The Doctrine of
Implied Power : Explained
For Example If the provision of review of an order is not specifically provided in the legislation such as RTI act 2005 or consumer protection act, 1986 etc. then rule can be made towards the same or if the rule is not yet made then it the duty of the adjudicatory authorty to grant the facility of review in all and suitable cases.
It is a settle rule of law that every thing can be done which is not specifically barred by the law.
In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the
view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an
implied power in the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order
registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in
charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation
and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring
a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though
these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above
provision
The Doctrine of Implied Power is a legal concept that grants the federal government powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This doctrine has been used to expand the powers of the federal government and has been the subject of much debate. It is a controversial topic that has been discussed by legal scholars and politicians for many years.
It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to
do something that includes such incidental or implied powers which
would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when
any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly
included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and
every control the denial of which would render the grant itself
ineffective. Thus, where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also
grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are
essentially necessary to its execution.
The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite
apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from
legislation. As Crawford observes in his ‘Statutory Construction’ (3rd
edn. page 267):
If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of
legislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislative
intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission.
In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply
determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is
necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were
specifically written therein.
An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by
necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to
make such grant effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore v. M.K.
Mohammad Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430, this Court held that the income
tax appellate tribunal has implied powers to grant stay, although no
such power has been expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act