Home  /  Right to Information Act, 2005  /  Section 29

Section 29: Laying of rules

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005
Section 28 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 30

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 29

Section 29 mandates legislative oversight over subordinate legislation framed under the RTI Act, requiring all rules made by the Central Government to be laid before each House of Parliament for thirty days, and rules made by State Governments before State Legislatures.

  • Mandatory Parliamentary Laying Requirement under Section 29(1): Every rule made by the Central Government under the Act must be laid before each House of Parliament while in session for a total period of thirty days, which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions.
  • Legislative Modification and Annulment Mechanism: If, before the expiry of the session immediately following, both Houses agree in making any modification or agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect; any modification or annulment operates without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
  • State Legislative Laying Mandate under Section 29(2): Every rule made by the State Government under this Act must be laid before the State Legislature as soon as may be after it is made, ensuring democratic scrutiny by elected state representatives.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1979) 2 SCC 196: The Supreme Court laid down the foundational principles governing statutory laying clauses; held that laying provisions are designed to keep the legislature informed and provide a constitutional opportunity to supervise, modify, or revoke subordinate legislation.
  • Quarry Owners' Association v. State of Bihar (2000) 8 SCC 655: The Supreme Court affirmed that parliamentary control over delegated legislation through laying procedures operates as an essential constitutional check against executive overreach and administrative arbitrariness.
  • Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. Suresh Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 727: The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that subordinate rules were laid before the legislature does not immunize them from judicial review; if a rule is ultra vires the parent Act, it remains void despite the laying procedure.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In challenging subordinate rules (such as amendments altering Commission tenures, fee schedules, or appeal procedures), verify from legislative records whether the mandatory 30-day laying requirement under Section 29 was strictly satisfied. While non-compliance with a directory laying clause may not automatically invalidate rules, non-laying coupled with substantive ultra vires provides formidable grounds to challenge executive overreach before the High Court or Supreme Court.

Section 28 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 30