INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported as 2026 INSC 80, delivered a constitutionally significant ruling on 21 January 2026, clarifying when delegated legislation acquires the force of law. The Judgment was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.
At the heart of the dispute was a deceptively simple yet legally profound question: whether a Notification uploaded on a government website, but not yet published in the Official Gazette, can impose binding legal consequences. In answering this, the Supreme Court reaffirmed foundational principles of rule of law, legal certainty and notice, holding unequivocally that law is born only upon publication in the manner prescribed by statute, not by digital dissemination or administrative intent.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellants were importers and traders of steel products which were, until early February 2016, freely importable under the Foreign Trade Policy. Between 29 January and 4 February 2016, the Appellants entered into firm contracts with foreign suppliers and opened irrevocable letters of credit on 5 February 2016.
On the same day, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade uploaded a notification on its website introducing a Minimum Import Price (MIP) on specified steel products. Crucially, the document itself bore the endorsement “to be published in the Gazette of India” and was, in fact, published in the Official Gazette only on 11 February 2016.
Anticipating restrictions, the Appellants applied for registration of their letters of credit under the transitional protection available under paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the High Court of Delhi dismissed their writ petitions, holding that uploading of the Notification on 5 February 2016 constituted sufficient notice and that only letters of credit opened prior to that date were entitled to protection.
Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court contending that until gazette publication, the Notification had no legal existence and could not retrospectively burden vested contractual rights.
ISSUES OF LAW
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the expression “date of this Notification” could be interpreted to mean a date prior to its publication in the Official Gazette and whether uploading a Notification on a government website could substitute the statutory requirement of publication. Allied to this was the question of whether importers who had opened irrevocable letters of credit before gazette publication were entitled to transitional protection under the Foreign Trade Policy.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court began its analysis by restating a first principle of governance: for law to bind, it must first exist and to exist, it must be made known in the manner prescribed by law. Delegated legislation, unlike parliamentary enactments, is crafted within executive chambers without public legislative debate. The statutory requirement of publication in the Official Gazette therefore performs a critical constitutional function, transforming executive intent into enforceable law.
Relying on a long line of precedent, including Harla v. State of Rajasthan and B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that publication is not a procedural formality but a condition precedent for enforceability. A notification, order, or rule cannot operate in fragments. It is either law in its entirety upon proper publication or not law at all.
The Court emphatically rejected the High Court’s reasoning that uploading a notification on a website constitutes constructive notice. While acknowledging modern modes of communication, the Court held that where the parent statute mandates a specific mode of promulgation, the executive has no discretion to invent alternatives. Website publication may serve informational purposes, but it cannot create legal obligations unless the statute so permits.
The Bench also addressed the argument that the “date of notification” could remain static as the date mentioned on the document. It held that in law, a notification is “born” only upon gazette publication. Until that moment, it remains an incomplete expression of intent. This was further reinforced by the Notification’s own endorsement stating that it was yet to be published, which the Court described as a tacit admission that the document had not crossed the threshold from intention to obligation.
Applying this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the expression “date of this Notification” necessarily refers to 11 February 2016, the date of gazette publication. Consequently, importers who had opened irrevocable letters of credit prior to that date and who complied with procedural requirements under paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, were entitled to full transitional protection.
The Court also emphasised that allowing unpublished notifications to impose fiscal or trade burdens would undermine commercial certainty and erode confidence in the legal system. Such an approach, it observed, would offend the rule of law, which demands transparency, predictability and fairness in the exercise of delegated legislative power.
CONCLUSION
The decision in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India is a robust reaffirmation of constitutional discipline in administrative law. It underscores that executive convenience cannot override statutory command, and that legality cannot be triggered by informal dissemination or administrative shortcuts.
By holding that delegated legislation acquires the force of law only upon publication in the Official Gazette, the Supreme Court has protected both commercial certainty and democratic accountability. The Judgment sends a clear message that in a constitutional system governed by the rule of law, obligation follows publication, not upload and legal consequences cannot precede legal existence.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Understanding SARFAESI Act | Rights of Borrowers 2025, DRT, Supreme Court Judgments” can be viewed at the link below: