The Supreme Court passed its  judgment in General Officer Commanding (Army) vs. CBI on May 01, 2012.  The case addressed the issue of need for sanction to prosecute Army officers under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The case dealt with two instances of alleged fake encounters.  Five people were killed by the Army in Assam in a counter insurgency operation in 1994.  Another five people were killed in Jammu and Kashmir in March, 2000 in an encounter. In both cases, it was alleged that the Army officers had staged fake encounters.  In both instances, the CBI was directed to investigate the matter.  CBI claimed that the people who were killed were indeed victims of fake encounters.  The CBI moved the court to initiate prosecution against the accused Army officers. The officers claimed that they could only be prosecuted with the prior sanction (permission) of the central government.  The officers relied on provisions of the AFSPA,1958 and the Armed Forces J & K (Special Powers) Act, 1990 to support their claim.  (See Notes for the relevant clauses)  These provide that legal proceedings cannot be instituted against an officer unless sanction is granted by the central government. It must be noted that Army officers can be tried either before criminal courts or through court-martial (as prescribed under Sections 125 of the Army Act, 1950).  The Army officers had appealed that both procedures require prior sanction of the government. The judgment touches upon various issues.  Some of these have been discussed in more detail below:

  • Is prior sanction required to prosecute Army officers for 'any' act committed in the line of duty?
  • At what stage is sanction required?
  • Is sanction required for court-martial?

Is prior sanction required to prosecute army officers for 'any' act committed in the line of duty? The judgment reiterated an earlier ruling.  It held that sanction would not be required in 'all' cases to prosecute an official.  The officer only enjoys immunity from prosecution in cases when he has ‘acted in exercise of powers conferred under the Act’.  There should be 'reasonable nexus' between the action and the duties of the official. The Court cited the following example to highlight this point:  If in a raid, an officer is attacked and he retaliates, his actions can be linked to a 'lawful discharge of duty'.  Even if there were some miscalculations in the retaliation, his actions cannot be labeled to have some personal motive. The Court held that the AFSPA, or the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act, empowers the central government to ascertain if an action is 'reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty' and is not a misuse of authority.  The courts have no jurisdiction in the matter.  In making a decision, the government must make an objective assessment of the exigencies leading to the officer’s actions. At what stage is sanction required? The Court ruled that under the AFSPA, or the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act, sanction is mandatory.  But, the need to seek sanction would only arise at the time of cognizance of the offence.  Cognizance is the stage when the prosecution begins.  Sanction is therefore not required during investigation. Is sanction required for court-martial? The Court ruled that there is no requirement of sanction under the Army Act, 1950.  Hence, if the Army chooses, it can prosecute the accused through court-martial instead of going through the criminal court. The Court noted that the case had been delayed for over a decade and prescribed a time bound course of action.  It asked the Army to decide on either of the two options - court martial or criminal court - within the next eight weeks.  If the Army decides on proceedings before the criminal court, the government will have three months to determine to grant or withhold sanction. Notes Section 6 of the AFSPA, 1958: "6. Protection to persons acting under Act – No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act." Section 7 of the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act, 1990: "7. Protection of persons acting in good faith under this Act. No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act."

On October 18, it was reportein the news that the central government has been given more time for framing rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.  The President had given assent to this Act in December 2019 and the Act came into force in January 2020.   Similarly, about two years have passed since the new labour codes were passed by Parliament, and the final Rules are yet to be published.  This raises the question how long the government can take to frame Rules and what is the procedure guiding this.  In this blog, we discuss the same.

Under the Constitution, the Legislature has the power to make laws and the Executive is responsible for implementing them.  Often, the Legislature enacts a law covering the general principles and policies, and delegates the power to the Executive for specifying certain details for the implementation of a law.  For example, the Citizenship Amendment Act provides who will be eligible for citizenship.  The certificate of registration or naturalization to a person will be issued, subject to conditions, restrictions, and manner as may be prescribed by the central government through Rules.  Delay in framing Rules results in delay in implementing the law, since the necessary details are not available.  For example, new labour codes provide a social security scheme for gig economy workers such as Swiggy and Zomato delivery persons and Uber and Ola drivers.  These benefits as per these Codes are yet to be rolled out as the Rules are yet to be notified.

Timelines and checks and balances for adherence

Each House of Parliament has a Committee of Members to examine Rules, Regulations, and government orders in detail called the Committee on Subordinate Legislation.  Over the years, the recommendations of these Committees have shaped the evolution of the procedure and timelines for framing subordinate legislation.  These are reflected in the Manual of Parliamentary Procedures issued by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, which provides detailed guidelines.

Ordinarily, Rules, Regulations, and bye-laws are to be framed within six months from the date on which the concerned Act came into force.   Post that, the concerned Ministry is required to seek an extension from the Parliamentary Committees on Subordinate Legislation.  The reason for the extension needs to be stated.   Such extensions may be granted for a maximum period of three months at a time.  For example, in case of Rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, at an earlier instance, an extension was granted on account of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Activity

Timeline

  • Publication of Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws, where public consultation is required under the Act
  • A minimum of 30 days for public feedback
  • Consequently, for publication,
  • Three months, if the number of suggestions is small
  • Six months, if the number of suggestions is large
  • Publication of Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws, not requiring public consultation
  • Six months from the date on which the concerned Act came into force
  • Any extension for publication
  • A maximum of three months at a time

To ensure monitoring, every Ministry is required to prepare a quarterly report on the status of subordinate legislation not framed and share it with the Ministry of Law and Justice.  These reports are not available in the public domain.

Recommendations to address delays

Over the years, the Subordinate Legislation Committees in both Houses have observed multiple instances of non-adherence to the above timelines by various Ministries.  To address this, they have made the following key recommendations:

  • Statement on reasons for the delay: In 2011, Rajya Sabha Committee recommended that while laying Rules/Regulations before Parliament, the Ministry should also lay a statement explaining the reasons for the delay, if any.
  • Scrutiny of delays by the Cabinet Secretary:  In 2016, the Rajya Sabha Committee recommended that the Cabinet Secretary should continue the practice of calling the Secretaries of concerned Ministries/Departments, to explain the reasons for the delay in framing the subordinate legislation.  Each Ministry should send a quarterly status report to the Cabinet Secretariat.
  • Revisiting guidelines: In 2011, Lok Sabha Committee recommended that the 1986 guidelines should be revisited and all major recommendations of the Committee should be incorporated.  However, as per the Action Taken Report, the government observed that the ministries consider the extant guidelines adequate and these guidelines were re-iterated in 2012.

Are all Rules under an Act required to be framed?

Usually, the expressions used in an Act are “The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.”, or “as may be prescribed”.  Hence, it may appear that the laws aim to enable rule-making instead of mandate rule-making.  However, certain provisions of an Act cannot be brought into force if the required details have not been prescribed under the Rules.  This makes the implementation of the Act consequent to the publication of respective Rules.  For example, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 enables the police and certain other persons to collect identity-related information about certain persons.  It provides that the manner of collection of such information may be specified by the central government.  Unless the manner is prescribed, such collection cannot take place.

That said, some other rule-making powers may be enabling in nature and subject to discretion by the concerned Ministry.  In 2016, Rajya Sabha Committee on Subordinate Legislation examined the status of Rules and Regulations to be framed under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001.  It observed that the Ministry of Power had held that two Rules and three Regulations under this Act were not necessary.   The Ministry of Law and Justice had opined that those deemed not necessary were enabling provisions meant for unforeseen circumstances.  The Rajya Sabha Committee (2016) had recommended that where the Ministry does not feel the need for framing subordinate legislation, the Minister should table a statement in Parliament, stating reasons for such a conclusion.

Some key issues related to subordinate legislation

The Legislature delegates the power to specify details for the implementation of a law to the Executive through powers for framing subordinate legislation.  Hence, it is important to ensure these are well-scrutinised so that they are within the limits envisaged in the law.

  • Capacity of Committees on Subordinate Legislation:  Parliamentary Committees on Subordinate Legislation have the responsibility to examine Rules in detail.  In past, they have examined some key rules, regulations, and notifications regarding e-commerceliability of internet-based services, and demonetisation.  However, usually, they are able to examine only a fraction of subordinate legislation in detail.  For more details, please see the PRS discussion paper here.
  • Uniformity of standards:  Countries such as UKUSAAustralia, and Canada have overarching legislation for regulating the framing of subordinate legislation.  These laws provide for the manner of public consultation, timelines, drafting standards, and a common register.  India does not have any similar law.  In India, the detail whether public consultation for subordinate legislation is required or not, is specified in respective Acts.  The General Clauses Act, 1897 also governs certain aspects of the framing of subordinate legislation.  In addition, the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014 guides the pre-legislative consultation on subordinate legislation.

See here for our recently published analysis of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules, 2022, notified in September 2022.  Also, check out PRS analysis of: