Delegated legislation gives regulators flexibility but can produce regulatory vacuums. Illustrate with reference to recent changes in medical education regulation.

Under delegated legislation, Parliament sets the policy framework in a parent Act and leaves the detailed rules to expert bodies. The National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019 follows this model. Its four Autonomous Boards act "subject to" the Commission's regulations (Sec. 16(2)) [2]. The NMC's recent withdrawal of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations (MSMER), 2023 shows both the value and the danger of this design.

Flexibility: why regulators need delegated power

• Technical expertise: norms on faculty, infrastructure and clinical load need specialist judgement, which Parliament cannot keep amending. The Act gives this work to the Boards, including the Medical Assessment and Rating Board [2].
• Agility in reform: the Standing Committee on Health (2016) found that heavy land and infrastructure norms raised costs and held back new colleges [3]. Regulations can be revised quickly, without a new law.
• Responding to shortage: India had one doctor per 1,674 people against the WHO norm of 1:1000 [3]. Rules can be eased to expand capacity.

Vacuum: the MSMER-2023 illustration

• Deterrence lost: fines of up to ₹1 crore on colleges and ₹5 lakh on individuals for false records lapsed with immediate effect from 17 October 2026 [1].
• No successor: no single new regulation has been notified. Colleges' annual disclosures on faculty, infrastructure and patient load can now go unverified, which raises the risk of "ghost faculty" [1].
• Procedural uncertainty: the written procedures and timelines for enforcement and appeals have lapsed, so NMC decisions are more open to charges of arbitrariness and to litigation [1]. The 2018 Standing Committee had already warned that making the Centre the appeal authority conflicts with separation of powers [4].
• Accountability deficit: the gap brings back the conflict of interest that discredited the MCI, where one body both approved colleges and judged their quality [3]. It also affects patient safety and students' choices, which is why activists want standards to be independently verified [1].

Way forward

• Mandatory transition clause: no regulation should be withdrawn until its successor is notified. Until then, the existing penalty scale should continue.
• Parliamentary oversight: the Committee on Subordinate Legislation should examine withdrawals made without a replacement.
• Independent checks and appeals: keep accreditation separate from the body that approves colleges [3], and set up a Medical Appellate Tribunal [4].

Delegated legislation is essential in a technical field like medical education, but flexibility without continuity turns into abdication. Pairing regulatory agility with transition safeguards, independent verification and parliamentary scrutiny would let the NMC reform rigid norms while protecting the right to health under Article 21.