Ultra vires is a Latin legal term meaning “beyond the powers”. In law it describes an act done by a company, a government authority or even a legislature that goes outside the power the law gives it. The opposite is intra vires, “within the powers”. Indian courts treat an ultra vires act as having no legal force: the Supreme Court held in A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. Life Insurance Corporation (1962) that where a company does an ultra vires act, “no legal relationship or effect ensues therefrom”, and that “such an act is absolutely void and cannot be ratified even if all the shareholders agree”.
The doctrine works in three main fields. In company law, a company must keep within the objects stated in its memorandum (Section 4(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013). In administrative law, rules, notifications and orders must stay within the parent Act (Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, 1984; State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, 2006). In constitutional law, legislatures may make laws only on their subjects under Articles 245 and 246 and the Seventh Schedule, and no law may take away fundamental rights (Article 13).
Ultra vires at a glance
- Meaning: “beyond the powers”; opposite: intra vires, “within the powers”.
- Company law: the memorandum must state the company’s objects (Section 4(1)(c), Companies Act, 2013); a company “cannot travel beyond the objects” (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, 1962).
- Effect in company law: an act outside the objects is “absolutely void” and cannot be ratified even by all the shareholders; the directors responsible were held personally liable to repay (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar).
- Delegated legislation: a rule may be challenged if it “does not conform to the statute under which it is made” (Indian Express, 1984); P. Krishnamurthy (2006) lists six grounds.
- Constitutional law: laws must fall within the legislature’s subjects under Articles 245–246 and the Seventh Schedule, Parliament also holding the residuary power (Article 248); the test is the law’s “pith and substance” (F.N. Balsara, 1951).
- Fundamental rights: a law that takes away or abridges them is void “to the extent of the contravention” (Article 13(2)); “law” includes rules, regulations and notifications (Article 13(3)(a)).
- Remedy: a writ petition (Article 226 or, for fundamental rights, Article 32); for companies, an NCLT application under Section 245(1)(a).
- In Hindi: “अधिकारातीत” (official term, Legal Glossary 2026 of the Legislative Department); intra vires is “शक्ति के अधीन / प्राधिकार के अधीन / शक्त्याधीन”. In plain words (our explanation): “शक्तियों से परे”.
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Companies Act, 2013 is quoted from its India Code text (as on 1 September 2026), the Constitution of India from its India Code text (as on 1 May 2026) and the Legislative Department’s Hindi–English edition (as on 1 May 2024), the Hindi terms from the Legislative Department’s Legal Glossary 2026, and the judgments from the Supreme Court’s official copies on api.sci.gov.in.
Ultra vires meaning in law
Literally, ultra means “beyond” and vires means “powers”, so ultra vires means “beyond the powers”. The word is vires, not “virus”; searches for “ultra virus” or “ultravires” are looking for the same term.
In legal use, an act is ultra vires when the person or body doing it had no legal power to do it. A company gets its powers from its memorandum and the Companies Act, a rule-making authority from the Act that delegates the power, and Parliament and the State Legislatures from the Constitution. Whatever goes beyond that source is ultra vires that source, which is why judgments speak of a rule “ultra vires the Act”, a resolution “ultra vires the Company” or a law “ultra vires the Constitution”.
Ultra vires is one of many Latin terms used in Indian courts; see our Legal Maxims Explained hub for the others.
Where the doctrine of ultra vires applies
The question is always the same: what is the source of the power, and did the act stay within it?
Prepared by Century Law Firm from the Companies Act, 2013 (Section 4), the Constitution of India (Articles 13, 245, 246) and the Supreme Court judgments cited on this page (official copies).
Doctrine of ultra vires in company law
In company law, the doctrine of ultra vires means that a company can do only what its memorandum of association allows, together with what is incidental or conducive to those objects. Anything else is ultra vires the company and void.
The objects clause: Section 4(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013
Section 4(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 lists what the memorandum of a company must state. Clause (c) is the objects clause: “the objects for which the company is proposed to be incorporated and any matter considered necessary in furtherance thereof”. The memorandum is defined in Section 2(56) as “the memorandum of association of a company as originally framed or as altered from time to time”.
Under Section 10(1), the registered memorandum and articles “bind the company and the members thereof”. A company that wants to pursue new objects can alter its memorandum: under Section 13(1), “a company may, by a special resolution and after complying with the procedure specified in this section, alter the provisions of its memorandum”.
The key Indian case: Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. LIC (1962)
In Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. Life Insurance Corporation (Constitution Bench, decided 11 December 1962, reported as 1963 AIR 1185), the shareholders of the United India Life Assurance Company had resolved in 1955 to donate Rs. 2 lakhs to a trust for promoting technical or business knowledge, including knowledge in insurance. After the insurer’s business vested in the Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the Corporation sought the money back, alleging that the resolution and the payments “were ultra vires the Company and void and of no effect in law”.
The Supreme Court held that “A Company is competent to carry out its objects specified in the Memorandum of Association and cannot travel beyond the objects.” It recorded the classic English statement from Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Riche (1875) that the memorandum states “negatively, that nothing shall be done beyond that ambit”. Acts incidental to the main object “are those which have a reasonably proximate connection with the object”, and “some indirect or remote benefit” to the company does not bring an act within the objects. The articles “may explain the Memorandum, but cannot extend its scope.”
The donation was therefore ultra vires, and the Court stated the consequence in words still quoted today: “Where a Company does an act which is ultra vires, no legal relationship or effect ensues therefrom. Such an act is absolutely void and cannot be ratified even if all the shareholders agree.” The trustees acquired no right to the money, and the directors responsible for the resolution were held personally liable to make good the amount “unlawfully disbursed”.
What members can do: Section 245 class action
Under Section 245(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, members or depositors who think the company’s affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the company, its members or depositors may apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (Section 2(90)) for an order “to restrain the company from committing an act which is ultra vires the articles or memorandum of the company”. Orders can also restrain a breach of the memorandum or articles, or an act “contrary to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force”. A minimum number of members or depositors must join the application, as Section 245 lays down, and the section does not apply to a banking company (Section 245(9)).
Ultra vires in administrative law and delegated legislation
In administrative law, ultra vires means that a rule, regulation, notification, bye-law or order made under an Act goes beyond the power the Act confers, or conflicts with the Act, another law or the Constitution.
Grounds for challenging subordinate legislation
The basic statement is in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (decided 6 December 1984), where customs-duty notifications on newsprint were challenged: “A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary.”
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (24 March 2006) the Supreme Court set out the grounds as a list, after noting that “there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a sub-ordinate Legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid”:
| Ground (P. Krishnamurthy, 2006) | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-ordinate legislation | The rule deals with a subject the rule-maker (or the legislature behind it) has no power over. |
| (b) Violation of Fundamental Rights | The rule takes away or abridges a right in Part III; it is void under Article 13(2). |
| (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution | The rule conflicts with another article of the Constitution. |
| (d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act | The classic “ultra vires the parent Act” ground. |
| (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment | The rule conflicts with another Act. |
| (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness | So unreasonable that the “Legislature never intended to give authority to make such Rules”. |
An example: State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006)
Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, inserted in 2003, ended all existing sand-quarrying leases at once and gave the State the exclusive right to quarry sand. The rules were made under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, whose Section 4A(3) says no order prematurely terminating a mining lease shall be made “except after giving the holder of the licence or lease a reasonable opportunity of being heard”.
The State’s exclusive right to quarry sand had been upheld by the High Court, and the Supreme Court agreed that it was valid; but it held that the part ending all leases “forthwith, without notice or hearing to the lessees, does not conform to the object, scheme and the provisions of the Act under which it is made and therefore, invalid”. Instead of striking down the whole rule, it applied the principle that “if a rule is partly valid and partly invalid, the part that is valid and severable is saved”, and read the offending part down. The case also notes that rule-making is a legislative act that does not ordinarily require a hearing, but delegated legislation “will be invalid” for breach of natural justice “if the enabling Act … specifically requires observance of the principles of natural justice”. On the hearing rule itself, see audi alteram partem.
Administrative orders and discretionary powers
The same limits apply to orders. P. Krishnamurthy quoted the Constitution Bench in Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India (1990): “Power delegated by statute is limited by its terms and subordinate to its objects. The delegate must act in good faith, reasonably, intra vires the power granted, and on relevant consideration of material facts.” Where a statute gives “particular discretionary powers”, Indian Express said their exercise may be questioned “on all grounds on which administrative action may be questioned, such as, nonapplication of mind, taking irrelevant matters into consideration, failure to take relevant matters into consideration”. It also held that a notification issued under a statute, being “law” under Article 13(3)(a), “is liable to be struck down if it is contrary to any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III”.
Ultra vires the Constitution: legislative competence
A law made by Parliament or a State Legislature is ultra vires the Constitution if the legislature had no power to make it, or if it violates a limit the Constitution places on every legislature, above all the fundamental rights in Part III.
Articles 245 and 246 and the Seventh Schedule
Article 245(1) says: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.” Article 246 divides the subjects through the Seventh Schedule: Parliament “has exclusive power” over List I (the Union List), each State Legislature “has exclusive power” over List II (the State List), and both may legislate on List III (the Concurrent List). Under Article 254(1), a State law repugnant to a law Parliament is competent to make, or to an existing law on a Concurrent List matter, is void to the extent of the repugnancy, subject to Article 254(2), under which a State law on a Concurrent List matter that has been reserved for the President’s consideration and has received his assent prevails in that State, though Parliament may still legislate on the matter later (proviso to Article 254(2)).
Parliament also has the residuary power: under Article 248(1), subject to Article 246A (goods and services tax), it “has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List”. So a State law outside the State and Concurrent Lists, or a central law on a State List subject (apart from the special cases the Constitution itself allows), is beyond the legislature’s competence. As Gajapati Narayan Deo (1953) put it, where legislative powers are distributed by “specific legislative entries”, or limited by fundamental rights, the question is whether the legislature “has or has not … transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers.”
Pith and substance and colourable legislation
Because laws often touch more than one subject, courts look at what a law is really about. In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (25 May 1951), on the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, the Supreme Court asked “whether the impugned Act is in pith and substance a law relating to possession and sale etc. of intoxicating liquors or whether it relates to import and export of intoxicating liquors”, and held that any effect on imports was “only incidental and cannot affect the competence of the Provincial Legislature to enact the law in question.”
The reverse is colourable legislation: a law that looks as if it is within power but in substance is not. In Gajapati Narayan Deo the Court said the doctrine “does not involve any question of bona fides or mala fides on the part of the legislature”; it turns on the “question of competency of a particular legislature to enact a particular law” and “is based upon the maxim that you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly”. The Orissa law in that case was held to be a law on taxing agricultural income, a State subject, and so valid.
Article 13: laws that violate fundamental rights
Even a law within a legislature’s subjects can be struck down if it violates Part III. Article 13(2) says: “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.” Article 13(3)(a) defines “law” to include “any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law”, so the same test applies to subordinate legislation. Article 13(4) adds that nothing in the article applies to an amendment of the Constitution made under Article 368. For more, read our guide to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.
Ultra vires and unconstitutional: the difference
“Ultra vires” is the wider term. When the source of the power is the Constitution, an act beyond it is ultra vires the Constitution, usually called “unconstitutional”. But a rule can be ultra vires its parent Act without any constitutional question arising. As P. Krishnamurthy recorded from Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989), subordinate legislation is open to question “if it is ultra vires the Constitution or the governing Act”.
| What is challenged | Source of the power | Ultra vires if… | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Act of a company | Memorandum (objects clause) and the Companies Act, 2013 | Outside the objects and not incidental or conducive to them | “Absolutely void”, cannot be ratified (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar) |
| Rule, regulation, notification | The parent Act; the Constitution | Does not conform to the Act, conflicts with another Act or the Constitution, or is manifestly arbitrary | Invalid; valid severable part saved; may be read down (P. Krishnamurthy) |
| Administrative order | The statute conferring the power | Outside the power, or made without applying the mind or on irrelevant considerations | Quashed on a writ petition (Article 226; Article 32 where a fundamental right is affected) |
| Act of a legislature | Articles 245–246, Seventh Schedule; Part III | Beyond legislative competence, or takes away fundamental rights | Void to the extent of the contravention (Article 13(2)); repugnant State law void (Article 254(1)) |
Consequences of an ultra vires act
An ultra vires act has no legal effect, but the precise result depends on the field, as the table above shows. A company’s act outside its objects cannot be ratified even by all the shareholders, while a law against fundamental rights is void only “to the extent of the contravention” (Article 13(2)). For subordinate legislation, “the part that is valid and severable is saved”, and “even the part which is found to be invalid, can be read down to avoid being declared as invalid” (P. Krishnamurthy). And because subordinate legislation is presumed valid, the person attacking it must prove that it is invalid.
Intra vires meaning
Intra vires is the opposite of ultra vires: “within the powers” (in Hindi, “शक्ति के अधीन” or “शक्त्याधीन”, Legal Glossary 2026). The Supreme Court uses the phrase in this sense: in Balsara it described an earlier Privy Council question as whether a money-lending law “was intra vires the Provincial Legislature”, and in Sitaram Sugar (quoted above) it said the delegate must act “intra vires the power granted”.
Examples of ultra vires
- Company: an insurance company’s Rs. 2 lakh donation to a trust was outside its objects and void (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, 1962).
- Rule: a Tamil Nadu rule ending all sand-quarrying leases without the hearing the parent Act requires was invalid to that extent (P. Krishnamurthy, 2006).
- Legislation: the Bombay Prohibition Act was attacked as a law on imports, but was held to be in pith and substance about possession and sale of liquor, and so within the Provincial Legislature’s competence (Balsara, 1951) – a claim of ultra vires for want of competence can fail. Some provisions were struck down on a different ground, as violating Article 19, without affecting “the validity of the Act as it remains”.
How to challenge an act or rule as ultra vires
Against the government, a public authority or subordinate legislation, the usual route is a writ petition. Article 226 lets every High Court issue writs, including certiorari and mandamus, “for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”. Article 32 gives the right to move the Supreme Court “for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part”, that is, fundamental rights; Indian Express itself was decided on writ petitions in the Supreme Court. See our guide to the writ petition and the types of writs.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (6 Dec 1984) and State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (24 Mar 2006), official Supreme Court copies.
For companies, members or depositors who meet the numbers in Section 245 can ask the National Company Law Tribunal to restrain an act that is ultra vires the memorandum or articles.
अल्ट्रा वायर्स (अधिकारातीत) का अर्थ – हिंदी में सारांश (Ultra Vires Meaning in Hindi)
अल्ट्रा वायर्स (ultra vires) लैटिन भाषा का शब्द है। विधायी विभाग (राजभाषा खंड) की “विधि शब्दावली / Legal Glossary 2026” के लैटिन-हिंदी भाग में इसका आधिकारिक हिंदी पर्याय “अधिकारातीत” दिया गया है (“beyond one’s powers”)। सरल शब्दों में (यह हमारा स्पष्टीकरण है) इसका अर्थ है “शक्तियों से परे” – कोई ऐसा काम, नियम या कानून जो उसे बनाने या करने वाले व्यक्ति या संस्था की कानूनी शक्ति से बाहर हो। इसका उल्टा शब्द इंट्रा वायर्स (intra vires) है, जिसके लिए उसी शब्दावली में “शक्ति के अधीन”, “प्राधिकार के अधीन” और “शक्त्याधीन” दिए गए हैं। इसके आगे का सारांश फर्म का अपना हिंदी विवरण है। संविधान के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ के जो शब्द नीचे उद्धृत हैं, वे विधायी विभाग के हिंदी-अंग्रेज़ी संस्करण से लिए गए हैं।
कंपनी कानून में: कंपनी अधिनियम, 2013 की धारा 4(1)(c) के अनुसार हर कंपनी के ज्ञापन (memorandum of association) में उन उद्देश्यों का उल्लेख होना चाहिए जिनके लिए कंपनी बनाई जा रही है। कंपनी केवल इन्हीं उद्देश्यों और उनसे जुड़े आनुषंगिक कामों को कर सकती है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने ए. लक्ष्मणस्वामी मुदलियार बनाम भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम (1962) में कहा कि कंपनी अपने ज्ञापन में लिखे उद्देश्यों से आगे नहीं जा सकती। इस मामले में एक बीमा कंपनी ने एक ट्रस्ट को दो लाख रुपये का दान दिया था, जो उसके उद्देश्यों में नहीं था। न्यायालय ने कहा कि ऐसा अल्ट्रा वायर्स कार्य पूरी तरह शून्य है, उससे कोई कानूनी संबंध पैदा नहीं होता और सभी शेयरधारक मिलकर भी उसका अनुसमर्थन (ratification) नहीं कर सकते। प्रस्ताव के लिए ज़िम्मेदार निदेशकों को वह राशि व्यक्तिगत रूप से लौटाने के लिए उत्तरदायी ठहराया गया। आज धारा 245(1)(a) के तहत निर्धारित न्यूनतम संख्या में सदस्य या जमाकर्ता नेशनल कंपनी लॉ ट्रिब्यूनल (NCLT) से यह आदेश माँग सकते हैं कि कंपनी को ज्ञापन (memorandum) या संगम-अनुच्छेद (articles of association) के बाहर का कोई कार्य करने से रोका जाए।
प्रशासनिक कानून और प्रत्यायोजित विधान में: सरकार या कोई प्राधिकरण किसी अधिनियम के तहत जो नियम, विनियम या अधिसूचना बनाता है, वह उस मूल अधिनियम की सीमा में होनी चाहिए। इंडियन एक्सप्रेस न्यूज़पेपर्स बनाम भारत संघ (1984) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि अधीनस्थ विधान को इस आधार पर चुनौती दी जा सकती है कि वह उस अधिनियम के अनुरूप नहीं है जिसके तहत बनाया गया, किसी दूसरे अधिनियम के विरुद्ध है, या स्पष्ट रूप से मनमाना है। तमिलनाडु राज्य बनाम पी. कृष्णमूर्ति (2006) में न्यायालय ने छह आधार गिनाए और कहा कि ऐसे नियम को वैध माना जाता है, और उसे अवैध बताने वाले पर ही यह साबित करने का भार है। उस मामले में रेत खनन के सभी पट्टे बिना सुनवाई के समाप्त करने वाला नियम मूल अधिनियम की सुनवाई वाली शर्त के विरुद्ध होने के कारण उस हद तक अवैध माना गया, जबकि नियम का बाकी वैध हिस्सा बना रहा।
संवैधानिक कानून में: संविधान का अनुच्छेद 245 संसद और राज्यों के विधान-मंडलों को विधि बनाने की शक्ति देता है, और अनुच्छेद 246 सातवीं अनुसूची की तीन सूचियों के माध्यम से विषय बाँटता है। संविधान के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ में इन्हें “संघ सूची”, “राज्य सूची” और “समवर्ती सूची” कहा गया है, और अनुच्छेद 246(1) कहता है कि संसद को संघ सूची के विषयों पर “विधि बनाने की अनन्य शक्ति है”। जो विषय राज्य सूची या समवर्ती सूची में नहीं है, उस पर विधि बनाने की अवशिष्ट शक्ति संसद के पास है (अनुच्छेद 248)। अपनी शक्ति से बाहर के विषय पर बनाया गया कानून विधायी क्षमता से बाहर होता है। न्यायालय यह देखते हैं कि कानून का “सार” (pith and substance) किस विषय से जुड़ा है; दूसरे विषय पर केवल आनुषंगिक प्रभाव से कानून अवैध नहीं होता (बालसारा, 1951)। जो काम सीधे नहीं किया जा सकता, वह घुमा-फिराकर भी नहीं किया जा सकता (गजपति नारायण देव, 1953)।
मूल अधिकार: अनुच्छेद 13(2) का आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ कहता है: “राज्य ऐसी कोई विधि नहीं बनाएगा जो इस भाग द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों को छीनती है या न्यून करती है और इस खंड के उल्लंघन में बनाई गई प्रत्येक विधि उल्लंघन की मात्रा तक शून्य होगी।” अनुच्छेद 13(3)(क) के अनुसार “विधि” में अध्यादेश, आदेश, उपविधि, नियम, विनियम और अधिसूचना भी शामिल हैं। इसलिए मूल अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करने वाला नियम या अधिसूचना भी शून्य हो सकती है।
उपाय: सरकारी नियम, अधिसूचना या आदेश को अल्ट्रा वायर्स बताकर उच्च न्यायालय में अनुच्छेद 226 के तहत रिट याचिका दायर की जा सकती है; मूल अधिकारों के उल्लंघन पर अनुच्छेद 32 के तहत सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाया जा सकता है। कंपनी के मामलों में धारा 245 के तहत NCLT में आवेदन किया जा सकता है।
Frequently asked questions
Ultra vires is Latin for “beyond the powers”. In law it describes an act, rule or law made by a person or body without the legal power to make it: a company acting outside the objects in its memorandum, a rule-maker going beyond the parent Act, or a legislature legislating outside its subjects under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution. A company’s ultra vires act is “absolutely void” (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. LIC, 1962).
No, not an act outside the company’s objects. In Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. Life Insurance Corporation (1962) the Supreme Court held: “Where a Company does an act which is ultra vires, no legal relationship or effect ensues therefrom. Such an act is absolutely void and cannot be ratified even if all the shareholders agree.” A company that wants to pursue new objects can alter its memorandum by a special resolution, following the procedure in Section 13 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Usually by a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or in the Supreme Court under Article 32 where a fundamental right is affected. The petitioner must show a recognised ground: lack of competence, violation of fundamental rights or another article, failure to conform to the parent Act, conflict with another enactment, or manifest arbitrariness (State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, 2006). The rule is presumed valid, so the burden is on the challenger.
Ultra vires is the wider term: anything beyond the power given by its source. When the source is the Constitution, the act is usually called unconstitutional. A rule can also be ultra vires its parent Act without any constitutional issue; subordinate legislation is open to question “if it is ultra vires the Constitution or the governing Act” (as recorded in P. Krishnamurthy, 2006).
It means a company may do only what its memorandum of association permits, plus what is incidental or conducive to those objects. Section 4(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 requires the memorandum to state “the objects for which the company is proposed to be incorporated and any matter considered necessary in furtherance thereof”. A company “cannot travel beyond the objects”, and an indirect or remote benefit does not bring an act within them (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, 1962).
The Act does not have a single “ultra vires” section. Section 4(1)(c) requires the memorandum to state the company’s objects, Section 10 makes the memorandum binding on the company and its members, and Section 13 allows the memorandum to be altered by special resolution. Section 245(1)(a) lets members or depositors apply to the National Company Law Tribunal “to restrain the company from committing an act which is ultra vires the articles or memorandum of the company”.
It means a rule, regulation, notification or order made by the government or an authority goes beyond the power given by its parent Act, or conflicts with that Act, another law or the Constitution. Subordinate legislation may be questioned if “it does not conform to the statute under which it is made” (Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, 1984), and is then invalid to that extent.
It means a law goes beyond the powers the Constitution gives the legislature. Articles 245 and 246 and the Seventh Schedule divide subjects between Parliament (Union List), the States (State List) and both (Concurrent List). Parliament also has the residuary power over matters in neither the State nor the Concurrent List (Article 248). A law outside the legislature’s powers, or one taking away fundamental rights, is ultra vires; under Article 13(2) such a law is void “to the extent of the contravention”. Competence is judged by the law’s “pith and substance” (F.N. Balsara, 1951).
Intra vires means “within the powers”, the opposite of ultra vires: an act inside the power given by the company’s memorandum, the parent Act or the Constitution. The Supreme Court used it this way in Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India (1990), quoted in P. Krishnamurthy (2006): the delegate “must act in good faith, reasonably, intra vires the power granted”.
In Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. LIC (1962), an insurance company’s shareholders resolved to donate Rs. 2 lakhs to a trust for promoting technical or business knowledge. The donation was outside the company’s objects, so it was ultra vires and void, and the directors responsible were held personally liable to make good the amount. A rule ending leases without the hearing its parent Act required is another example (P. Krishnamurthy, 2006).
The official Hindi term is “अधिकारातीत”, given for “ultra vires: beyond one’s powers” in the Legislative Department’s Legal Glossary 2026 (Part II, Latin-Hindi). The same glossary gives intra vires as “शक्ति के अधीन”, “प्राधिकार के अधीन” or “शक्त्याधीन”. In plain words (our explanation), ultra vires means “शक्तियों से परे”, beyond the powers. The Constitution’s official Hindi text uses “शून्य” for “void” (Article 13).
It depends on the field. A company’s act outside its objects is “absolutely void” and cannot be ratified (Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, 1962). A law contravening fundamental rights is void “to the extent of the contravention” (Article 13(2)). For subordinate legislation, “the part that is valid and severable is saved” and the invalid part may be read down (P. Krishnamurthy, 2006).
Colourable legislation is a law that appears to be within the legislature’s powers but in substance deals with a subject outside them. In K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953) the Supreme Court said the doctrine is not about the legislature’s motives: it turns on the “question of competency of a particular legislature to enact a particular law” and “is based upon the maxim that you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly”.
Conclusion
Ultra vires means “beyond the powers”, and intra vires “within the powers”. A company’s act outside its memorandum is void and cannot be ratified; a rule that does not conform to its parent Act is invalid, though its valid part may be saved or read down; and a law beyond legislative competence or against fundamental rights is void to that extent.
Anyone who believes a rule, notification or order is ultra vires should identify the exact source of the power and the exact ground of challenge, remembering that the courts presume subordinate legislation to be valid.
Sources used for this post: the Companies Act, 2013, Sections 2(56), 2(90), 4(1)(c), 10(1), 13(1) and 245, India Code text A2013-18.pdf (as on 1 September 2026); the Constitution of India, Articles 13, 32, 226, 245, 246, 248 and 254, India Code text “The Constitution of India in English 2026” (as on 1 May 2026), and the official Hindi text of Articles 13, 245 and 246 in the Legislative Department’s “The Constitution of India (Diglot-Hindi and English)”, as on 1 May 2024, https://www.legislative.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/08/575648bd8ecb7654db902b93115d35e4.pdf (PDF pages 73 and 351); the Legislative Department (Official Languages Wing) “विधि शब्दावली / Legal Glossary 2026”, Part II Latin-Hindi, printed pages 702 (“intravires”) and 705 (“ultra vires”), https://www.legislative.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/05/4e2d457cbe2d6f67043cc1fb63799517.pdf (listed on https://www.legislative.gov.in/documents/publications); and Supreme Court judgments in their official copies: State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, 25 May 1951, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/1182.pdf; K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, 29 May 1953, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/1020.pdf; Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. Life Insurance Corporation, 11 December 1962, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/3660.pdf; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 6 December 1984, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/9409.pdf; State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, 24 March 2006, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/27592.pdf. Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche, Shri Sitaram Sugar Co., Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association and the Privy Council case on the Bengal Money-lenders Act are cited only as recorded in these judgments, and Section 4A(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as set out in P. Krishnamurthy.
