Publication in the Official Gazette: Supreme Court on Enforceability of DGFT Notifications in Viraj Impex

Case Summary

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

• Citation: 2026 INSC 80

• Date of judgment: 21 January 2026

• Bench: Honourable Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Honourable Justice Alok Aradhe

• Counsel / Advocates: Not specified in the supplied summary

• Statutes / Rules / Instruments:

  • Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Section 3

  • Foreign Trade Policy, 2015–2020 (paras 1.02, 1.05(b) and 2.01)

  • Notification No. 38/2015-20 (Directorate General of Foreign Trade) dated 5 February 2016

• Key issue: Construction of the phrase “date of this Notification” in para 2 of Notification No. 38/2015-20 — whether it can mean the date the Notification was uploaded on the DGFT website (05.02.2016) or only the date of publication in the Official Gazette (11.02.2016)

• Relief sought: Quash the Notification; in the alternative, declaration that the Notification does not apply to Letters of Credit (LCs) opened before publication in the Gazette

• Cited authorities and precedents:B.K. Srinivasan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 658;Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, (1962) 1 SCR 676;Johnson v. Sargant and Sons, (1918) 1 KB 101;Harla v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 936;Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 673;Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, (2021) 2 SCC 209;Nabha Power Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (2025) 5 SCC 353;State of M.P. v. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150;Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company, AIR 2018 SC 3606

Analysis

The Supreme Court in Viraj Impex addressed a narrow but legally significant question: when a statutory parent Act requires delegated legislation to be “published in the Official Gazette”, can the executive confer legal effect earlier by uploading the instrument on its website?

The Court, by a joint judgment authored by Honourable Justice Alok Aradhe, answered this in the negative and restored a rule of strict compliance with the statutory mode of promulgation.

Factual and Doctrinal Matrix

The appellants were importers who had entered into firm contracts and opened irrevocable LCs before the DGFT uploaded Notification No. 38/2015-20 on its website (05.02.2016), but prior to its publication in the Official Gazette (11.02.2016).

The Notification imposed a Minimum Import Price (MIP) on a range of steel items. Paragraph 2 of the Notification exempted imports under LCs “already entered into before the date of this Notification”, subject to para 1.05(b) of the FTP, which protects shipments made within the validity of irrevocable LCs opened before the date of imposition of restriction, subject to registration with the regional authority.

The High Court held that uploading the Notification on 05.02.2016 provided adequate notice to bind importers and therefore limited the benefit of para 2 to LCs opened before that date.

The Supreme Court reversed this approach, holding that the Notification attained legal effect only upon publication in the Official Gazette on 11.02.2016. Accordingly, the phrase “date of this Notification” must be read to mean the date of Gazette publication.

Core Reasoning and Principles

The decision rests on two closely connected legal principles.

1. Statutory Mode of Promulgation

Delegated legislation must be promulgated strictly in the manner prescribed by the parent statute. Section 3 of the FT(D&R) Act expressly mandates publication in the Official Gazette for orders regulating imports and exports.

The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that publication in a recognised mode is a precondition to enforceability:

“Law, to bind, must first exist.”

Publication in the Gazette is not an empty formality; it is the act that transforms executive intention into legal obligation.

2. Rule of Law, Notice and Accountability

The Court reaffirmed the constitutional values underlying publication requirements—accessibility, notice and accountability—especially where delegated legislation imposes economic burdens.

The Court observed:

“The requirement of publication in the Gazette ... is therefore not an empty formality. It is an act by which an executive decision is transformed into law.”

Permitting alternative modes of commencement would lead to fragmented operation:

“A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner.”

Practical Legal Consequences

A direct consequence of the ruling is protection for importers who act on the legal landscape as reflected in the Gazette. The appellants had opened LCs and complied with para 1.05(b) prior to Gazette publication; the Supreme Court held that the MIP could not apply to their imports.

For counsel advising corporate clients, the judgment reiterates the importance of treating Gazette publication as the operative date where the parent statute prescribes that mode.

The judgment also clarifies the interplay between a Notification and the FTP. Paragraph 1.05(b), incorporated in para 2 of the Notification, serves a protective transitional purpose that cannot be defeated by premature administrative steps.

Critique and Contemporary Implications

The decision is doctrinally orthodox and protective of legal certainty. At the same time, it raises operational questions for modern governance, where executive reliance on online publication is common.

The Court acknowledged the “modern reality” of pervasive delegated legislation but held that statutory prescription of Gazette publication remains decisive. If web-based publication is to have legal effect, the parent statute or subordinate rules must explicitly permit it.

For practitioners, key takeaways include:

• Fix operative dates with reference to Gazette publication where statutorily prescribed

• Preserve documentary evidence of LC opening and registration

• Challenge administrative reliance on website uploads where the statute mandates Gazette publication

Meaningful Extracts from the Judgment

“Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature.”

“The requirement of publication in the Gazette, therefore, serves a dual constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures accessibility and notice to those governed by the law, and (b) it ensures accountability and solemnity in the exercise of delegated legislative power.”

“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.”

In the Court’s Words

“16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have taken note of the relevant statutory provisions. Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature. Delegated legislation, unlike plenary legislation enacted by the Parliament, is framed in the executive chambers without open legislative debate. The requirement of publication in the Gazette, therefore, serves a dual constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures accessibility and notice to those governed by the law, and (b) it ensures accountability and solemnity in the exercise of delegated legislative power. The requirement of publication in the Gazette, is therefore not an empty formality. It is an act by which an executive decision is transformed into law. It is precisely for this reason that courts have consistently insisted that strict compliance with the publication requirements is a condition precedent for the enforceability of delegated legislation.

The legal position in this regard stands crystallised by a long line of decisions of this Court. The true test of the effective commencement of a statutory order or subordinate legislation is whether it has been published in a manner reasonably calculated to bring it to the notice of all persons who may be affected by it, namely, through a mode which is ordinarily and generally accepted for that purpose.

Another two-Judge Bench of this Court undertook a comprehensive survey of law relating to publication of subordinate legislation… when the parent statute prescribes a particular mode of publication, that mode must be strictly followed.

Tested on the aforesaid legal principles… it is manifest that the Notification could not have acquired the force of law prior to its publication in the Official Gazette on 11.02.2016.”

Conclusion

The Viraj Impex judgment reaffirms a foundational principle of administrative law: where a parent statute prescribes a mode of promulgation, the executive cannot bypass it.

For commercial litigators and regulatory counsel, the ruling restores clarity on operative dates for delegated measures affecting trade. For administrators, it underscores the need for prompt and compliant Gazette publication—or legislative amendment if alternative modes are intended to have legal effect.