The term 'legislation' is derived from Latin words, "Legis" meaning law and "Latum" which means "to

make" or "set". Thus the word 'legislation' means 'making of law'. Legislation is that source of law
which consists in the declaration of legal rules by a competent authority1. The most powerful and
independent method of enacting laws is through legislation. It is the only source with the authority
to pass new laws, repeal old ones, and amend existing laws2. However, the term "legislation" is only
used to refer to a specific type of law-making, i.e., when a competent authority declares legal
principles in statutory form. It means that the State's legislature has passed/promulgated a law. The
law that has its source in legislation is called the enacted law or statute law.

CLASSIFICATION OF LEGISLATION

Salmond divides legislation into two types:

1. Supreme Legislation - When a law is passed by a supreme authority or a sovereign law-

making body, such as the legislature of an independent and sovereign state, it is referred to
as supreme legislation. It is supreme because no other authority has the power to revoke,
alter, or regulate it. Such laws cannot be revoked or overturned by another legislative body 8.

2. Subordinate legislation: Subordinate legislation on the other hand, is that which comes from
any authority other than the sovereign power. It is dependent on a higher power in order to
remain valid and to continue its existence. India's Parliament is endowed with supreme
legislative authority. But, there are other organs which have powers of subordinate
legislation.

Validity of Subordinate Legislation

Certain requirements must be met for the delegation of legislative authority to be valid. These
prerequisites are as follows:

i. The parent Act, i.e., the Act under which the power to make subordinate legislation is
exercised, must be valid.

ii. The Parent Act's delegation clause must be valid.

iii. The statutory instrument must not violate certain general norms laid down by judicial
decisions, e.g., norms regarding ouster of court jurisdiction, imposing a penalty or tax, giving
retrospective effect etc.

iv. The statutory instrument must not violate any provisions of the Constitution

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Although the executive's main duty is to enforce the laws enacted by the Legislation, still, its
departments have the authority to make rules for itself. Subordinate law includes legislation passed
by the executive branch. Delegated legislation is, strictly speaking, any law passed by an authority
other than the legislature. It means the rules, orders or bye-laws made by the executive authorities
under the law passed by the Parliament11. In simple words, when Legislature bestows the law-making
power on some other body, then the legislative power is said to be delegated and this is known as
delegated legislation.

Reasons for Delegated Legislation are:

1. Want of Time: Parliament is a busy body. If it devotes its time on entertaining minor and
subsidiary issues and attempts to lay down all rules itself, all of its time will be consumed in
preparing only a few Acts. Thus, it has to confer rule making power to the executive12.

2. Technicality of the Matters: Many rules are technical in nature and require consultations with
the experts. It is, therefore, more convenient to delegate such rule-making power to the
experts who are none else than the executive itself.

3. Local Matters: There are matters which concern only a particular locality or particular group
or profession. Any legislation on these matters needs consultation with the people of that
particular locality, group or profession. Thus, some departments are given powers to make
changes and rules in consultation with the people acquired with and interested in it.

SUB-DELEGATION

It is common for a person or a body to get delegated powers and authority, indirectly from a statute.
The legislation created in this manner is recognised as sub-delegated legislation. This state of affairs
would appear to be in conflict with the general principle that a delegate is not able to delegate
further, i.e., the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare ". In other words, the general rule is that
where Parliament gives a power to make law for some specified purpose to a body or person, it can
be exercised only by that body or person alone. Therefore, it would be unlawful to sub-delegate a
legislative power without specific and express authority15. The Parent Act occasionally allows sub-
delegation to authorities or officials who are not below a certain rank. Only those officers or
authorities are eligible to receive the delegated power in this situation.

CONDITIONAL LEGISLATION

A conditional delegation occurs when the Legislature creates the law and transfers to another entity,
merely the authority to decide when it should come into effect or when it should apply to a certain
region or territory of the State. The Supreme Court observed in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana v.
Union of India16 that "In conditional legislation, the delegate's power is that of determining when a
legislative declared rule of conduct shall become effective, and the delegated legislation involves
delegation of rule-making power to an administrative agent. That means the Legislature after having
laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation, can leave details to be supplied by the
administrative authority".

COMPARISON OF LEGISLATION WITH OTHER SOURCES OF LAW

Legislation is today the most important instrument of legal evolution and in the opinion of many, it is
the exclusive material source of law. In countries where there is common law, precedent or case law
takes rank as a material source of law. It is therefore, desirable to compare legislation with other
sources of law, namely, precedent and custom.

Comparison between Legislation and Precedent

Difference between Legislation and Precedent are as follows

 1. The legislation has its source in the law-making will of the State whereas precedent has its
source in judicial decisions.

2. The Legislature imposes laws on the courts, but the courts themselves set precedents.

3. Legislation denotes formal declaration of law by the Legislature whereas precedents are
recognition and application of new principles of law by courts in the administration of
justice.

4. Legislation is passed prior to a case actually coming up, but the precedent is only established
once the matter has been brought up and is being heard by the court.

5. Legislation is declared or published before it is brought into force but precedent comes into
force at once, i.e., as soon as decision is pronounced.

Advantages of Legislation Over Precedent

1. Abrogative Power - Legislation in both constitutive and abrogative whereas precedent merely
possesses constitutive efficacy. Legislation not only acts a source of law, but it also has the
power to create new laws and change or repeal already existing ones. Contrarily, precedent
cannot override the current laws, even though it sometimes results in laws that are in some
respect better than legislation.

2. Efficiency - The essential functions of formulating and enforcing laws are divided by
legislation, thereby enabling a beneficial division of labour. As a result, efficiency is increased.
Contrarily, precedent unites the job of creating the law and that of enforcing it in the same
hands18.

3. Provision for future cases - Legislation can make rules in anticipation for cases that have not
as yet arisen, whereas precedent must wait for the occurrence of some dispute before the
court can create any definite rule of law.

In the modern world, legislation is one of the primary and most significant sources of law. Several
nations in the modern world regard this method of law-making and view legislation as a crucial
source of law. Legislation as a source of law attempts to create consistency by eliminating ambiguity,
therefore even though it has some flaws and gaps, these problems are still much less severe than
those associated with custom and precedent, the other sources of law.

It can be concluded that Legislation is recognised as one of the most effective sources of law for two
main reasons. Firstly, it involves laying down of legal rules by the legislature which the State
recognises as law. Secondly, it has the force and authority of the State. It is for this reason that Dias
has rightly said that deliberate law-making by an authoritative power, i.e., the State is called
'legislation' provided that authority is duly recognised as the supreme power by the courts 27.
Democracy

Democracy andandinIndia'sIndiademocratichuman

is

itself

democratic

puzzling.

Rights achievementsfindactivistsit Many

successhard toarounddemocracymakesreconcilewiththe

the

its

advocates and human rights activists around the

world- and in India itself- find it hard to reconcile the country's democratic achievements with its

tragic failures. India's democratic success makes the

country appear deviant when contrasted to the regularity

with which post-colonial democracies fail. At the same

time, India's failures undermine the country's claim to be

the world's largest democracy. With such contradictory

features, India can be viewed as a counter-factual

challenge to general models of democratic transition and

consolidation. What makes Indian democracy work, and

why does it fail sometimes? What significance does India's

counter-factual democracy hold for general theories of

democracy transition and consolidation?

Regular and effective elections, based on universal

adult franchise, for all important offices and institutions

at the central, regional, and local levels of the political

system, are one of the most significant factors to explain

the success of India's democracy. An independent election

commission oversees elections in India. It is ably supported

by an independent judicial system that is pro-active in the

defense of human rights and marginal social groups. Elec-

tions have helped induct new social elites into positions of

power and replace hereditary social notables. The electoral

process from its early beginnings about six decades before

independence has grown enormously, involving a massive

electorate of about 600 million men and women, ofwhom,

roughly sixty percent take part in the polls. The fact that

an election could be held in Kashmir in 2008, in spite of

terrorist attacks and insurgency, speaks to the strength of

India's democratic electoral processes

However, these images of successful democratic

transition and consolidation are contested by some highly

publicized cases of violent disaffection of parts of the

population. One can see this in inter-community violence

and local support for terrorist groups. This questions

the firm belief in the steady, incremental diffusion of the

norms of democracy and citizenship that is considered to

underpin the Indian state. In considering why democracy

in India sometimes fails, it is instructive to document a

For many analysts of Indian politics, Hindu-Muslim

conflict is the issue ofprimary importance. The destruction

of the Babri Mosque in the North Indian city of Ayodhya

in 1992 and the outbreak of Hindu-Muslim conflict in

2002 following the fire-bombing of a train that killed

about sixty Hindu religious activists at Godhra railway

station in Gujarat are both frequently cited to exemplify

Hindu-Muslim conflicts. The long simmering secessionist

movement in Kashmir, which recently burst into a spate

of street protests violently quelled by the army and the

police, is yet another instance of the Indian state suppress-

ing a Muslim-majority region.

Despite its periodic failures, India's democracy shines

on the whole in cross-national comparison. Innovative

policy, hybrid institutions, and the re-use of traditional

practices for modern functions explain the transforma

ion of this ancient civilization and its social hierarchy

into a level playing field. However, India's struggles are

not yet over. As one can see in the ongoing insurgency in

Kashmir and the Northeast, Maoist violence in central and

eastern India, and sporadic Hindu-Muslim conflict, India

still faces the challenge of how to reconcile democracy,

governance, and collective identity.