Delegated legislation has become essential in modern governance due to the complexity of policymaking and the legislature’s limited time. However, it is vulnerable to misuse, as excessive delegation or vague authority can lead to arbitrary actions by the executive.

The principle that delegated legislation must be clear and within legislative limits seeks to safeguard against such misuse. Clarity ensures that administrative authorities know the boundaries of their powers, while confinement prevents encroachment into areas reserved for legislative intent.

Several mechanisms can check misuse of discretion. First, legislative oversight is critical. Committees of the legislature can review subordinate legislation to ensure conformity with parent acts and constitutional principles. Second, judicial review acts as a powerful tool, striking down rules that are ultra vires, arbitrary, or violate fundamental rights. Courts have consistently upheld the idea that discretion cannot be unfettered.

Third, procedural safeguards like public consultation, publication, and transparency of delegated legislation reduce scope for hidden or arbitrary actions. Citizens and stakeholders can scrutinize draft rules, holding the administration accountable. Fourth, administrative accountability within the executive—through reporting systems, audits, and internal checks—ensures conformity.

Furthermore, clear statutory guidelines minimize ambiguity, restricting discretion to operational flexibility rather than policy-making power. For example, specifying objectives, criteria, and limits in enabling legislation reduces misuse.

In sum, delegated legislation is inevitable, but its misuse can be checked through clarity of delegation, adherence to legislative intent, judicial review, parliamentary scrutiny, and citizen participation. This balance preserves administrative efficiency while safeguarding democratic principles.