Delegated Law Is Born Only On Gazette Publication: Supreme Court Quashes Trade Restrictions Based on DGFT Website Upload

“Notification Must First Exist in Law Before It Can Bind Traders”, In a judgment of critical importance to India’s international trade and the enforceability of delegated legislation, the Supreme Court on January 21, 2026, set aside a Delhi High Court ruling and held that a government notification uploaded on a website cannot be enforced until it is formally published in the Official Gazette. The ruling came in a batch of civil appeals led by Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where importers challenged the imposition of Minimum Import Price (MIP) on steel products without Gazette publication.

A Bench comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha emphatically declared:

“Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature... A notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner. In law, it is born only upon publication in the Official Gazette, and it is from that date alone that rights may be curtailed or obligations imposed.”

The Court held that DGFT Notification No. 38/2015-20, though uploaded on the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) website on February 5, 2016, could not acquire legal force until it was published in the Official Gazette on February 11, 2016. Accordingly, Letters of Credit (LCs) opened by importers on February 5, 2016, prior to Gazette publication, were held protected under Para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), 2015–20.

“Uploading Notification on a Website Is Not the Law”: Court Enforces Statutory Mandate of Gazette Publication Under FTD&R Act

The central legal issue turned on Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which requires the Central Government to publish any order regulating imports in the Official Gazette. The Notification in question sought to introduce Minimum Import Price (MIP) on 173 categories of steel products, restricting their import unless a minimum price was met.

The Union of India contended that DGFT’s website upload on 05.02.2016 provided sufficient notice to traders and that the expression “date of this Notification” in Para 2 referred to that upload date. This view had found favour with the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the MIP application from the date of upload.

Rejecting this outright, the Supreme Court held: “The legislature, in its wisdom, has not left the mode of promulgation to executive discretion... Once the legislature has prescribed the specified mode of promulgation, the executive cannot introduce an alternative mode and attribute legal consequences to it.”

The Court relied on a consistent line of precedents including Harla v. State of Rajasthan (1951), B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka (1987), and most recently, G.S. Chatha Rice Mills (2021), reaffirming that delegated legislation is enforceable only upon publication in the manner statutorily prescribed.

“Rights Cannot Be Curtailed by an Unpublished Executive Action”: Transitional Protection to Importers Upheld

The judgment also examined Para 1.05(b) of the FTP, which protects importers from new restrictions if irrevocable Letters of Credit were opened before the date of such restriction. The MIP Notification specifically incorporated this clause.

The Union sought to argue that the “date of notification” in Para 2 meant February 5, 2016, the upload date, and not February 11, 2016, when the Notification was gazetted. The appellants had all opened their LCs on February 5, anticipating the move based on market information.

The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying: “The expression ‘date of this Notification’ must necessarily be construed to mean the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.”

Consequently, the importers who opened LCs on February 5 — before Gazette publication but after website upload — were held entitled to the transitional protection under Para 1.05(b).

The Court warned that allowing enforcement of restrictions based on an unpublished Notification would “erode commercial confidence and offend the Rule of Law”, adding:

“The imposition of fiscal or trade burdens on the basis of an unpublished Notification would undermine the object of the parent Act and would introduce uncertainty to a field where certainty is indispensable.”

“Delegated Law Must Be Visible to Be Valid”: Court Laments High Court’s Departure From Settled Law

The Court came down firmly on the Delhi High Court’s reasoning that uploading the Notification was sufficient notice. The High Court had attempted to split the Notification’s enforceability and transitional protection into two separate dates, applying the restriction from February 11 but denying the benefit of Para 1.05(b) to those who had opened LCs after February 5.

Calling this analysis legally unsound, the Supreme Court ruled: “A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner... The acknowledgement [in the Notification itself] that it is ‘to be published in the Gazette of India’ is a confession that, until such publication, the Notification had not crossed the threshold from intention to obligation.”

Therefore, the High Court’s order dated 21.12.2018 was quashed and set aside, with the Supreme Court restoring certainty to delegated legislation and clarity to foreign trade regulations.

Supreme Court Reasserts Constitutional Discipline in Promulgation of Trade Laws

In a judgment that fortifies the boundaries between executive discretion and legislative mandate, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that delegated legislation is not law unless published in the manner the statute mandates.

Importers cannot be burdened by government notifications that are merely uploaded on a website but not officially gazetted. By granting the appellants protection under Para 1.05(b) of the FTP, the Court ensured that legal certainty, fairness, and rule of law remain cornerstones of India’s trade governance.

“To hold otherwise would permit unpublished delegated legislation to burden citizens — a proposition expressly rejected by this Court in a long line of decisions.”

Date of Decision: 21 January 2026

Case Title: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.