v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(No. 2)( 2008): The House of Lords abolished an Order in Council that would have allowed the expulsion of Chagos Islanders from their motherland. This case highlights the effectiveness of judicial review in upholding fundamental rights and the rule of law.

India

Keshavnanda Bharati v. State of Kerala( 1973): The Indian Supreme Court, in a corner case, established the” introductory structure doctrine,” which limits the power of constitutional correction. This doctrine has counteraccusations for the constitutionality of delegated legislation.

[16]State of Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwala( 1957): The Indian Supreme Court upheld a law related to gambling and laying, emphasizing the significance of judicial review in icing that regulations cleave to the principles of reasonableness and public interest.

Conclusion

This study has explored the constitutionality of delegated legislation in a comparative context, analyzing the constitutional frameworks, legal challenges, and oversight mechanisms in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India. The findings reveal both commonalities and differences in these countries’ approaches to delegated legislation and the role of courts and legislatures in ensuring its constitutionality.

Key Findings and Takeaways

Constitutional Frameworks: The selected countries exhibit distinct constitutional frameworks, ranging from the non-delegation doctrine in the United States to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom and India’s blend of parliamentary democracy and constitutional supremacy. These frameworks shape the delegation of legislative authority and the subsequent scrutiny of delegated legislation.
Judicial Review: Courts in these countries play a pivotal role in assessing the constitutionality of delegated legislation. While the intensity and approach to judicial review vary, it serves as a critical safeguard to ensure that regulations align with the Constitution, the enabling statute, and constitutional principles.
Legislative Oversight: Legislatures in these countries employ a variety of mechanisms, including affirmative and negative resolutions, committees, and debates, to oversee delegated legislation. The extent of legislative control varies, influenced by the enabling statutes, political will, and the specific constitutional framework.
Common Challenges: Across these countries, common challenges to the constitutionality of delegated legislation include lack of legislative guidance, overbroad delegation, and potential infringements on fundamental rights.

References:

M, S. (2023). Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation. [online] Catalogue. Available at: https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/constitutionality-of-delegated-legislation-in-india/[Accessed 12 Oct. 2023].
Aranson, P., Gellhorn, E. and Robinson, G. (1982). Theory of Legislative Delegation. Cornell Law Review, [online] 68(1), pp.1–67. Available at:

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol68/iss1/1 [Accessed 13 Oct. 2023].

www.google.com. (n.d.). Title: Delegated Legislation – Pain or Gain?? [online] Available at: https://images.app.goo.gl/cApb8MCKhg39Pz4K7 [Accessed 13 Oct. 2023].
Mahabir Prashad Jain (2013). Principles of Administrative Law.
Unacademy. (n.d.). Delegated legislation and its constitutionality. [online] Available at: https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/law/delegated-legislation-and-its-constitutionality/ [Accessed 13 Oct. 2023].
LawBhoomi (2020). Delegated Legislation in United Kingdom- Administrative Law. [online] LawBhoomi. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/delegated-legislation-in-u-k/#:~:text=The%20Doctrine%20of%20Parliamentary%20Sovereignty [Accessed 12 Oct. 2023].
‌LawBhoomi (2020). Delegated legislation in USA: An Overview. [online] LawBhoomi. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/delegated-legislation-in-usa/ [Accessed 12 Oct. 2023].
Dhanjal, F. (2020). DELEGATED LEGISLATION, Part -2, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. [online] Farheen Dhanjal. Available at: https://farheendhanjal.law.blog/2020/12/05/delegated-legislation-part-2-administrative-law/ [Accessed 12 Oct. 2023].
‌Rai, D. (2020). Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation. [online] iPleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/constitutionality-of-delegated-legislation/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2023].

[1] Drishti IAS. (n.d.). Delegated Legislation. [online] Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/delegated-legislation [Accessed 14 Oct. 2023].

[2] Anon, (2023). CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION – Legal Vidhiya. [online] Available at: https://legalvidhiya.com/constitutionality-of-delegated-legislation/#_ftnref9 [Accessed 15 Oct. 2023].

[3] Ct.gov. (2023). Delegation of Legislative Power. [online] Available at: https://cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/94-R-0596.htm [Accessed 15Oct. 2023].

[4] Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001), Justia Law. (n.d.). Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). [online] Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/457/

[5] Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), Justia Law. (n.d.). Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). [online] Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/361/

[6] R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, Wikipedia Contributors (2019). R (Jackson) v Attorney General. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General

[7] B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9. SCC 700

[8] A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Justia Law. (n.d.). A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). [online] Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/495/

[9] Lawteacher.net. (2020). R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame. [online] Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport.php .

[10] R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22

[11] www.the-laws.com. (n.d.). B R ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. [online] Available at: https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=009991616000&title=b-r-enterprises-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh [Accessed 15 Oct. 2023].

[12] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333. Probono-india.in. (2023). Available at: https://probono-india.in/Indian-Society/Paper/181_Iha.docx [Accessed 15 Oct. 2023].

[13] Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), Wikipedia. (2020). Chevron Corporation. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.

[14] Neuberger, L., Hale, L., Lord, M., Lord, K., Lord, C., Lord, W., Lord, S. and Lord, R. (2017). Hilary Term [2017] UKSC 5 On appeals from: [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) and [2016] NIQB 85 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant) REFERENCE by the Attorney General fo. [online] Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf.

[15] Court, T.S. (n.d.). R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Respondent) – The Supreme Court. [online] www.supremecourt.uk. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0021.html/ [Accessed 15 Oct. 2023]

[16] State of Bombay vs R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (AIR 1957 SC 699), Anon, (2023). State of Bombay v. R. M. D. C., AIR 1957 SC 699 – Legal Vidhiya. [online] Available at: https://legalvidhiya.com/state-of-bombay-v-r-m-d-c-air-1957-sc-699/ [Accessed 15 Oct. 2023].