Lecture IV

Delegated Legislation
(General Principles)

It is sometimes said that Parliament makes the laws. It is true that Par-
liament makes the laws if by this we mean that Parliament has an
essential role in the creation of A cts; but looking at the whole legis-
lative process, it would perhaps be more realistic to say that the
Government makes the laws subject to prior Parliamentary consent.
—GRIFFITH
The delegated legislation is so multitudinous that the statute book would
not only he incomplete but misleading unless it be read along with
the delegated legislation which amplifies and amends it.
—SIR CECIL CARR
Delegated legislation' is an expression which covers a multitude of con-
fusion. It is an excuse for the legislators, a shield for the adminis-
trators and a provocation to the constitutional jurists.
—JUSTICE MUKHERJEA
SYNOPSIS
I. General
2. Definition
1 Reasons for growth of delegated legislation
(a) Pressure upon Parliamentary time
(b) Technicality
(c) Flexibility
(d) Experiment
(e) Emergency
(J) Complexity of modern administration
4. Forms of delegated legislation
5. Delegated legislation in England
6. Delegated legislation in U.S.A.
(a) In theory
(b) In practice
(c) Conclusions
7. Delegated legislation in India
(a) Pre-Constitution period
(b) Post-Constitution period
8. Excessive delegation
(a) General
(b) Nature and scope

1 57 1
 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.
58
(c) Abdication
(d) Principles
(e) Test
(f) Powers and duties of courts
(g) Conclusions
9. Functions which can be delegated (Permissible Delegation)
10. Functions which cannot be delegated (Impermissible Delegation)
II. Delegation in favour of local authorities
(a) General
(b) Nature and scope
(e) Object
(d) Judicial approach
(e) Limitations
(f) Principles
(g) Conclusions
12. Taxing statutes
13. Conditional legislation
(a) Definition
(b) Nature and scope
(c) Illustrative cases
(d) Conditional Legislation and Delegated Legislation Distinction
(e) Conclusions
14. Sub-delegation
(a) Definition
(b) Illustration
(c) Object
(d) Express power
(e) implied power
() Criticism
(g) Conclusions
15. General principles
1. GENERAL
According to the traditional theory, the function of the executive is
to administer the law enacted by the legislature, and in the ideal State,
the legislative power must be exercised exclusively by the legislators
who are directly responsible to the electorate. But, as observed in the
previous lecture, as a matter of fact, apart from 'pure' administrative
functions, the executive performs many legislative and judicial functions
also. In England, theoretically it is only Parliament which can make laws.
Looking to the legislative process, however, it is really the Government
which makes the laws subject to parliamentary control.' Even in the
United States of America where the doctrine of delegated legislation has

I. Committee on Ministers' Power Report, 1932. p. 33.

 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 59
tot been accepted in principle, in practice the legislature has entrusted
egislative powers to the executive. Due to a number of reasons, particu-
any after two world wars, there is rapid growth of administrative legis-
ation. In India, during 1973 to 1977, Parliament enacted about 300
;tatutes, but total number of statutory rules and orders reached more than
15,000 In this lecture, we shall consider the legislative and quasi-legis-
ativc functions performed by the executive.
2. DEnNrrtoN
It is very difficult to give any precise definition of the expression
delegated legislation'. It is equally difficult to state with certainty the
cope of such delegated legislation. Mukheijea, J. 3 rigflly says:
Delegated legislation is an expression which covers a multitude
of confusion. It is an excuse for the legislators, a shield for the ad-
ministrators and a provocation to the constitutional jurists....
The simple meaning of the expression 'delegated legislation' may
e given as under:
"When the function of legislation is entrusted to organs other
than the legislature by the legislature itself, the legislation made by
such organs is called delegated legislation."
According to MJ. Jain', the term 'delegated legislation is used in
wo senses: it may mean (a) exercise by a subordinate agency of the
cgislativc power delegated to it by the legislature, or (b) the subsidiary
ules themselves which are made by the subordinate authority in pur-
uance of the power conferred on it by the legislature.
In its first application, it means that the authority making the legis-
ation is subordinate to the legislature. The legislative powers are exer-
:ised by an authority other than the legislature in exercise of the powers
lelegated or conferred on them by the legislature itself. This is also
nown as 'subordinate legislation', because the powers of the authority
vhich makes it are limited by the statute which conferred the power and
:onsequently, it is valid only insofar as it keeps within those limits.5
In its second connotation, 'delegated legislation' means and includes
ill rules, regulations, bye-laws, orders, etc. Thus, the object of the Mini-
num Wages Act, 1948 is "to provide for fixing minimum wages in

2. Prof. Upendra Baxi, cited in Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (1979) 1 SCC
137(160): AIR 1979 SC 321(336).
3. Quoted by Chakraverti: Administrative Law, 1970, p. 166.
4. Treatise on Administrative Law, 1996, Vol. 1. p. 51; see also Yardley: A Source
Book of English Administrative Law. 1970, p. 36.
S. Basu: Administrative Law, 1996, p. 65.
60 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd.

certain employments". The Act applies to employments mentioned in

the Schedule. But the Central Government (executive) is empowered to
add any other employment to the Schedule if, 'in the opinion of the
Government' the Act should apply.
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 enumerates certain com-
modities as 'essential commodities' under the Act. But the list given in
the statute is not exhaustive and the Central Government is empowered
to declare any other commodity as 'essential commodity' and to apply
the provisions of the Act to it.
The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 empowers the Central Government
to exempt any establishment or a class of establishments from the oper-
ation of the Act, having regard to the financial position and other relevant
considerations.
The Defence of India Act, 1962 authorized the Central Government to
make "such rules as appear to it to be necessary or expedient" for the
defence of India and maintenance of public order and safety.
The income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Board to make rules "for
carrying out the purposes of the Act and for the ascertainment and deter-
mination of any class of income".
The statute enacted by the legislature conferring the legislative
power upon the executive is known as the 'parent Act' or 'primary
law', and the rules, regulations, bye-laws, orders, etc. made by the
executive in pursuance of the legislative powers conferred by the legis-
lature are known as subordinate laws or subsidiary laws or the 'child
legislation'.
3. REASONS FOR GROWTH OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Many factors are responsible for the rapid growth of delegated legis-
lation in every modern democratic State. The traditional theory of 'laissez
faire' has been given up by every State and the old 'police State' has
now become a 'welfare State'. Because of this radical change in the
philosophy as to the role to be played by the State, its functions have
increased. Consequently, delegated legislation has become essential and
inevitable. As the American lawyer and statesman Root remarks: "The
old doctrine prohibiting the delegation of legislative powers has virtually
retired from the field and given up the fight". According to the Com-
mittee on Ministers' Powers, "it would be impossible to produce the
amount and the kind of legislation which Parliament desires to pass and
which the people of this country are supposed to want, if it became
necessary to insert in the Acts of Parliament themselves any considerable
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 61

portion of what is now left to delegated legislation." 6 In the opinion of

the Committee, the factors responsible for the growth of delegated legis-
lation are':
(a) Pressure upon Parliamentary time
As a result of the expanding horizons of State activity, the bulk of
legislation is so great that it is not possible for the legislature to devote
sufficient time to discuss all the matters in detail. Therefore, legislature
formulates the general policy - the skeleton - and empowers the ex-
ecutive to fill in the details - 'thus giving flesh and blood to the skeleton
so that it may live' 8 - by issuing necessary rules, regulations, bye-laws,
etc. In the words of Sir Cecil Carr 9 , delegated legislation is ' • a growing
child called upon to relieve the parent of the strain of overwork and
capable of attending to minor matters, while the parent manages the main
business". If the 525 parliamentarians are to focus on every minuscule
legislative detail leaving nothing to subordinate agencies the annual out-
put may be both unsatisfactory and negligible. 10 The Committee on Min-
isters' Powers has rightly observed:
'The truth is, that if Parliament were not willing to delegate
law-making power, Parliament would be unable to pass the kind and
quality of legislation which niodern public opinion requires."
(emphasis supplied)
(b) Technicality
Sometimes, the subject-matter on which legislation is required is so
technical in nature that the legislator, being himself a common man,
cannot be expected to appreciate and legislate on the same, and the as-
sistance of experts may be required. Members of Parliament may be the
best politicians but they are not experts to deal with highly-technical
matters which are required to be handled by experts. Here the legislative
power may be conferred on experts to deal with the technical problems,
e.g. gas, atomic energy, drugs, electricity, etc.

6. Cited in Municipal Corpu., Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mills, A IR 1968 SC 1232 at

p. 1252.
7. See Delhi Laws A ct, 1912, Re, AIR 1951 SC 332: 1951 SCR 747; Municipal
Corpn., Delhi v. Birla Conan Mills. AIR 1968 SC 1232: (1968) 3 SCR 251;
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. v. A ssn. Conunr. of Sales Tax, (1974) 4 SCC 98: A IR
1974 SC 1660; A vinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (1979) 1 SCC 137: A IR 1979 SC
321; Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 430: A IR 1990 SC 560.
8. Garner: A dministrative Law, 1985. p. 49.
9. Delegated Legislation, 1921, p. 2.
tO. A vinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 1 SCC 137: AIR 1979 SC 321.
62 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.

(c) Flexibility
At the time of passing any legislative enactment, it is impossible to
foresee all the contingencies, and some provision is required to be made
for these unforeseen situations demanding exigent action. A legislative
amendment is a slow and cumbersome process, but by the device of
delegated legislation, the executive can meet the situation expeditiously,
e.g. bank-rate, police regulations, export and import, foreign exchange,
etc. For that purpose, in many statutes, a'removal of difficulty' clause
is found empowering the administration to overcome difficulties by exer-
cising delegated power.
(d) Experiment
The practice of delegated legislation enables the executive to experi-
ment. This method permits rapid utilisation of experience and implernen-
taton of necessary changes in application of the provisions in the light
of such experience, e.g. in road traffic matters, an experiment may he
conducted and in the light of its application necessary changes could he
made.
(e) Emergency
In times of emergency, quick action is required to he taken. The
legislative process is not equipped to provide for urgent solution to meet
the situation. Delegated legislation is the only convenient indeed the
onl y possible -- remed y . Therefore, in times of war and other national
emergencies, the executive is vested with special and extremely wide
powers to deal with the situation. There was substantial growth of dele-
gatc. legislation during the two world wars. Similarly, in situation of
epidemics, floods, inflation, economic depression, etc. immediate reme-
dial actions are necessary which may not be possible by lengthy legis-
lative process and delegated legislation is the only convenient remedy.
(f) Complexity of modern administration
The complexity of modem administration and the expansion of the
functions of (he State to the economic and social sphere have rendered
it necessary to resort to new forms of legislation and to give wide powers
to various authorities on suitable occasions. By resorting to traditional
legislative process, the entire object may he frustrated by vested interests
and the goal of control and regulation over private trade and business
may not be achieved at alt.
However one might deplore the Nev Despotism' of the Executive,
the very complexity of the modern society and the demand it makes on
its Government have set in motion forces which have made it absolutely
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (,GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 63
necessary for the Legislatures to entrust more and more powers to the
Executive. Textbook doctrines evolved in the 19th century have become
out of date")' (emphasis supplied).
There has, therefore, been rapid growth of delegated legislation in
all countries and it has become indispensable in the modem administra-
tive era
4. FORMS OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Delegated legislation may take several forms. They may be normal
or of exceptional type; they may be usual or unusual; positive or negative;
skeleton or Henry VIII clause. Broadly speaking, delegated legislation
may be classified on the following principles; 12
(i) Title-based classification
Delegated legislation may be in the forms of Rules, Regulations,
Bye-laws, Notifications, Schemes, Orders, Ordinances, Directions, etc.
(ii) Discretion-based classification
A discretion may he conferred on the executive to bring the Act into
operation on fulfilment of certain conditions. Such legislation is called
"conditional" or 'contingent" legislation.
(iii) Purpose-based classification
A classification may he based on nature and extent of power con-
ferred and purposes for which such power can be exercised. Thus, ex-
ecutive can be empowered to fix appointed day for the Act to come into
force, to supply details, to extend the provisions of the Act to other areas,
to include or to exclude operation of the Act to certain territories, persons,
industries, commodities, to suspend or to modify the provisions of the
Act, etc.
(iv) Authority-based classification
A statute may also empower the executive to delegate further powers
conferred on it to its subordinate authority. This is known as "sub-dele-
gation".
5. DELEGATED LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND
In England, Parliament is sovereign. In principle, it is only Parliament
which can enact laws. But as observed by C.K. Allen: "Nothing is more
Ii. Sita Ram v. Store of U.P., (1972) 4 SCC 485(487): A IR 1972 $C 1168(1169)
12. W ade: A dministrative Law, 1994, p. 867: Benjafield and W hitmore: A ustralian
A dministrative Law, 1966, p. 116; M.P. Jam: Treatise on A dministrative Law.
1996, p. 67; Massey: A dministrative Law. 1995, p. 67.
64 LCrURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW tLECr.

striking in the legal and social history of the nineteenth century in Eng-
land than the development of subordinate legislation)3
Maitland also said: "Year by year the subordinate Government of
England is becoming more and more important. The new movement set
in with the Reform Bill of 1832: it has gone far already and assuredly
it will go farther. W e are becoming a much governed nation, governed
by all manner of councils and boards and officers, central and local,
high and low, exercising the powers which have been committed to them
by modern statutes." 14 (emphasis supplied)
The reasons for growth of delegated legislation in other countries
were equally responsible for the development of delegated legislation in
England. Parliament had no time to deal with various matters in detail.
Complexity, technicality, emergency and expediency compelled Parlia-.
ment to delegate its 'legislative office' to government.
Traditionally, administrative legislation was looked upon as an evil,
but gradually it came to be regarded as justifiable in principle also. It
was realised that legislation and administration were not two fundamen-
tally different forms of power. Tests formulated to distinguish legislative
and administrative functions proved insufficient and inappropriate.15
But at the same time, administrative law had not been accepted as
a developed and recognised branch of law. Taylor, therefore, observed:
"Until August, 1914 a sensible law abiding Englishman could pass
through life and hardly notice the existence of the State, beyond the post
office and the policeman")6
During two world wars, there was tremendous increase in delegated
legislation. In various fields massive inroads were made in comparatively
personal matters of citizens, e.g. housing, education, employment, pen-
sion, health, planning, production, preservation and distribution of essen-
tial commodities, social security, etc. In twentieth century, Parliament
was obliged to delegate extensive law-making power in favour of Gov-
ernment. A hue and cry was raised against the growth of delegated legis-
lation. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Committee on Ministers'
Powers (Donoughmore Committee) in 1929. The Committee submitted
its report in 1932. It observed, "We doubt, whether Parliament itself has

13. Law in the Making, (1993), p. 531.

14. Constitutional History of England, p. 501, cited by C.K. Allen.
15. Wade: A dmimsrra:ive Law, 1994, pp. 859-60. For distinction between legislative
and administrative functions, see Lecture 111, supra.
16. English History (1914-1945), p. 1; see also Committee on Ministers' Powers
Report. 1932. p. 5; Wade: A dministrative Law. 1994, p. 4.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 65
ully realised how extensive the practice of delegated legislation has
)ecome, or the extent to which it has surrendered its own functions in
he process, or how easily the practice might be abused."7
The Committee rightly stated;
"The system of delegated legislation is both legitimate and con-
stitutionally desirable for certain purposes, within certain limits, and
under certain safeguards."8
6. DELEGATED LEGISLATION IN US.A.

a) In theory
Under the Constitution of the United States of America, delerated
egislation is not accepted in theory because of two doctrines:
1) Separation of powers
This doctrine is accepted under the Constitution of the U.S.A. an
y Article I, legislative power is expressly conferred on the Congress
snd the judiciary has power to interpret the Constitution and declare any
;tatute unconstitutional if it does not conform to the piovisions of the
onstitution. In the leading case of Field v. Clark", the American Sn-
reme Court observed:
"That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the Presi-
dent is a principle universally recognised as vital to the integrity and
maintenance of the system of Government ordained by the Constitu-
tion.' '°
ii) Delegatus non potest delegare (A delegate cannot further delegate)
According to this doctrine, a delegate cannot further delegate his
power. As the Congress gets power from the people and is a delegate
f the people in that sense, it cannot further delegate its legislative power
:o the executive or to any other agency. A power conferred upon an
agent because of his fitness and the confidence reposed in him cannot
e delegated by him to another is a general and admitted rule. Legisla-
tures stand in this relation to the people whom they represent. Hence, it
is a cardinal principle of representative Government, that the legislature
rannot delegate the power to make laws to any other body or authority.2'

17. Committee on Ministers' Powers Report, 1932. p. 62.

18. Committee on Ministers' Powers Report, 1932, p. 51.
19(1892) 143 US 649.
20. id. at p. 692.
21. Pennsylvania case, (1873) 71 Locke's Appeal 491(497).
 66 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEC

(h) In practice
Though, in theory, it was not possible for the Congress to delegai
its legislative power to the executive, strict adherence thereto was in
practicable. Governmental functions had increased and it was irnpossib]
for the Congress to enact all the statutes with all particulars. The Supreni
Court could not shut its eyes to this reality and tried to create 'a balanc
between the two conflicting forces: doctrine of separation of powers ba:
ring delegation and the inevitability of delegation due to the exigenci
of the modern Government'.22
In Panama Refining Co. v. R yan23 , popularly known as the Hot 0
case, under Section 9(c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA
1933, the President was authorised by the Congress to prohibit transporl
ation of oil in inter-State commerce in excess of the quota fixed by th
State concerned. The policy of the Act was 'to encourage national in
dustrial recovery' and 'to foster fair competition'. The Supreme Coui
by majority held that the delegation was invalid. According to the Coui
the Congress had not declared any legislative policy or standard.
In Schechter Poultry Corpn. v. U.S. 24 (Sick Chicken case), the Su
prerne Court unanimously struck down Section 3 of the National Indus
trial Recovery Act (NIRA). 1933 which authorised the President ti
approve codes of fair competition and violation thereof was made pun
ishable. The Court held that the discretion of the President was 'virtual!
unfettered' 25
After the above two cases, however, the Supreme Court took a lihera
view and in many cases, upheld delegation of legislative power. Thus
in National Broadcasting Co. V. US. 26, vast powers were conferred UO!
the Federal Communication Committee (FCC) to licence broadcastin
stations under the Communications Act, 1934. The criterion was 'publi
interest, convenience or necessity'. Though it was vague and ambiguous
the Supreme Court held it to be a valid standard. Similarly, in Y akus v
US. 21 , under the Emergency Price Control Act, 1942, the Price Admin
istrator was given the power to fix such maximum price which "in hi
judgment will be generally fair and equitable and will effectuate the pur.
poses of the Act''. The Administrator was required, so far as practicable
22. ILl: Cases and Materials on Administrative Law in India, 1966, Vol. 1,
188-89.
21 1934) 293 Us 388.
24. (1935) 295 Us 495: 79 L Ed 1570.
25. Id. at pp. 541.42
26. (1943) 319 US 190.
27. (1944) 321 US 414.
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 67
to give due consideration to the prices prevailing between October 1 and
October 15, 1941, but was allowed to consider a later date if necessary
data were not available, and yet the Supreme Court sustained the dele-
gation, holding that the standards were adequate. Justice Roberts (mi-
nority view) rightly observed that by the majority judgment, Schechter
(supra) was overruled. Again, in Litcher v. U.S), the Reorganisation
Act, 1942, empowered Administrative Officers to determine whether the
prices were excessive and to recover profits which they determined to
be excessive. The Supreme Court held the delegation valid observing
that the statutory term 'excessive profits' was a sufficient expression of
legislative policy and standards to render it constitutional.
Davis29 maintains that 'greatest delegation' was sanctioned by the
Supreme Court as the "judicial language about standard was artificial".
According to him, the definition of 'excessive profits' was given as 'ex-
cessive means excessive'.
(c) Conclusions
From the above discussion, it clearly emerges that the traditional
theory has been given up and the Supreme Court has also adopted a
liberal approach. Thus, 'pragmatic considerations have prevailed over
theoretical objections' ,30 Schwartz rightly says: 'if the standards such
as those contained in the Reorganisation and Communications Acts are
upheld as adequate, it becomes apparent that the requirement of standards
has become more a matter of form than substance.' '° I must quote here
a well-known syllogism of Prof. Cushman:
MAJOR PREMISE : Legislative power cannot be constitu-
tionally delegated b Congrcs.
MINOR PREMISE : It is essential that certain powers he
delegated to administrative officers and
regulatory commissions.
CONCLUSION : Therefore, the powers thus delegated are
not Legislative powers.
7. DELEGATED LEGISLATION IN INDIA
The discussion can he divided into two stacs-
(a) pre-Constitution period; and
(b) post-Constitution period.

28. (1947) 334 US 742.

29. A dministrative Law. 1951, pp. 45-54.
30. Schwartz: A n Introduction to A merican A dministrative Law. 1984. p. 47.
68 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd.

(a) Pre-Constitution period

Queen v. Burah3l is considered to be the leading authority on the
subject. By Act XXII of 1869, Garro Hills was removed from the juris-
diction of civil and criminal courts, and by Section 9, the Lieutenant-
Governor was empowered to extend muratis mutandis all or any of the
provisions of the Act applicable to Khasi, Jaintia and Naga Hills in the
Garro Hills and to fix the date of such application. By a notification
dated October 14, 1871, the Lieutenant-Governor extended all the pro-
visions of the Act to the District of Khasi and Jaintia Hills. The appellants
who were convicted of murder and sentenced to death, challenged the
notification.
The High Court of Calcutta 32, by a majority upheld the contention
of the .ppcllants and held that Section 9 of the Act was ultra vires the
powers of the Indian Legislature. According to the Court, the Indian
Legislature was a delegate of the Imperial Parliament and, therefore, fur-
ther delegation was not permissible.
On appeal, the Privy Council reversed the decision of the Calcutta
High Court. It held that the Indian Legislature was not an agent or dele-
gate of the Imperial Parliament arid it had plenary powers of legislation
as those of the Imperial Parliament itself. It agreed that the Governor-
General in Council could not, by legislation, create a new legislative
power in India not created or authorised by the Council's Act. But in
fact it was not done. It was only a case of conditional legislation, as the
Governor was not authorised to pass new laws, hut merely to extend the
provisions of the Act already passed by the competent legislature upon
fulfilment of certain conditions.
In Jatindra Nat/i Gupta v. Province of Ri/jar33, the Bihar Mainten-
ance of Public Order Act, 1948 was to remain in force for one year.
However, the power was conferred on the Provincial Government to ex-
tend the operation of the Act for a further period of one year. By a
majority, the Federal Court held that the power to extend the operation
of the Act beyond the period of one year was a legislative act, and
therefore, could not be delegated. However, in a dissenting judgment,
Fazl Au, J. 31 upheld the provision as the extension of the Act, for a
further period of one year could not amount to its re-enactment. It merely
31. (1878) 3 AC 889: (1878) 5 IA 178: ILR 4 Cal 172 (PC).
32. Empress v. Burah and Book Singh, ILR 3 Cal 64: I CLR 161 (FB).
33. AIR 1949 FC 175: 1949 FCR 595.
34. id. at p. 194 (AIR).
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 69

mounted to a continuance of the Act for which the maximum period

vas contemplated by the legislature itself.
It is submitted that the minority view was correct and subsequently
n irider Singh v. State of Rajasthan 35 the Supreme Court upheld the
;imilar provision.
b) Post-Constitution period
Delhi Laws A ct, 1912, Re 36 is the first leading case decided by the
uprcme Court on delegated legislation after the Constitution of India
:ame into force. A reference was made to the Supreme Court by the
?resident of India under Article 143 of the Constitution in the following
:i rcumstances:
The Central Government was authorised by Section 2 of the "Part
'C' States" (Laws) Act, 1950 to extend to any "Part 'C' State" with
such modifications and restrictions as it thinks fit, any enactment in force
in a "Part 'A' State"; and while doing so, it could repeal or amend any
corresponding law (other than a Central Act) which might be in force
in the "Part 'C' State".
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide the legality of the
aforesaid provision. All the seven judges who heard the reference gave
their separate answers 'exhibiting a cleavage of judicial opinion' on the
question of limits to which the legislature in India should he permitted
to delegate its legislative power. The majority held the provision valid
subject to two limitations-
(i) the executive cannot be authorised to repeal a law in force
and thus, the provision which empowered the Central Govern-
ment to repeal a law already in force in the Part C State was
had; and
(ii) by exercising the power of modification, the legislative policy
should not be changed; and thus, before applying any law to the
Part C State, the Central Government cannot change the legisla-
tive policy.
The importance of the Delhi Laws A ct case cannot be under-esti-
mated inasmuch as, on the one hand, it permitted delegation of legislative
power by the legislature to the executive; while on the other hand, it
demarcated the extent of such permissible delegation of power by the
Legislature.

35. AIR 1957 SC 510: 1957 SCR 605; see also Lecture V. infra.
36. AIR 1951 SC 332: 1951 SCR 747.
 70 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd

Principle laid down in Delhi Laws A ct case - A s stated above, al

the seven judges gave their separate opinions. Many a time a questior
is asked as . to whether any principle was laid down by the majority opi
nion. There is difference of opinion amongst jurists regarding this.
According to Patanjali Sastri, C.J. 37, 'undoubtedly, certain definitt
conclusions were reached by the majority of the judges, it is difficult tc
say that any particular principle was laid down, which can be of assist-
ance in the determination of other cases'. Seervai 38 is also of the samc
opinion.
On the other hand, Bose, J. 39 and Basu 40 are of the opinion that ir
spite of separate opinions, certain principles have been laid down by the
Supreme Court in Delhi Laws A ct case. M.P. Jam 4 ' is right when he
states that on two points there was similarity in the outlook evidenced
in the opinions. First, keeping the exigencies of the modern Government
in view. Parliament and the State legislatures in India need to delegate
legislative power if they are to be able to face the multitudinous problems
facing the country, for it is neither practicable nor feasible to expect that
each of the legislative bodies could turn out complete and comprehensive
legislation on all subjects sought to be legislated upon. Second, since the
legislatures derive their powers from the written Constitution which cre-
ates them, they could not be allowed the same freedom as the British
Parliament in the matter of delegation; some limits should he set on their
capacity to delegate. The major difficulty was, and it was on this point
that the Judges differed, where to set the limit, where to draw the line,
what were to be the permissible contours within which an Indian legis-
lature could delegate its legislative power?
In Harishankar Bagla v. State of M.P. 42, under Section 3 of the Es-
sential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, the Central Government
was empowered to issue an order for the regulation of production, dis-
tribution, etc. of essential commodities and by Section 6 it was provided
that "an order made under Section 3 shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than
the Act". Both the sections were challenged on the ground of excessive
delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court held that the object
37. Kai'hi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, A IR 1952 SC 123: 1952 SCR 435.
38. Constitutional Law of India, 1976, V ol. II, p. 1196.
39. Rajnarain Singh v. Puma A dmit. Committee, AIR 1954 SC 569: (1955) 1 SCR
290.
40. Conimnenjarli's on the Constitution of India, V ol. IV , p. 141.
41. Treatise on A dministrative Law, 1996, V ol. 1, p. 62.
42. AIR 1954 SC 465: (1955) 1 SCR 380.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 71
f Section 6 was not to repeal or abrogate any existing law, but to bypass
ie same where the provisions thereof were inconsistent with the provisions
f the Act, The court also held that the legislative policy was laid down in
ie Act and, therefore, there was no excessive delegation. Thus, in fact,
cry broad delegation of legislative power was judicially sanctioned.
Similarly, in Edward Mills v. State of A jrner43, the Schedule to the
1inimum Wages Act, 1948, contained a list of industries to which the
ct was made applicable by Parliament, but the appropriate Government
'as authorised to add any other industry to the said Schedule. The matter
f application of the provisions of the Act to any industry was left to
Ic 'opinion of the Government' but no norms were laid down for the
xercise of such discretion and yet, the Supreme Court upheld the validity
f the Act. According to the Court, the legislative policy was apparent
n the face of the Act to fix minimum wages to avoid the chance of
xploitation of labour. But 'the test for selecting industries to he included
i the Schedule, which the court propounded, was nowhere mentioned
1 the Act but was formulated by the Court itself to uphold the Act'.'-'
A fter the Delhi Laws A ct case, Harndard l)awakhana v. Union of
idia45 was probably the first case in which a Central Act was held ultra
ires on the ground of excessive delegation. The Drugs and Magic Remedies
Dbjectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 was enacted by Parliament to
ontrol advertisement of certain drugs. Section 3 laid down a list of diseases
r which advertisement was prohibited and authorised the Central Govern-
lent to include any other disease in the list. The Supreme Court held
ection 3 invalid as no criteria, standards or principles had been laid
own therein, and the power delegated was unguided and uncontrolled.
It is submitted that the view taken by the Supreme Court was erro-
eous inasmuch as, the legislative policy had been laid down in the pie-
mble and title of the Act. Certain diseases had been mentioned and the
overnment was empowered to include and to bring within its purview
ny other disease'. There is nothing objectionable in such a provision
nd prior to this case as well as in subsequent cases, such a provision
as been held valid by the Court in a number of cases. 46 It is not necess-

13. AIR 1955 SC 25: (1955) 1 SCR 735.

W. M.P. Jam: Indian Constivaional Law, 1987. p. 78.
[Link] 1960 SC 554: (1960) 2 SCR 671.
[Link] Mills v. State of A jiner, A IR 1955 SC 25; Banarsi Das v. State of%1.P..
AIR 1958 Sc 909: 1959 SCR 427; Sable v. Union of India, (1975) 1 SCC 763:
AIR 1975 Sc 1172: &rhu Ran! v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 616: AIR
1979 Sc 1475; Brij v First A dd!, District Judge. (1989) 1 SCC 561:
AIR 1989 SC 572.
72 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd

ary that the legislature should "dot all the i's and cross all the t's" o
its policy.47
In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. v. Assrr. Conr,nr. 48 , under Sectioi
8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Parliament did not fix th
rate of Central Sales Tax but adopted the rate applicable to the sale c
purchase of goods within the appropriate State in case such rate exceed
10 per cent. The said section was challenged on the ground that Parlia
merit in not fixing the rate itself and in adopting the rate applicable withi
the appropriate State has not laid down any legislative policy and ha
abdicated its legislative function.
The section was upheld by all the five judges 49 , holding that sufficier
guideline was provided in the Act by Parliament. But this case is note
worthy for two diverse approaches adopted by Khanna, J. (for thre
judges) and Mathew. J. (for two judges) in respect of the following con
tention.
On behalf of the Sales Tax Department, a pre-eniptive argument w
put forward that while conferring power upon a delegate to make sut
ordinate legislation, the legislature need not disclose any policy, principi
or standard because if the legislature can repeal an enactment, as it not
mally can, it retains sufficient control over the authority making the su
ordinate legislation.
Khanna, J. (for himself, Alagiriswami and Bhagwati, JJ.) rejecte
the argument and reiterated that the legislature must lay down a polic
principle or standard for the guidance of the delegate. The rule again
excessive delegation of legislative authority flows from the sovereign(
of the people. The rule contemplates that it is not permissible to su
stitute. in the matter of legislative policy, the view of individual officci
or other authorities, however competent they may he, for that of di
popular will as expressed by the representatives of the people. The a
ceptance of the view canvassed by the department would lead to startlin
results. If Parliament were to enact that as the crime situation in tli
country has deteriorated, criminal law to be enforced in the countr
would be such as is framed by an officer mentioned in the enactmen
can it be said that there has been no excessive delegation of legislati
power? To say that if Parliament does not approve the law made by t
officer concerned, it can repeal the same or the parent Act is no answe

47. Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 430 (471): A IR 1990 S
560.
48. (1974) 4 SCC 98: AIR 1974 SC 1660.
49. Ra y , CT, Khanna, Mathew, Alagiriswami and Bhagwati. Ji.
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 73

The delegating section was, however, held valid on the ground that the
Act was plainly enacted with a view to prevent evasion of the payment
of central sales tax.
The concurring judgment of Mathew, J. (for himself and Ra y , C.J.)
accepted the said argument and observed that delegation involves the
granting of discretionary power to another, but the ultimate power always
remains with the legislature. What is prohibited is abdication, i.e. con-
ferment of arbitrary power by the legislature upon a subordinate body
without reserving to itself control over that body. Relying upon the de-
cisions in Queen v. Burah 5° and Cobb v. Kropp", Mathew. J. observed
that a legislature cannot he said to abdicate its legislative function if it
could at any time repeal the legislation and withdraw the authority and
discretion it had vested in the delegate.
Without referring to the majority or minority judgment in Gwa/ior
Rayon, Mathew, J. reiterated his views in M.K. Papiah v. Excise Corn-
missioner-52. Section 22 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1966 conferred on
the Government a power to fix the rates of excise duty and Section 71
empowered the Government to make rules. Rules made under the Act
were to be laid before the State legislature as soon as practicable after
they had been made. Both the sections were challenged on the ground
of impermissible delegation of legislative power. Mathew. J. speaking
for a unanimous Court of three judges observed that the laying of the
rules before the legislature was a sufficient check on the power conferred
on the delegate. The petitioners thereupon argued that the rules would
come into, force as soon as they were framed and that the power of the
legislature to repeal rules subsequently could not he regarded as sufficient
control over delegated legislation. Rejecting this argumenL, Mathew, J.
observed that considering the compulsions and complexities of modern
life such control must be regarded as sufficient.
Welcoming this departure, Seervai 53 says that the unanimous judg-
ment in Pqpiah shows that 'after twenty-five years of wandering in the
legal maze of its own creation, the Supreme Court of India, like the
Supreme Court of the United States has come round to the view ex-
pressed by the Privy Council in l878'.

50. (1878) 3 AC 889: (1878) 5 IA 178 (PC).

51. (1967) AC 141 (PC).
52. (1975) 1 SCC 492: AIR 1975 SC 1007.
53. Constitutional Law of India. 1976, Vol. II, pp. 1204-05.
54. Queen V. Jjurah. (1878) 3 AC 889: (1878) 5 IA 178 (PC).
74 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.

Seervai's enthusiasm has, however, turned out to be short-lived for

in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian A luminium Co-" once again.
a Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court reiterated the majority view
of Gwalior Rayon.
In Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry 56, by enacting the
Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965, the Pondicherry Legislature
adopted the Madras Sales Tax Act. 1959, as in force in the State of
Madras immediately before the commencement of the Act in Pondi-
cherry. The Government was empowered to issue notification of com-
mencement of the Act in Pondicherry. The effect of the said provision
was that all the amendments in the Madras Act during the period of
enactment and commencement of the Pondicherry Act ipso facto became
applicable to the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Holding the Pondi-
cherry Act void and stillborn, the Supreme Court by a majority of 3:
observed that there was total surrender, abdication and effacement of
legislative power by the Pondicherry Legislature in favour of the Madras
Legislature.
In Brij Sunder v. First A ddl. District Judge 58, almost a similar pro-
vision was held to be valid by the Court. Distinguishing Shama Rao
(supra) and following Delhi Laws A ct, 1912 the Court observed:
''[TJhe delegation of power to extend even future laws of another
State will not be bad so long as, in the process and under the guise
of alteration and modification, an alteration of the essential charactet
of the law or a change of it in essential particulars is not per
mined."59
8. EXCESSIVE DELEGATION

(a) General
It is well settled that essential and primary legislative functions must
be performed by the legislature itself and they cannot be delegated to
the executive. Essential legislative functions consist of determination of
legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct. In other words,
a legislature has to discharge the primary duty entrusted to it. Once es-
55. (1976) I SCC 466: AIR 1976 SC 1031. For critical discussion of conflicting
decisions of the Supreme Court, see C.K. Thakker: Administrative Law, 1996,
pp. 79-81.
56. AIR 1967 SC 1480: (1967) 2 SCR 650.
57. Subba Rao, CJ., Shelac and Mitter, ii. (Shah and Bhargava, JJ. contra.); see
also Purasuraman v. State of TN., (1989) 4 SCC 483: AIR 1990 SC 40.
58. (1989) I SCC 561: AIR 1989 SC 572.
59. Id., at p. 582 (SCC): 587 (AIR).
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 75
sential legislative powers are exercised by the legislature. all ancillary
and incidental functions can be delegated to the executive60
(b) Nature and scope
It has been accepted that Parliament does not possess the legislative
power as an inherent and original power. That power has been delegated
to it by the Constitution. Parliament thus possesses not a right that it can
delegate at its sweet will, but a competence that the Constitution obliges
it to exercise itself. It cannot legally delegate its legislative functions to
the executive. Such delegation would be unconstitutional .61
In Great Britain, excessive delegations of parliamentary powers are
political concerns, in the United States (and in India), the y are pnmarily
judicial.
(c) Abdication
Abdication means abandonment of sovereignty. When the legislature
does not legislate and entrusts that primary function to the executive or
to an outside agency, there is abdication of legislative power. Abdication
may be partial or total. The power of delegate is subject to the qualifi-
cation that the legislature does not abdicate or efface itself by setting up
a parallel legislature. 12
But delegation of legislative power need not necessarily amount to
abdication or complete effacement.
What constitutes abdication and what class of cases are covered by
that expression is always a question of fact and it cannot be defined nor
a rule of universal application can he laid down .63
(d) Principles
The question whether there is excessive delegation or not, has to be
examined in the light of three broad principles:-

60. Delhi Laws Act, Re, AIR 1951 SC 332: 1951 SCR 747; Municipal Corpn. of
Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mi?s,A1R 1968 SC 1232: (1968) 3 SCR 251; .4yinJr
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) I SCC 137: AIR 1979 SC 321; Brij Sunder
v. FirstAddi. Disit. Judge, (1989) 1 SCC 561: AIR 1989 SC 572; Rornesh Birch
v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (I) scc 430: AIR 1990 sc 560.
61. Bonnard cited by Schwartz: French Administrative Law and the Common Lan
World, 1954, p. 93.
62. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. v Asstt. Commissioner, (1974) 4 SCC 98: AIR
1974 SC 1660; Mahe Breach Trading Co. v. Union Territory of Pondicherry.
(1996) 3 SCC 741 (746).
63. Id.; See also, Delhi Laws Act, Re (supra); Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Biro
Cotton Mills (supra); Sitaram v. State of (1.?., (1972) 4 SCC 485: AIR 1972
SC 1168.
76 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATI\3 LAW [LECr.

(I) Essential legislative functions to enact laws and to determine

legislative policy cannot be delegated.
(2) In the context of modern conditions and complexity of situations,
it is not possible for the legislature to envisage in detail every
possibility and make provisions for them. The legislatures there-
fore, has to delegate certain functions provided it lays down
legislative policy.
(3) If the power is conferred on the executive in a manner which is
lawful and permissible, the delegation cannot be held to be ex-
cessive merely on the ground that the legislature could have made
more detailed provisions.64
(e) Test
In dealing with the challenge to the vires of any statute on the ground
of excessive delegation it is necessary to enquire whether the impugned
delegation involved surrender of essential legislative function and
whether the legislature has left enunciation of policy and principle to the
delegate. If the reply is in the affirmative, there is excessive delegation
but if it is in the negative, the challenge must necessarily fail.
• A statute challenged on the ground of excessive delegation must be
subjected to two tests:
(i) Whether it delegates essential legislative function; and
(ii) Whether the legislature has enunciated its policy and principle
for the guidance of the executive.65
(f) Powers and duties of Courts
The Founding Fathers of the Constitution have entrusted the power
of legislation to the representatives of the people so that the power may
be exercised not only in the name of the people but also by the people
speaking through their representatives. The rule against excessive dele-
gation thus flows from and is a necessary postulate of the sovereignty
of the people.
At the same time, however, it also cannot be overlooked that in view
of multifarious activities of a modern welfare State, the legislature can
64. Jyoti Pershad v. A dministrator. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1605:
(1962) 2 SCR 125; Sitaram v. Stare of U.P. (supra); Registrar, Co-op. Societies
v. Kunjambu, (1980) 1 SCC 340: AIR 1980 SC 350.
65. V asanzlal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 4: (1961) 1 SCR 341; Harishankar
v. Stare of M.P.. AIR 1954 SC 465: (1955) 1 SCR 380; Mahe Breach Trading
Co. v. Union Territory of Pondicherry (supra).
66. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Y. A ssn. Commissioner, (1974) 4 SCC 98 (108-09):
AIR 1974 SC 1660; V asantlal v. State of Bombay (supra).
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 77
hardly find time and expertise to enter into matters of detail. Subordinate
legislation within a prescribed sphere is a practical necessity and prag-
matic need of the day. Delegation of law-making power is the dynamo
of modem Government. If legislative policy is enunciated by the legis-
lature and a standard has been laid down, the Court will not interfere
with the discretion to delegate non-essential functions to the executive.67
(g) Conclusions
Entrustment of legislative power without laying down policy is in-
consistent with the basic concept on which our constitutional scheme is
founded. Our Constitution-makers have entrusted the power to legislate
to the elected representatives of the people, so that the power is exercised
not only in the name of the people, but by the people. The rule against
excessive delegation of legislative authority is a necessary postulate of
the sovereignty of the people. It is not claimed to be nor intended to be
a panacea against the shortcomings of public administration. Governance
of the State in manner determined by the people through their repre-
sentatives being the essence of our form of government, the plea that a
substitute scheme for governance through delegates may be more effec-
tive is destructive of our political structure. (emphasis supplied).6
It is submitted that the following observations of Subba Rao, J. (as
he then was) in the leading case of V asantlal v. State of Bornbay 9 lay
down correct law on the point and, therefore, are worth quoting:
"The Constitution confers a power and imposes a duty on the
legislature to make laws. The essential legislative function is the
determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule
of conduct. Obviously, It cannot abdicate its function in favour of
another. But in view of multifarious activities of a welfare State, it
cannot presumably work out all the details to suit the varying aspects
of a complex situation. It must necessarily delegate the working out
details to the executive or any other agency. But there is a danger
inherent in such a process of delegation. An overburdened legislature
or one controlled by a powerful executive may unduly overstep the
limits of delegation. It may not lay down any policy at all; it may
declare its policy in vague and general terms; it may not set down
any standard for the guidance of the executive; it may confer an
arbitrary power on the executive to change or modify the policy laid

Gwahor Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. v. A ssit. Commissioner, Id., at pp. 108, 121 (SCC).
Municipal Cnrpn.. Delhi v. Rirla Cotton Mills. AIR 1968 SC 1232 (1264):
(1968) 3 SCR 251 (Per Shah, 3).
AIR 1961 SC 4: (1961) 1 SCR 341.
78 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.

down by it without reserving for itself any control over subordinate

legislation. This self-effacement of legislative power in favour of
another agency either in a whole or in part is beyond the permissible
limit of a delegation. it is for a Court to hold on a fair, generous
and liberal construction of an impugned statute whether the legisla-
ture exceeded such limit. But the said liberal construction should not
be carried by the Courts to the extent of always trying to discover
a dormant or latent legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary power
on executive authorities. it is the duty of this Court to strike down
without any hesitation any blanket power conferred on the executive
by the legislature.' '70 (emphasis supplied)
9. ]FUNCTIONS WHICH CAN BE DELEGATED
(PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION)

Commencement
Several statutes contain an 'appointed day' clause, which empowers
the Government to appoint a day for the Act to come into force. In such
cases, the operation of the Act depends on the decision of the Govern-
ment e.g. Section 3 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947 provides that the Act 'shall come into operation
on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official
Gazette appoint in this behalf'. Here the Act comes into force when the
notification is published in the Official Gazette. Such a provision is valid
for, as Sir Cecil CarT7 ' remarks, "the legislature provides the gun and
prescribes the target, but leaves to the executive the task of pressing the
trigger". (emphasis supplied)
Supplying details
If the legislative policy is formulated by the legislature, the function
of supplying details may be delegated to the executive for giving effect
to the policy. What is delegated here is an ancillary function in aid of
the exercise of the legislative function e.g. Section 3 of the All India
Services Act, 1951 authorises the Central Government to make rules to
regulate conditions of service in the All India Services.
Inclusion
Sometimes, the legislature passes an Act and makes it applicable, in
the first instance, to some areas and classes of persons, but empowers
the Government to extend the provisions thereof to different territories,
persons or commodities, etc., e.g., the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
70. AIR 1961 SC 4 at 11-12; see also Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra).
71. Concerning English Administrative Law, 1941, p. 43.
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 79

was made applicable to the whole of India except certain areas, but the
Government was authorised to apply the provisions of the Act to those
areas also. In the same manner, the Dourin Act, 1910 was made applic-
able to horses in the first instance but by Section 2(2), the Government
was authorised to extend the provisions of the Act to asses as well. By
Section 146 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, the Government was auth-
orised to apply the provisions to tramways.
Exclusion
There are some statutes which empower the Government to exempt
from their operation certain persons, territories, commodities, etc. Section
30 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 empowers the Government to
exempt any establishment or a class of establishments from the operation
of the Act,
Suspension
Some statutes auth se the Government to suspend or relax the pro-
visions contained therein, e.g. under Section 48(1) of e ea Act, 1953,.
the Central Government is empowered under certain circumstances to
suspend the operation of 4LLZr any of th of the said Act.
Application of existing laws
Some statutes confer the power on the executive to adopt and apply
statutes existtnm othr Stàtew1tbout modifications (with incideñtal
changes) to a new area. Thre is no unconstitutional delegation in such
cases, as the legislative policy is laid down in the statute by the competent
legislature.
Modification
Sometimes, provision is made in the statute authorising the executive
to modify the existing statute before application. This is really a drastic
power as it amounts to an amendment of the Act, which is a legislative
act, but sometimes, this flexibility is necessary to deal with local condi-
tions. Thus, under the powers conferred by the Delhi Laws Act, 1912,
the Central Government extended the application of the Bombay Agri-
cultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947 to Delhi. The Bombay Act was limited
in application to the agriculturists whose annual income was less than
Rs 500 but that limitation was removed by the Government.
Prescribing punishments
In some cases the legislature delegates to the executive the power
to take punitive action, e.g. under Section 37 of the Electricity Act, 1910,
the Electricity Board is empowered to prescribe punishment for breach
of the provisions of the Act subject to the maximum punishment laid
 80 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.
down in the Act. By Section 59(7) of the Damodar Valley Act, 1948,
the power to prescribe punishment is delegated to a statutory authority
without any maximum limit fixed by the parent Act.
According to the Indian Law Institute, this practice is not objec-
tionable, provided two safeguards are adopted:
(i) the legislature must determine the maximum punishment which
the rule-making authority may prescribe for breach of regula-
tions; and
(ii) if such power is delegated to any authority other than the State
or Central Government, the exercise of the power must be subject
to the previous sanction or subsequent approval of the State or
Central' Government.
Framing of rules
A delegation of power to frame rules, bye-Jaws, regulations, etc, is
not unconstitutional, provided that the rules, bye-laws and regulations
are required to be' laid before ihe legislature before they come into force
and provided further that the legislature has power to amend, modify or
repeal them.
Removal of difficulties (Henry VIII clause)
Power is sometimes conferred on the Government to modify the pro-
visions of the existing statutes for the purpose of removing difficulties.
When the legislature passes an Act, it cannot foresee all the difficulties
which may arise in implementing it. The executive is, therefore, em-
powered to make necessary changes to remove such difficulties. Such
provision is also necessary when the legislature extends a law to a new
area or to an area where the socio-economic conditions are different.
Generally, two types of "removal of difficulties" clauses are' found
in statutes. A narrow one, which empowers the executive to exercise the
power of removal of difficulties consistent with the provisions of the
parent Act; e.g. Section 128 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 reads
as under:
"If any difficuity arises in giving effect to the provisions of this
Act, the President may by order do anything not inconsistent with
such provisions which appears to him to be necessary or expedient
for the purpose of removing the difficulty."
Such a provision is not objectionable. According to the Committee
on Ministers' Powers '73 the sole purpose of Parliament in enacting such
72. Delegated Legislation in India, (11,1) 1964, p. 25.
73. Committee on Ministers' Powers Report, 1932, p. 36.
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 81

a provision is 'to enable minor adjustments of its own handiworks to be

made for the purpose of fitting its principles into the fabric of existing
legislation, general or local'. Sir Cecil Carr 74 rightly says, "the device
is partly a draftman's insurance policy in case he has overlooked some-
thing, and partly due to the immense body of local Acts in England
creating special difficulties in particular areas". By exercising this power
the Government cannot modify the parent Act nor can it make any modi-
fication which is not consistent with the parent Act.
Another type of "removal of difficulties" clause is very wide and
authorises the executive in the name of removal of difficulties to modify
even the parent Act or any other Act. The classic illustration of such a
provision is found in the Constitution itself. 73 Usually, such a provision
is for a limited period.
This provision has been vehemently criticised by Lord HeWart76 and
other jurists. It is nicknamed as the Henry V I!! clause to indicate execu-
tive autocracy. Henry VIII was the King of England in the 16th century
and during his regime he enforced his will and got his difficulties
removed by using instrumentality of a servile Parliament for the purpose
of removing the difficulties that came in his way. According to the Com-
mittee on Ministers' Powers '77 the King is regarded popularly as the
impersonation of executive autocracy and such a clause 'cannot but be
regarded as inconsistent with the principle of parliamentary Govern-
ment' .

74. Concerning English Administrative Law, 1941. p. '44.

75. Article 372(2) reads as under:
• 'For the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in the territory
of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may
by order make such adaptations and modifications of such law, whether by way
of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and provide that the
law shall, as from such date as may be specified in the order, have effect subject
to the adaptations and modifications so made, and any such adaptation or
modification shall not be questioned in any Court of law" See also S. 35 of
the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
76. The New Despotism. 1929, p. 60.
77. Committee on Ministers' Powers Report, 1932, p. 61.
78. Henry VIII (1491-1547), King of England from 1509 to 1547. He has been
described as a ''despot under the forms of law"; and it is apparently true that
he committed no illegal act. His disposition consists not in any attempt to rule
unconstitutionally but in the extraordinary degree to which he was able to use
constitutional means in the furtherance of his own personal ends. His activity,
his remarkable political insight, his lack of scruples and his combined strength
of will and subtlety of intellect enabled him to utilize all the forces which tended
at that time towards a strong Government throughout Western Europe.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1768). Vol. II, pp. 367-69.
 82 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEc'r,
In ia/an Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha 79, the Supreme Court
was called upon to decide the legality of such a clause. Section 37(1) of
the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 empowered the Central Government to
make such orders, not inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, as might
he necessary or expedient for the removal of any doubts or difficulties.
Section 37(2) made the order passed by the Central Government under
sub-section (1) final. The Court by a majority 80 of 3: 2 held Section 37
ultra rires on the ground of excessive delegation inasmuch as the Gov-
ernment was made the sole judge of whether any difficulty or doubt had
arisen, whether it was necessary or expedient to remove such doubt or
difficulty and whether the order made was consistent with the provisions
of the Act. Again, the order passed by the Central Government was made
'final'. Thus, in substance, legislative power was delegated to the execu-
Live authority, which was not permissible.
The minority, however, took a liberal view and held that the functions
to he exercised by the Central Government were not legislative functions
at all but were intended to advance the purpose which the legislature had
in mind. In the words of Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was): "Parliament
has not attempted to set up another legislature, ..It has stated all that it
wished on the subject of bonus in the Act. Apprehending, however, that
in the application of the new Act doubts and difficulties might arise and
not leaving their solution to Courts with the attendant delays and expense,
Parliament has chosen to give power to the Central Government to
remove doubts and differences by a suitable order."
It is submitted that the minority view is correct and after Jalan Trad-
ing Co., the Supreme Court adopted a liberal approach. In Gammon India
Ltd. v. Union of India 8 ' a similar provision was held constitutional by
the Court. Distinguishing Jalan Trading Co., the Court observed: "In
the present case, neither finality nor alteration is contemplated in any
order under Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 is for giving effect to the
provisions of the Act. This provision is an application of the internal
functioning of the administrative machinery." 82 It, therefore, becomes
clear that after Jalan Trading Co., the Court changed its view and vir-
tually overruled the majority judgment.

79. AIR 1967 Sc 691: (1967) 1 SCR IS.

80. Wanchoo. Shah and Sikri. ii. (Hidayatuilah and Ramaswamy, ii. contra).
81. (1974) 1 SCC 598: AIR 1974 SC 960.
82. Id. at p. 607 (SCC).
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 83

In Patna University v. A ,nita Tht'ari,83 the relevant statute enabled

the Chancellor to issue directions to universities "in the administrative
or academic interests." In exercise of that power, the Chancellor directed
the University to regularise services of an ineligible teacher "on com-
passionate grounds." When the action was challenged, it was sought to
he supported on the basis of "removal of difficulties" clause. Holding
that the "removal of difficulties" clause had only limited application,
the Supreme Court quashed the order.
It is submitted that by using a 'removal of difficulties' clause, the
Government "may slightly tinker with the Act to round off angularities
and smoothen the joints or remove minor obscurities to make it workable,
but it cannot change features of the Act. In no case can it, under the
guise of removing a difficulty , change the scheme and essential provisions
of the A ct." 54 (emphasis supplied) The Committee on Ministers' Powers
rightly opined that it would be dangerous in practice to permit the ex-
ecutive to change an Act of Parliament and made the following recorn-
mcii dat ion:
"The use of the so-called Henry VIII clause conferring power
on a Minister to modify the provisions of Acts of Parliament should
he abandoned in all but most exceptional cases and should not be
permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds stated in a min-
isterial memorandum to the Bill. Henry V III clause should never be
used except for the sole purpose of bringing the A ct into operation
but subject to the li,nit of one year. ^85 (emphasis supplied)
10. FUNCTIONS WHICH CA NNOT BE DELEGATED
(IMPERMISSIBLE DELEGATION)

Essential legislative functions

Even though there is no specific bar in the Constitution of India
against the delegation of legislative power by the legislature to the ex-
ecutive, it is now well-settled that essential legislative functions cannot
he delegated by the legislature to the executive. In other words, legislative
policy must be laid down by the legislature itself and by entrusting this
Power to the executive, the legislature cannot create a parallel legislature.

83. (1997) 7 SCC 198.

84. Per Sarkaria, J. in Sinai v. Union of India. (1975) 3 SCC 765: AIR 1975 SC
797 (809).
85 Cited by Mahajan J. in Delhi Laws A ct, 1912, Re, AIR 1951 SC 332 (372). For
detailed discussion: see C.K. Thakker: A d,ninisrraave Law, 1992, pp. 86-91.
84 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW {LECT.

Repeal of law
Power to repeal a law is essentially a legislative function, and there-
fore, delegation of power to the executive to repeal a law is excessive
delegation and is ultra vires.
Modification
Power to modify the Act in its important aspects is an essential legis-
lative function and, therefore, delegation of power to modify an Act with-
out any limitation is not permissible. However, if the changes are not
essential in character, the delegation is permissible..
Exemption
The aforesaid principle applies in case of exemption also, and the
legislature cannot delegate the power of exemption to the executive with-
out laying down the norms and policy for the guidance of the latter.
Removal of difficulties
Under the guise of enabling the executive to remove difficulties, the
legislature cannot enact a Henry V III clause and thereby delegate essen-
tial legislative functions to the executive, which could not otherwise have
been delegated.
Retrospective operation
The legislature has plenary power of law making and in India, Par-
liament can pass any law prospectively or retrospectively subject to the
provisions of the Constitution. But this principle cannot be applied, in
the case of delegated legislation. Giving an Act retrospective effect is
essentially a legislative function and it cannot be delegated.86
Future Acts
The legislature can empower the executive to adopt and apply the
laws existing in other States, but it cannot delegate the power by which
the executive can adopt the laws which may be passed in future, as this
is essentially a legislative function.
Imposition of tax 17
Ouster of jurisdiction of courts -
The legislature cannot empower the executive by which the jurisdic-
tion of courts may be ousted. This is a pure legislative function.
6. For detailed discussion see Lect. V (infra).
87. See Taxing Statutes (infra).
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 85

Offences and penalty

The making of a particular act into'an offence and prescribing pun-
ishment for it is an essential legislative function and cannot be delegated
by the legislature to the executive. However, if the legislature lays down
the standards or principles to be followed by the executive in defining
an offence and provides the limits of penalties, such delegation is per-
missible.
11. DELEGATION IN FAVOUR OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

(a) General
Local authorities are subordinate branches of governmental activities.
They are democratic institutions managed by representatives of the
people. They function for public purposes and take away a part of the
government affairs in local areas. They are political sub-divisions and
agencies which exercise a part of State functions.''
(b) Nature and scope
Where a legislature confers power of delegated legislation on local
authorities such as municipalities, panchayats, local boards, etc. the ques-
tion must be decided bearing in mind various considerations.
There is a wide area of delegation in the matter of imposition of
taxes. Such taxes are for local needs for which local inquiries have to
be made. They are usually left to the representatives of the local popu-
lation, including those who pay taxes. Moreover, such taxes vary from
place to place and from commodity to commodity. The problems of dif -
ferent local bodies may also be different. One local authority may require
one kind of tax at a particular rate at a particular time while another
local authority may need another kind of tax at another rate at some
other time. It is impossible for the legislature to enact laws for the im-
position of uniform taxes in all local areas. Regard being had to the
democratic set up of local bodies which need the proceeds of such taxes
for their own administration, it is appropriate to leave to the local auth-
orities the power Lo impose and collect taxes. It is not necessary to specify.
all the situations in which taxes can be imposed. It is also not necessary
to fix the rates at which taxes can be imposed and even fixation. of rate
can be left to such local authorities, provided the legislature has taken
care to specify sufficient safeguards necessary in fixing the rate.89

88. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mills. AIR 1968 SC 1232 (1254):
(1968) 3 SCR 251.
89. Ibid., at pp. 1261-63 (A IR).
86 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.

(c) Object
Local authorities have to perform various statutory functions. For
discharging those functions, they need money. Their needs vary from
time to time with the prevailing exigencies. The power to impose and
collect tax, however, must necessarily be limited by the expenses required
to discharge such functions. A local authority cannot spend anything for
any purpose other than those specified in the Act which creates iL90
(d) Judicial approach
Judiciary has adopted liberal attitude in the matters of delegation of
legislative power in favour of local authorities. In various cases, it has
been held that the power to impose tax, to prescribe the maximum or
minimum rate of tax, to fix class or classes of persons or the description
or descriptions of articles or properties to be taxed and to lay down the
system of assessment and exemptions, if any, to be granted can be left
to local bodies and conferment of such power does not amount to ex-
cessive delegation.91
In Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birla Coun Mills92, Wanchoo, C.J.
stated: "(I)t appears to us that the nature of the bod y to which delegation
is made is also a factor to be taken into consideiation in determining
whether there is sufficient guidance in the matter of delegation. ".93
(e) Limitations
Even if it is conceded that while deciding the question of constitu-
tionality of a provision permitting delegated legislation the fact that dele-
gation is made in favour of an elected body responsible to the people
and is accountable to the local electorate is a relevant consideration, it
is not the conclusive factor in holding the delegation valid and per-
missible. If that be true, Parliament may justifiably and indiscriminately
delegate its power to other bodies by constituting them from among the
representatives of the people .94

90. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mills, supra; A vinder Singh v. State
of Punjab. (1979) 1 SCC 137: AIR 1979 SC 321.
91. Ibid., see also Gulabchand Bapalal v. A hmedabad Municipal Corpn.. (1972)4 SCC:
A IR 1971 SC 2100.
92. A IR 1968 Sc 1232: (1968) 3 SCR 251.
93. AIR 1968 sc 1232 (1244): (1968) 3 SCR 251 (269-70). See also A vinder Singh
v. State of Punjab, (1979) 1 SCC 137 (151): AIR 1979 SC 321.
94. AIR 1968 Sc 1232 (1243, 1264): (1968) 3 SCR 251.
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 87

(f) Principles
In the leading case of Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birla Cotton
Mills, 95 after considering Foreign and Indian decisions on the point, the
following principles have been laid down by Wanchoo, CJ.:
(I) that the delegation was to an elected body responsible to the
people, including those who pay taxes and to whom the coun-
cillors have every four years to turn to for being elected;
(2) that the limits of taxation were to be found in the purposes of
the Act for the implementation of which alone taxes could be
raised and though this factor was not conclusive, it was none-
theless relevant and must be taken into account with other rele-
vant factors;
(3) that the impugned Section 150 itself contained a provision which
required that the maximum rate fixed by the Corporation should
have the approval of the Government;
(4) that the Act contained provisions which required adoption of
budget estimates by the Corporation annually; and
(5) that there was a cheek by the courts of law where the power of
taxation is used unreasonably or in non-compliance or breach of
the provisions and objects of the Act.
(g) Conclusions
The doctrine of excessive delegation of legislative power applies to
the conferment of such power on local authorities as well. The constitu-
tional power to legislate in respect of a particular subject such as local
Government 97 does not carry with it the power to delegate essential legis-
lative functions. Authority to legislate in respect of powers of local bodies
may include authority to confer power upon local bodies to impose and
llect tax but such power cannot override constitutional limitations
against abdication of essential legislative functions. The expression
"power" does not include authority to delegate the essential legislative
function without disclosing principles, policy or standard guiding the
local bodies in the exercise of the power.
It is submitted that the following observations of Shah, J. (as he
then was) in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mills" lay down
95. AIR 1968 SC 1232: (1968) 3 SCR 251.
96. AIR 1968 SC 1232 (1245-47): (1968) 3 SCR 251; see Gulabchand Bapalal v
Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad Cit y , AIR 1971 SC 2100 (2106).
97 Constitution of India, Schedule VII. List II, Entr y 5.
98. AIR 1968 SC 1232: (1968) 3 SCR 251.
88 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.
correct law on the point. His Lordship rightly stated:
"A local authority is undoubtedly an instrument of the State in
the matter of local Government restricted to a particular area in which
it functions. By investing a local authority with powers of legislation
for administration of the Act relating to local Government, sovereign
power of the State is entrusted to the body for limited purpose; but
the entrustment of power is as a delegate, and must in our view be
within the limits of permissible entrustment consistent With the con-
stitutional scheme. The power of the State to legislate in maiters of
taxation within the allotted field is plenary, but in entrusting that
power to a local authority the legislature cannot confer unguided
authority.' (emphasis supplied)
12. TAXING STATUTES
With regard to delegation in taxing legislation, the following prin-
ciples may be treated as well seuled2:
(1) The power to impose a tax is essentially a legislative function.
Under Article 265 of the Constitution no tax can be levied or
collected save by authority of law, and here 'law' means law
enacted by the compefent legislature and not made by the ex-
ecutive. Therefore, the legislature cannot delegate the essential
legislative function of imposition of tax to an executive authority.
(2) Subject to the above limitation, a power can be conferred on the
Government to exempt a particular commodity from the levy of
tax or to bring certain commodities under the levy of tax.
(3) The legislature is competent to enact two laws providing for two
taxes of the same kind on the same commodity for different
purposes.
(4) If a particular item is declared non-taxable under one enactment
but is declared taxable under the other, there cannot be said to
be conflict between the two enactments and one cannot repeal
the other.
(5) The power to fix the rate of tax is a legislative function, but if
the legislative policy has been laid down, the said power can be
delegated to the executive. Commodities belonging to the same
category should not, however,, be subjected to different and dis-
criminatory rates in absence of any rational basis.
I. AIR 1968 Sc 1232 at 1261.
2. For dcaiIed discussion and case-law, see C.K. Thakker: .4d:ni,rjs:rarive Law,
1996, pp. 93-95.
LVI DELEGATED LEGiSLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 89

(6) The circumstance that the affairs of the taxing body (Panchayat,
Municipality, Corporation, etc.) are administered by the elected
representatives responsible to the people is wholly irrelevant and
immaterial in determining whether the delegation is excessive or
otherwise.
(7) A taxing statute should be construed strictly. If a provision is
ambiguous, the interpretations which favours the assessee should
be accepted.
(8) A distinction, however, should always be made between charging
provisions and machinery provisions. Machinery provisions
should be construed liberally so as to make charging provisions
effective and workable.
13. CONDITIONAL LEGISLATION
(a) Definition
Hart3 defines conditional legislation as 'a statute that provides con-
trols but specifies that they are to go into effect only when a given
administrative authority fulfils the existence or conditions defined in the
statute'.
(b) Nature and scope
In conditional legislation, legislature makes the law. It is full and
complete. No legislative function is delegated to the executive. But the
said Act is not brought into force and it is left to the executive to bring
the Act into operation on fulfilment of certain conditions or contingencies
and for that reason the legislation is called 'conditional legislation' or
'contingent legislation'.
Cooley4 also says: ''It is not always essential that a legislative act
should be a completed statute which must in any event take effect as
law at the time it leaves the hands of the legislative department. A statute
may be conditional, and its taking effect may be made to depend upon
some subsequent event."
(c) Illustrative cases
In the leading case of Field v. Clark 5, the President was empowered
to suspend the operation of an Act permitting free import of certain pro-
ducts in the U.S. on being satisfied that the duties imposed upon such
products were [Link] unequal and unreasonable. The Supreme

3. An Introduction to Administrative Law with Selected Cases, 2nd Edn.. p. 810.

4. A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, 8th Edn., Vol. 1. p. 227.
5. (1892) 143 US 649.
90 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEcT.

Court held the Act valid on the ground that the Act was complete and
the President was a mere agent of Congress to ascertain and declare the
contingency upon which the will of Congress was to take effect. The
Court quoted with approval the following famous passage from a Penn-
s y lvania cases:
"The Legislature cannot delegate its powers to make a law; but
it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or
state of things upon which the law intends to make its own action
depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of Government.
There are many things on which wise and useful legislation must
depend which cannot be known to the law-making power and must.
therefore, be the subject of enquiry and determination outside the
hall of the Legislature."
In Emperor V. Benoari LaP, by promulgating an Ordinance, the Gov-
ernor-General was empowered to set up special courts, But the operation
of the Ordinance was left to the Provincial Government on being satisfied
that emergency had come into existence. The I-ugh Court of Calcutta8
held that there was excessive delegation and the Ordinance was, therefore,
invalid. The Federal Court' confirmed the decision of the Calcutta High
Court, but the Privy Council reversed the decision and upheld the validity
of the Act. According to the Privy Council, it was a piece of conditional
legislation as the legislation was complete and what had been delegated
was the power to apply the Act on fulfilment of certain conditions,
In State of Bombay v. Narouamdas'°, by the Bombay City Civil
Court Act, 1948, an Additional Civil Court was established for Greater
Bombay having jurisdiction to try all suits not exceeding Rs 10,000 but
the State Government was authorised to raise the jurisdiction up to Rs
25,000. The Supreme Court held that the provision was merely a condi-
tional legislation and upheld it. The legislature itself determined that the
new court should be invested with the jurisdiction up to Rs 25,000 in
value, but left it to the executive to determine when the said power could
he exercised.
Again, in Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan' I , the Rajasthan Tenants'
Protection Ordinance was promulgated for two years, and under Section

6. (1873) 71 Lackes A ppeal 491.

7. AIR 1945 PC 48: 72 IA 57.
8. Benoari La! v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Cal 285: 44 Cri Li 673 (FB).
9. Emperor v. $enoari Lal. AIR 1943 FC 36: 208 IC 564.
10. AIR 1951 SC 69: 1951 SCR 51.
II. AIR 1957 SC 510: 1957 SCR 605.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 91
thereof, the Rajpramukh was empowered to extend the life of the said
)rdinance by issuing a notification, if required. The duration of the Or-
linance was extended by issuing a notification which was challenged
efore the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the provision as being con-
litional legislation.
If we compare this case with Jatindra Nat/i Gupta 12 . one thing seems
a be clear, that before Independence, the Federal Court had taken a
arrow view with regard to delegated legislation while the Supreme Court
Las taken a liberal view.
In Tu/sipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Commirrt'e' 3 , by issuing
notification under Section 3 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, the
mits of Tulsipur Town were extended to village Shitalpur where the
ugar factory of the plaintiff was situated. The notification was chal-
2nged on the ground that the procedure under the Act was not follo ed
nd the subordinate legislation was, therefore, bad. Negativing the con-
ntion and holding the case to be one of conditional legislation, the
uprerne Court held that 'cheffect of making the Act applicable to a
cographical area is in the nature of conditional legislation' and that 'it
annot he characterised as a piece of subordinate legislation'. °
I) Conditional Legislation and Delegated Legislation: Distinction
Delegated legislation is sometimes distinguished from conditional
gislatiori on the anvil of discretion. In conditional legislation, it is the
uty of the executive to apply the law alter performing the function of
ict-fl,u/i,u,' (e.g. to inquire whether facts requiring operation of the Act
xist) on the other hand, in case of delegated legislation, it is left to the
iscrerion of the Government whether to exercise the power delegaLed
it or not. In Hanu/ard Da'a'ak/:w,a V. Union of India", the Supreme
'ourt pointed out the distinction between the two in the following terms:
'The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated
legislation is that in former the delegate's power is that of deter-
mining when a legislative-declared rule of conduct shall become ef -
fective.., and the latter involves delegation of rule-making power
which constitutionally may he exercised by the administrative
agent."
However the question is: Can it he said that there is total absence
discretion in conditional legislation 7 As a matter of fact, whether
2. Jat, p idra Nail, Gu1na
V. Province of Bihar, AIR 1949 PC 175: 1949 FCR 595.
3. (1980) 2 SCC 295: AIR 1980 SC 8S2.
4. Id. at p. 306 (SCC).
S. AIR 1960 SC 554 (566): (1960) 2 SCR 671.
92 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd

emergency exists or not, or whether tariff rates are high or low or whethc
the application of law is reasonable or unreasonable cannot be decide
on mere facts and the element of discretion definitely creeps in.
(e) Conclusions
It is submitted that in view of the rapid growth of Administrativ
Law and acceptance of the doctrine of delegated legislation, now it i
not necessary to stick to the artificial distinction between 'delegated legi
lation' and 'conditional legislation'. When the courts were not readil
accepting or approving the doctrine of delegated legislation, in the guis
of conditional legislation, they were upholding the legislative measure
'Contingent formula' was merely a fiction employed by the Suprern
Court of the U.S. to get away from the doctrine of separation of power
This doctrine had some validity in pre-Constitution India because the
the courts were not willing to concede to the non-sovereign legislature
power of delegated legislation, and therefore, the term 'conditional legi
lation' was applied in order to uphold a limited delegation of legislati
power. What can be upheld by conditional legislation can be easil
upheld as delegated legislation. The capacity of the legislature to dek
gate having been recognised now, the doctrine of conditional legislatic
appears to have become redundant because the greater would include
lesser. Subordinate legislation is a broader term which would includ
a narrower term 'conditional legislation' inasmuch as, condition
legislation is 'a form of delegation' and 'a very common instance i
delegated legislation'.
14. SUB-DELEGATION
(a) Definition
When a statute confers some legislative powers on an executive auti
ority and the latter further delegates those powers to another subordinai
authority or agency, it is called 'sub-delegation'.
Thus, in sub-delegation, a delegate further delegates. This process
sub-delegation may go through many stages. If we may call the enablir
Act the 'parent' and the delegated and sub-delegated legislation 11
'children', the parent, in his own lifetime may beget descendants up I
four or five degrees.
(b) Illustration
An important illustration of sub-delegation is found in the Essenti
Commodities Act, 1 955. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Go
ernmcni to make rules. This can be said to be the first-stage delegatio
Under Section 5, the Central Government is empowered to delega
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 93
powers to its officers, the State Governments and their officers. Usually
under this provision, the powers are delegated to State Governments.
This can be said to be the second-stage delegation (sub-delegation). When
the power is further delegated by the State Governments to their officers,
it can be said to be the third-stage delegation (sub-sub-delegation). Thus,
under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Sugar Con-
trol Order, 1955 was made by the Central Government (first-stage dele-
gation). Under the Order, the functions and powers are conferred on the
Textile Commissioner (second-stage delegation). Clause 10 empowered
the Textile Commissioner to authorise any officer to exercise on his be-
half all or any of his functions and powers under the Order (third-stage
delegation).
(c) Object
The necessity of sub-delegation is sought to he supported, inter alia,
on the following grounds:
(i) power of delegation necessarily carries with it po w er of further
delegation; and
(ii) sub-delegation is ancillary to delegated legislation; and any ob-
jection to the said process is likely to subvert the authority which
the legislature delegates to the executive.
Sub-delegation of legislative power can he permitted either when
such power is expressly conferred by the statute or can be inferred by
necessary implication.
(d)txpress power
Where a statute itself authorises an administrative authority to sub-
delegate its powers, no difficulty arises as to its validity since such sub-
delegation is within the terms of the statute itself. Thus in Central Talkies
: ,jwarkci [Link] 6, the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction
Act, 1947 provided that no suit shall be filed for the eviction of a tenant
without permission either of a District Magistrate or any officer authorised
by him to perform any of his functions under the Act. An order granting
permission by the Additional District Magistrate to whom the powers were
delegated was held valid.
On the other hand, in Allingham v. Minister of Agriculture", under
the relevant statute, the Committee was empowered by the Minister of
Agriculture to issue directions. The Committee sub-delegated its power
to its subordinate officer, who issued a direction, which was challenged.
16. AIR 1961 SC 606: (1961) 3 SCR 495.
IT (1948) 1 All ER 780.
94 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.
The court held that sub-delegation of power by the committee was not
permissible and the direction issued by the subordinate officer was, there-
fore, ultra vires.
In Ganpati v. State of A jmer", the parent Act empowered the Chief
Commissioner to make rules for the establishment of proper system of
conservancy and sanitation at fairs. The rules made by the Chief Com-
missioner, however, empowered the District Magistrate to devise his own
system and see that it was observed. The Supreme Court declared the
rules ultra vires as the parent Act conferred the power on the Chief
Commissioner and not on the District Magistrate and, therefore, the ac-
tion of the Chief Commissioner sub-delegating that power to the District
Magistrate was invalid.
Again, sometimes, a statute permits sub-delegation to authorities or
officers not below a particular rank or in a particular manner only. As
per settled law "if the statute directs that certain acts shall be done in
a specified manner or by certain persons, their performance in any other
manner than that specified or by any other person than one of those
named is impliedly prohibited''. In other words, 'where a power is given
to do a certain thing in a certain wa y , the thing must be done in that
way or not at all'. 0 (emphasis supplied)
In A jaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh 20 , under the relevant statute, the
Central Government was empowered to make rules for detention of any
person by an authority not below the rank of District Magistrate. Whcr
the order of detention was passed by an Additional District Magratc,
the action was held bad. Again, if sub-delegation is to he made through
regulations, it could not be effected by passing a resolution. In Barium
Chemicals Ltd. v. Conipanv Law Board'-', the rules framed by the Central
Government empowered the Chairman to distribute the business rft,c
Board among himself as well as other members. The Chairman passed
an order vesting certain powers in himself alone. The Supreme Court by
a majority of 3 : 2 22 upheld the said Act. In a dissenting judgment, Shelat,
J., however, rightly observed: "The statute having permitted the delega-

18. AIR 1955 Sc 88: (1955) I SCR 1065; see also A .K. Ro y v. State of Punjab,
(1986) 4 SCC 326: AIR 1986 Sc 2160.
19. Cruies on Statute Law, 6th Edn.. p. 263; see also Barium Chemicals v. Company
Law Board (infra).
20. AIR 1965 SC I6I 0 : (1965) 2 SCR 845; sec also Hari Chand v. Bazala Engg.
Co.. AIR 1969 SC 483: (1969) 2 SCR 201.
21. AIR 1967 SC 295: 1966 Supp SCR 311.
22. Sarkar, C.J., Mudholkar and Bachawat. Ji. (Hidayatu!Iah and Shelat, JJ. contra.):
see p. 329 (AIR).
IV] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 95
tion of powers to the Board only as the statutory authority, the powers
so delegated have to be exercised by the Board and not bits compo-
nents." 23 (emphasis supplied)
(e) Implied power
But what would he the position if there is no specific or express
provision in the statute 7 The answer is not free from doubt. In Jackson
v. Burterworxh 24, Scott, L.J. held that the method (of sub-delegating
power to issue circulars to local authorities) was convenient and desir-
able, but the power so to sub-delegate was, unfortunately, absent.
The other view is that even if there is no provision in the parent Act
about sub-delegation of power by the delegate, the same may be inferred
by necessary implication. Griffith rightly states, "if the statute is so
widely phrased that two or more 'tiers' of sub-delegation are necessary
to reduce it to specialised rules on which action can be based, then it
may be that the courts will imply the power to make the necessary sub-
delegated legislation''.
In States v. Bareno25 , the parent Act conferred on the President the
power to make regulations concerning exports and provided that unless
otherwise directed the functions of the President should be performed by
the Board of Economic Welfare. The Board sub-delegated the power to
its Executive Director, who further sub-delegated it to his assistant, who
in turn delegated it to some officials. The court held all the sub-delega-
tions valid.
(I) Criticism
The practice of sub-delegation has been heavily criticised by jurists.
It is well established that the maxim delegatus non potest delegare (a
delegate cannot further delegate) applies in the field of delegated legis-
lation also and sub-delegation of power is not permissible unless the said
power is conferred either expressly or by necessary implication. de
Smith26 says, 'there is strong presumption against construing a grant of
delegated legislative power as empowering the delegate to sub-delegate
the whole or any substantial part of the law-making power entrusted to

23. AIR 1967 SC 295 (329): 1966 Supp SCR 311; sec also Naraindas v. State of
M.P.. (1974) 4 SCC 788: AIR 1974 SC 1232.
24. (1948) 2 All ER 558.
25. 50 F Supp 520; see also Harishankar Bagla v. Stare of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 465:
(1955) I SCR 380.
26. Judicial Review of A dministrative A ction, 1995, pp. 357-58; see also Haisbury's
Laws of England, (4th Edn.), Vol. 1, p. 354 cited in Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd.
v. ES! Corpn., (1994) 5 SCC 346.
96 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.

it'. Bachawat, J. in the leading case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Com-

pany Law Board" states: "The naming of a delegate to do an act in-
volving a discretion indicates that the delegate was selected because of
his peculiar skill and the confidence reposed in him, and there is a pres-
umption that he is required to do the act himself and cannot redelegate
his authority."
It is also said, 'sub-delegation at several stages removed from the
source dilutes accountability of the administrative authority and weakens
the safeguards granted by the' Act. It becomes difficult for the people to
know whether the officer is acting within his prescribed sphere of auth-
ority. It also transfers power from a higher to a hierarchically lower
authority. It is, therefore, necessary to limit in some way the degrees to
which sub-delegation may prced.'28
Finally, there are serious difficulties about publication of sub-dele-
gated legislation. Such legislation, not being an Act of Legislature, there
is no general statutory requirement of publicity. 'Though casually made
by a minor official, sub-delegation creates a rule and sets up a standard
of a conduct for all to whom the rule applies. No individual can ignore
the rule with Impunity.' 29 But at the same time the general public must
have access to the law and they should be given an opportunity to know
the law. In case of such delegated and sub-delegated legislation, proper
publication is lacking.
(g) Conclusions
It is submitted that the following observations of Streatfield, J. in
Patchett v. Leathem 3° are worth remembering:
"Whereas ordinary legislation, by passing through both Houses
of Parliament or, at least, lying on the table of both Houses, is thus
twice blessed, this type of so-called legislation is at least four times
cursed. First, it has seen neither House of Parliament; secondly, it is
unpublished and is inaccessible even to those whose valuable rights
of property may be affected; thirdly, it is a jumble of provisions,
legislative, administrative, or directive in character; and, fourthly, it
is expressed not in the precise language of an Act of Parliament or
an Order in Council but in the more colloquial language of corre-
spondence, which is not always susceptible of the ordinary canons
of construction." 31

27. A IR 1967 SC 295 (311 . 12): 1966 Supp SCR 311.

28. M.P. Jam: Treatise o,i A dministrative Law, 1996, V ol. I, p. 180.
29. Rao: A dministrative Law, 1981, p. 72.
30. (1949) 65 TLR 69.
31. Id. at p. 70; see also W ade: A dministrative Law, 1988, p. 861; Srinivasan v.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (GENERAL PRINCIPLES) 97
15. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
From various judgments of the Supreme Court the following general
rinciplcs regarding delegated legislation emerge:32
(1) The Constitution confers a power and imposes a duty on the
legislature to make laws and the said function cannot he dele-
gated by the legislature to the executive or even to another legis-
lature. It can neither create a parallel legislature nor destroy its
legislative power.
(2) The legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legis-
lative functions. The essential legislative function consists of the
determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a
binding rule of conduct.
(3) Once the essential legislative function is performed by the legis-
lature and the policyhas been laid down, it is open to the legis-
lature to delegate to the executive authority ancillary and
subordinate powers necessary for carrying out the policy and
purposes of the Act as ma y he necessary to make the lcgislanon
effective, useful and complete.
(4) The legislative policy may be reflected in as few or in as many
words as the legislature thinks fit. It may be express or implied.
It may be gathered from the history, preamble, title, scheme,
statement of objects and reasons, etc.
(5) The authority to which delegation is made is also one of the
factors to be considered in determining the validity of such dele-
gation. However, delegation cannot be upheld merely on the
basis of status, character or dignity of the delegate.
(6) Safeguards against the abuse of delegated power including power
to repeal do not make delegation valid if otherwise it is excessive.
impermissible or unwarranted.
(7) Delegated legislation must be consistent with the parent Act and
cannot travel beyond the legislative policy and standard laid
down by the legislature.
(8) Whether or not the legislature has performed the essential legis-
lative function and laid down the policy and the delegation is
permissible depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
Stre of Kornotaka, (1987) I SCC 658: AIR 1987 SC 1059; see further Lcoure
V (infra).
32. For case-law see C.K. Thakker: A dministrative Law, 1996, p. 103.
98 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

(9) It is for the court to hold on a fair, generous and liberal con.
struction of an impugned statute whether the legislature has ex
ceeded limits of permissible delegation. It is, however, the dut)
of the court to strike down without hesitation any arbitrary powei
conferred on the executive by the legislature.
(10) These principles apply to all forms of delegated legislation, such
as conditional legislation, subordinate legislation, supplementary
legislation, sub-delegation, etc.
 Lecture V

Delegated Legislation
(Controls and Safeguards)

W e doubt, however, whether Parliament itself has full y realised how ex-
tensive the practice of delegation has become, or the extent to which
it has surrendered its own functions in the proce.r.v, or hoit easily
the practice might be abused.
—THE COMMIUF.E ON MrNIsrS' POWERS
Today the question is not whether delegated legislation is desirable or
not, but it is what controls and safeguards can he introduced so that
the power conferred is not misused or misapplied,
—TilE COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEG ISLATION
It is for a Court to hold on a fair, generous and liberal construction of
an impugned statute whether the legislature exceeded such limits.
But the said liberal construction should not he carried hr the Courts
to the extent of alwa y s trying to discover dormant or latent legislative
policy to sustain an arbitrary power coirredft on the executive auth-
orities. It is the dut y of the Court to strike down without any hesi-
tation any blanket power conferred on the executive b y the
legislature. —JUSTICE SL'BBA RAO
SYNOPSIS
1. Introduction
2. Judicial control
(A) Substantive ultra vires
(a) Definition
(b) Principle explained
(c) Circumstances
(i) Where parent Act is unconstitutional
(ii) Where delegated legislation is inconsistent with parent Act
(iii) Where delegated legislation is unconstitutional
(iv) UnscasonabLenes
(a) England
(b) India
(v) Mala fide: Bad faith
(a) England
(b) India
(vi) Sub-delegation
(a) Sub-delegation of legislative power
(b) Sub-delegation of judicial power
99 1
100 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.

(c) Sub-delegation of administrative power

(vii) Exclusion of judicial review
(viii) Retrospective operation
(d) Ultra vires act: Effect
(B) Procedural ultra vires
(a) Definition
(b) Principle explained
(c) Requirements
(I) Publication
(i) Object
(ii) England
(iii) U.S.A.
(iv) India
(v) Directory or mandatory
(vi) Mode of publication
(vii) Effect of publication
(viii) Defect in publication
(it) Conclusions
(2) Consultation
(1) Meaning
(ii) Object
(iii) Nature and scope
(iv) England
(v) U.S.A.
(vi) India
(vii) Failure to consult: Effect
(viii) Concluding remarks
3. Legislative Control
(a) General
(b) Object
(c) Modes
(i) La y ing on table
(A) Object
(13) Types
(C) Suggestions
(D) Effect of laying
(E) Failure to-lay
(F) Conclusions
(ii) Scrutiny Committees
(A) Object
(B) Functions
(C) Suggestions
(d) Conclusions
4. Other controls
5. Conclusions
V] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 101
1. INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Lecture IV, whatever prejudices might have existed
against delegated legislation in the past, today it has come to stay. At
present, in almost all the countries, the technique of delegated legislation
is resorted to and some legislative powers are delegated by the legislature
to the executive. Even in England the crusade against delegated legisla-
tion has been given up. It has to he conceded that in the present day
legislative powers can validly be delegated to the executive within the
permissible limits. At the same time, there is inherent danger of abuse
of the said power by the executive authorities. The basic problem, there-
fore, is that of controlling the delegate in exercising his legislative power-
s. As the Committee on Ministers' Powers states, though the practice of
delegated legislation is not bad. 'risks of abuse are incidental to it' and.
therefore, safeguards are required 'if the country is to continue the ad-
vantages of the practice without suffering from its inherent dangers'.
Thus, 'today the question is not whether delegated legislation is desirable
or not. but what controls and safeguards can and ought to be introduced
so that the rule-making power conferred on the Administration is not
misused or misapplied')
It has been rightly said that one has to find out a middle course
between two conflicting principles; one permitting very wide powers of
delegation for practical reasons while the other that no new legislative
bodies should be set up by transferring essential legislative functions to
administrative authorities.' Delegated legislation has become inevitable
but the question of control has become crucial.1
The control must be introduced at two stages: firstly, at the source,
i.e. the safeguards must be provided when the legislature confers the
legislative power on the executive. This aspect has already been discussed
in Lecture IV; secondl y , some safeguards must be provided in case of
misuse o;abuse of power by the executive. In this lecture, we will discuss
certain controls and safeguards against the possible abuse of legislative
power by the executive authorities.
Controls over the delegated legislation may he divided into three
categories: (a) judicial control; (b) legislative control; and (c) other con-
trols.
I. Committee on Subordinate Legislation (First Lok Sabha). 1954 (3rd Report),
p. 16: see also M.P. Jam: Treatise on Administrative Law, 1996, p. 93.
2. Delhi Laws Act, 1912. Re, AIR 1951 SC 332 (para 388): 1951 SCR 747.
3. Committee on Ministers' Powers Report, 1932. p. 54.
102 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW .[LEcT.

2. JUDICIAL CONTROL
Delegated legislation does not fall beyond the scope of judicial re-
view and in almost all the democratic countries it is accepted that courts
can decide the validity or otherwise of delegated legislation mainly ap-
plying two tests:—
(a) substantive ultra vires; and
(b) procedural ultra vires.
(Ultra wires means beyond powers).
(A) Substantive ultra vires
(a) Definition
When a subordinate legislation goes beyond what the delegate is
authorised to enact, it is known as substantive ultra vires.
(b) Principle explained
Substantive ultra vires means that the delegated legislation goes be-
yond the scope of the authority conferred on it by the parent statute or
by the Constitution. It is a fundamental principle of law that a public
authority cannot act outside the powers; i.e. ultra vires, and it has been
rightly described as the 'central principle' and 'foundation of large part
of administrative law'. An act which is for any reason in excess of power
is ultra vires.4
Power delegated by statute is limited by its terms and subordinate
to its objects. The delegate must act in good faith, reasonably, infra vires
the power granted and on relevant considerations. All his decisions,
whether characterised as legislative, administrative or quasi-judicial, must
be in harmony with the Constitution and other laws of the land. They
must he reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation. If
they are manifestly unjust or oppressive or outrageous or directed to an
unauthorised end or do not tend in some degree to the accomplishment
of the objects of delegation court might well say, "Parliament never
intended to give authority to make such rules; they are unreascahle and
ultra vires.' '
(c) Circumstances
A delegated legislation may be held to be invalid on the ground of
substantive ultra vires in the following circumstances:
(i) Where parent Act is unconstitutional.
4. Wade: A th,[Link] Law, 1994, p. 41.
5. S0arrn Sugar Mills v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223(251-52): AIR 1990
SC 1277.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 103

(ii) Where delegated legislation is inconsistent with the parent Act.

(iii) Where delegated legislation is unconstitutional,
(iv) Unreasonableness.
(v) Mala fide: Bad faith.
(vi) Sub-delegation.
(vii) Exclusion of judicial review.
(viii) Retrospective effect.
Let us consider each ground in detail:
:) W here parent A ct is unconstitutional
For delegation to be valid, the first requirement is that the parent
At or enabling statute by which legislative power is conferred on the
xecutivc authority must be valid and constitutional, because if the dde-
a1ing statute itself is ultra virès the Constitution and is had for that
-Cason, delegated legislation also is necessarily bad.
Thus, in Tan Bug Taint v. Collector of Bombay', under the Defence
f India Act. 1939 the Central Government was empowered to make
ulcs for requisition of immovable property. But the subject of requisition
)I immovable properly was not within the field of the Federal legislature
tself. Oil ground, the rule was held invalid. Similarly, in Chinra-
nanrao V . State oJ M.P. 7 , the parent Act authorised the Deputy Corn-
nissioner to prohibit the manufacture of bidis in some areas during
:crtain periods. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under
he Act was held ultra vires inasmuch as the Act under which it was
riade violated the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation, trade
r business, guaranteed by Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India.
,ikcwise in New Manek Chowk Mills v. A hmedabad Municipality, Rule
7(2) of the rules framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Cor-
orations Act, 1949, imposing tax oil was held invalid on the
round that the State legislature had power to levy a tax only on lands
md buildings and not on machinery.
However, when the parent Act is challenged on the ground that it is
inconstiiutional or ultra vires the powers of the legislature which enacted
t, the true nature and character of the statute is required to be ascertained.
Po do that one must have regard to the enactment as a whole, to its
)bjccts and to the scope and effect of its provisions. If on such exam-
6. AIR 1946 Born 216. 47 Born LR 1010.
7. AIR 1951 SC 118: 1950 SCR 759.
8. AIR 1967 SC 801: (1967) 2 SCR 679: see also Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
State of Bihar. (1990) 4 SCC 557.
104 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LED'

ination it is found that the legislation is in substance one on a mattel

assigned to the legislature, then it must be held to be valid in its entirety
even though it might incidentally trench on matters which are beyonc
its competence. For that purpose, Courts have evolved the doctrine ol
'pith and substance' or 'true nature and character' of the statute."
Entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution are legislativc
heads or fields of legislation. The legislature derives its power from Ar.
tide 246 of the Constituiion and not from the respective entries. Thi
language of the respective entries, therefore, should he given wides
scope of their meaning. It is well recognised that where there are thre
lists containing a large number of entries, there is hound to be som
overlapping among them. In such a situation, the rule of pith and sub
stance has to be applied to determine the competence of the legislature
Each general word should he held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiar
matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended in it.'° 'I
must he remembered that we are interpreting the Constitution and whet
the court is called upon to interpret the Constitution, it must not he con
strued in any narrow or pedantic sense and adopt such construction whici
must be beneficial to the amplitude of legislative powers. The broad alit
liberal spirit should inspire those whose dory is to :nierpre the Constitu
,ion to find whether nw impugned A ct is relatable to any entry in tin
relevant list. '' 1 (emphasis supplied
(ii) W here delegated legislation is inconsistent with parent A ct
The validity of the delegated legislation can he challenged on th
ground that it is ultra vires the parent Act or enabling statute or an
general law. It is an accepted principle that delegated authority must hi
exercised strictly within the authority of law. Delegated legislation car
be held valid only if it conforms exactly tu the power granted.
Thus, in U.S. v. Two Hundred Barrels of W hisky", the parent Ac
provided for admitting duty-free animals especially imported for breedin
Purposes. The regulation made under the Act required the animals to bI
of a superior stock if they were to be admitted duty-free. The court hek
the regulation ultra vires as the parent Act included all animals whih
9. United Pro ini.e v. Aziqa Begun, AIR 1941 FC 16(25(: 194() FCR 110: Krishn
v State of Madrav, AIR 1957 SC 297(303); State of Rajasthan v. Chawla. All
1959 SC 514 (546): I99 Supp (I) SCR 904; Jagannath v. Scnc of U.?.. All
1962 SC I563I56): (1963) I SCR 220.
tO. Good,ieke Group Lid. v. Stoic of W ccr th'ngal, 1995 Stipp (I) SCC 707 (718-19)
11. Jileihnai v. Scare of (u'orw. 1995 Supp (I) SCC 596 (609): AIR 1995 SC 142
12. :77i )5 CS
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 105
Vj

the regulation confined its operation to animals of a particular stock

alone.
A g ain, in Chester v. Bateson°, a regulation issued under the parent
Act prohibited a landlord from having access to courts to recover pos-
session of a dwelling, occupied by a war-worker, except with the consent
of a Minister and imposed penalty for taking such proceedings. The court
held the regulation illegal as it deprived the King's subjects of their right
of access to the Courts of Justice and rendered them liable to punishment
in case they had the temerity to ask for justice in any of the King's
Courts.
This principle is accepted in India also. In Chandra Bali v. R' 4 , the
validity of certain rules framed under the Northern India Ferries Act,
1878 was questioned. The Act authorised the making of rules for the
purpose of maintaining order and ensuring safety of passengers and
property. The delegate, however, framed rules forbidding the estab-
lishment of private terries within a distance of two miles from the boun-
daries of another ferr y . The court held that the rules were outside the
scope of the delegated power and therefore ultra vires.
Similarly, in Mo/id. Y asin v. Town A rea Committee 15 , under the par-
ent Act, the municipality was empowered to charge fee only for the use
and occupation of some property of the committee, but the Town Area
Committee framed bye-laws and imposed levy on wholesellers irrespec-
tive of any use or occupation of property by them. The Supreme Court
held that the bye-laws were beyond dic powers conferred on the com-
mittee and were ulfra vires.
In Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Nagpal Printing Mills,
the parent Act empowered the corporation to levy charge only in respect
of water supplied to and consumed by the consumer. The rule, however.
authorised levy of charges on the basis of minimum quantity irrespective
of consumption. The Supreme Court held the rule ultra vires and incon-
sistent with the parent Act.
Likewise, in Indian Council of Legal A id & A dvice v. Bar Council
of India", a rule was framed by the Bar Council barring enrolment as
advocates of persons who had completed 45 years of age. The parent

13. (1920) I KB 829.

14. AIR 1952 All 795.
IS. AIR 1952 Sc 115: see also State of Karpia:aka V. Ganes/z Ka,nath. (1983) 2
SCC 402: AIR 1 993 SC 550; GOC . in . Chief v. Subbash Chandra Y adav. I988)
2 SCC 351: AIR 1988 SC 876.
16. (1988) 2 SCC 466: AIR 1S8 SC 526.
17. (1995) 1 SCC 7.2. AR 199 5 SC ()I.
 106 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd.
Act enabled the Bar Council to lay down conditions subject to which an
advocate "shall have right to practice". Declaring the rule ultra vires,
the Supreme Court held that the Bar Council can make the rule only
after a person is enrolled as an advocate, i.e. at post-enrolment stage. It
cannot frame a rule barring persons from enrolment. The rule was thus
inconsistent with the parent Act.
The question, however, is as to when a bye-law or any other dele-
gated legislation can he said to be inconsistent with or repugnant to the
parent Act or any general law and, therefore, bad. In W hite v. Morley18,
Channel, L.J. stated: "A bye-law ... is not bad because it deals with
something that is not dealt with by the general law. But it must not alter
the general law hi making that lavful which the general law makes
unlaful; or that unlavful which the general law makes latfuL"
(emphasis supplied)
Whether a particular piece of delegated legislation is in excess of
the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate has to be
determined with reference to the specific provisions contained in the rele-
vant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation, etc. and
also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from various
provisions of the enactment.
Thus, in Thia Iron & Steel Co. V. W orkmen 19, the relevant statute
empowered the Central Government to frame the bonus scheme for em-
ployees. In exercise of the power, the Central Government created a
quasi-judicial tribunal to decide certain disputes. Rejecting the contention
that such a tribunal can only he created by the legislature and not by an
executive fiat, the Supreme Court observed that it was a matter of detail
"which is subsidiary or ancillary to the main purpose of the legislative
measure for implementing the Scheme".
Similarly, in State of T.N. v. Hind Store 20, the parent Act empowered
the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of mining
leases. Rule 8-C framed by the State Government totally prohibited
quarrying in black granite by private enterprise. It was contended that
the rule was ultra vires the parent Act and was, therefore, bad. Negativing
the contention and interpreting the connotation 'regulation' in a wider
sense, the Supreme Court observed: "We have no doubt that the prohi-
biting of leases in certain cases is part of the regulation contemplated by
Section 15 of the Act."
18 -0899) 1 QB 34 (39).
19. (1972) I SCC 383: AIR 1972 Sc 1917.
20. (1981)2 scc 205: AIR 1981 sc 711.
 VJ DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 109
In Arlidge V. Islington Corpn. 29, a bye-law made by a corporation
required the landlord of a lodging house to cause the premises to be
cleansed once a year, and penalty was imposed for breach of the said
bye-law. The Court held the bye-law ultra vires as unreasonable, as the
premises might have been leased by the landlord and he might be unable
to carry out the work without committing trespass.
In the leading case of Kruse V. Johnson30, in exercise of the power
conferred by the parent Act on the County Council of Kent, a bye-law
was made prohibiting any person from playing music or singing in any
public place or highway within fifty yards of any dwelling-house'. It was
held ultra vires on the ground that the same was unreasonable.
But the question is: when can a bye-law be said to be unreasonable?
Lord Russell, C.J. propounds:
"If, for instance, they (bye-laws) were found to be partial and
unequal in their operation as between different classes; if they were
manifestly unjust; if they disclosed bad faith; if they involved such
oppressive or gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject
to them as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable
men, the court might well say, 'Parliament never intended to give
authority to make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra
vires'." 3 ' ( emphasis supplied)
But at the same time it should not be forgotten that such bye-laws
must be 'benevolently construed' and they ought to be supported if
possible. As Lord Russell says:
"A bye-law is not unreasonable merely because particular judges
may think that it goes further than is prudent or necessary or con-
venient ... in matters which directly and mainly concern the people
of the country who have the right to choose those whom they think
best fitted to represent them in their local Government bodies, such
representatives may be trusted to understand their own requirements
better than judges."
(b) India
The same principles are accepted in India also. In A ir India v. Nar-
gesh Meerza33 , a regulation framed by Air India providing for termination
A services of an air hostess on her first pregnancy was held to be ex-
29.0909) 2 KB 127.
30. (1898) 2 QS 91: 67 Li QB 782: 79 LT 647.
31. Id. at pp. (99-100) (QB).
32. Id. at p. 100 (QB).
33. (1981) 4 SCC 335: AIR 1981 SC 1829.
110 LECTURES ON ADMINISThATIVE LAW ELECT.
tremely arbitrary, unreasonable, abhorrent to the notions of a civilized
society and interfering with the ordinary course of human nature. It is
"not a disability but one of the natural cñisequences of marriage and is
an immutable characteristic of married life" .34
Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale 35, Rule
151(1)(ii)(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 providing Re I
as subsistence allowance after conviction of a government employee even
if his appeal is pending is held to be 'unreasonable and void'. It also
'stultifies the right of appeal and is unfair and unconstitutional'. "The
award of subsistence allowance at the raze of Re 1 per month can only
be characterised as ludicrous."36
Reference, however, requires to be made to two decisions of the
Supreme Court. In Trustees, Port of Madras v. A minchan&7 , the Scale
of Rates fixed by the Board was challenged as unreasonable, The High
Court of Madras held that the Scale of Rates fixed by the Board was in.
the nature of bye-laws and they can be declared ultra vires if they are
unreasonable. Disagreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court ob-
served: "Those who desire to avail of the services of the Board are liable
to pay for those services at prescribed rates...." 38 Such scale of rates,
therefore, according to the court, would not be subject to the test of
reasonableness.
Similarly, in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of india39, the Supreme Court
'washed off its hands' from the task of scrutinising the reasonableness
of the telephone rates fixed by the Government. None of the reasons put
forward by the court was at all convincing. The court ob*d that a
subscriber to a telephone has option to enter into a contract az not. But
if he does To, he has to pay the rates and he cannot conte1'that the
rates are not fair. But the court ignored the material fact thà1'zne Gov-
ernment has a monopoly to provide telephone service and if ay person
wants such service, he has to apply for it. It does not, however, empower
the Government to fix any rates arbitrarily, capriciously or at its sweet
will even though they are unreasonable. Such an argument was negatived
by the Supreme Court itself. In V aish Degree College v. [Link] Na-
rain40 and in Central inland W ater Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Gan-
34. Id. at p. 370 (SCC): 1852 (AIR).
35. (1983) 3 SCC 387: AIR 1983 SC 803.
36. Id. at p. 390 (5CC): 804 (AIR).
37. (1976) 3 SCC 167: AIR 1975 SC 1935.
38. id. at p. 177 (SCC): 1941 (AIR)..
39. (1976) 3 SCC 428: AIR 1976 SC 1986.
40. (1976) 2 SCC 5& AIR 1976 Sc 888.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 107
In Supreme Court Employees' W elfare A ssn. v. Union of India 21 , the
;upreme Court, after referring to a number of leading cases, observed:
'Where the validity of a subordinate legislation (whether made directly
rnder the Constitution or a statute) is in question, the court has to con-
ider the nature, objects and the scheme of the instruments as a whole,
nd, on the basis of that examination, it has to consider what exactly
vas the area over which,' and the purpose for which, power has been
lelegated by the governing law." In other words, the doctrine of 'pith
nd substance' which is applicable to Parliamentary Acts is applicable
o delegated or subordinate legislation also.
iii) W here delegated legislation is unconstitutional
Sometimes a parent Act or delegating statute may be constitutional
nd valid and delegated legislation may be consistent rith the parent
ct, yet the delegated legislation may be held invalid on the ground that
contravenes the provisions of the Constitution. It may seem paradoxical
at a delegated legislation can be struck down on this ground because
the parent Act is constitutional and delegated legislation is consistent
'ith the parent Act, how can the delegated legislation be ultra vires the
onstitution? It was precisely this argument which the Supreme Court
'as called upon to deal with in Narendra Kumar v. Union of India'-.
In that case, the validity of the Non-Ferrous Metal Control Order,
58 issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
as challenged as unconstitutional. The petitioners had not challenged
e validity of the parent Act. It was argued that if the enabling Act was
Dt considered unconstitutional, the rules made thereunder could not be
ld to be unconstitutional. Rejecting this 'extravagant' argument, the
upreme Court held that even though a parent Act might not be uncon-
itutional, an order made thereunder (delegated legislation) can still be
constitutional and can be challenged as violative of the provisions of
e Constitution.
Das Gupta, I. rightly observed: "It is clear that when Section 3 con-
rs i oowers to provide for regulation or prohibition of the production,
ipply or distribution of any essential commodity it gives such power
make any regulation or prohibition insofar as such regulation and pro-
bition do not violate any Fundamental Rights granted by the Constitu-
nofIndiL"
1. (1989) 4 SCC 187 (239): AIR 1990 SC 334 (336.67).
L AIR 1960 SC 430: (1960) 2 SCR 375.
. Id. at p. 433 (AIR).
108 [Link] ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT
Every order made under a statutory provision must not only be withir
the authority conferred by the statutory provision, but thust also stunt
the test of constitutionality. Parliament cannot be presumed to have in
-tendocfrpwanuthoiyc raventof
stitutional provisions. It is a basic constitutional assumption under1yin
every statutory grant of power that the authority on which the power i
conferred should act constitutionally and not in violation of the Constitu
tion.24
In Dwarka Prasad v. State of U.P., the U.P. Coal Control Order
1953 was issued under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act
1946, Even though the parent Act was constitutional, Clause 3(2)(b) oi
the Order was held ultra vires by the Supreme Court' being violative oi
Article 19(1) not (i)(g) of the Constitution of India. Similarly, Rule 1(
of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rule, 1963 conferring power or
the Governor to confirm District Judges was held ultra vires the provi.
sions of Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution of India .26 Likewise
a rule restricting voting right for the management of Jaintemples tc
persons who had attained the age of 21 years, who had donated not 1es
than Rs 500 to the temple and who were residing within the State I'd
the last ten years was held discriminatory and, therefore, ultra vires.27
(iv) Unreasonableness
(a) England
• In England, it is well-settled that the bye-laws made by corporations
boroughs and other local bodies may be declared as ultra vires on th
ground of unreasonableness. This rule is based on a presumed intëntior
of the legislature that the Common Law allows them to make only rea
sonable bye-laws: This is an implied limitation on the exercise of powen
by such authorities, and, therefore, if the power is not reasonably exer.
cised, the action is bad in law. As de Smith 28 says, ".. there is no reasor
of principle why a manifestly unreasonable statutory instrument shout(
not be held to be ultra vires on that ground alone...."
(emphasis supplied;
[Link] Gandhi v, Union Qf india, (1978) 1 5CC 248 (314): AIR 1978 Sc 597.
[Link] 1954 SC 224: 1954 SCR 803.
26. High Court of P&Hv. State of Haryana, (1975) 1 SCC 843: AIR 1975 Sc 613.
[Link] Chandra v. State, AIR 1975 Pat 206. For detailed discussion anc
conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, see C.K. Thakker: Adminis:rativd
Law, 1996, pp. 111-16.
[Link] Review of Administrative Action, 1980, pp. 354-55; see aLco Wade
Administrative Law. 1994 pp. 879-81.
 V] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 111

gu1y', the rule providing termination of services of a permanent employee

before the age of superannuation was held to be unreasonable, opposed to
public policy and a "Henry Vifi clause". Recently, in Indian Council of
Legal A id & A dvice v. Bar Council of Indiafl, a rule framed by the Bar
Council of India barring entry of persons who have completed 45 years of
age from enrolment as advocates was held arbitrary and unreasonable.
(v) Malafide: Bad faith
(a) England
In England, it is well-settled that an Act passed by the competent
legislature cannot be questioned in court on the ground that the same
was passed mala fide or with improper motive. Once it is held that the
legislature was competent to pass such an Act, it is valid. But there is
yet another principle; Whenever the legislature confers any legislative
power on any administrative authority, the said power must be exercised
in good faith by the latter and on proof of bad faith the court can hold
the exercise of power ultra vires. In R. v. Comptroller-General of Pat-
ents43, Clauson, J. observed:
"If, on reading the Order in Council making the regulation, it
seems in fact that it did not appear to His Majesty to be necessary
or expedient for the relevant purposes to make the regulation, I agree
that, on the face of the Order, it would be inoperative." '
Again, from the observations of Lord Russel, C.J. in Kruse v.
Johnson45, it becomes clear that if a bye-law discloses bad faith, it may
be held ultra vires by courts on that ground also.
(b) India
The Indian view is reflected in some observations in Narendra Kumar
v. Union of India. In that case, while deciding the validity of the Non-
Ferrous Metal Control Order, 1958, the Supreme Court observed: "Mala
[ides have not been suggested and we are proceeding on the assumption
that the Central Government was honestly of the opinion that....' '
(emphasis supplied)
4I. (1986) 3 SCC 156: AIR 1986 SC 1571; see also Delhi Transport Corpn. v.
Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: AIR 1991 SC 101.
42. (1995) 1 scc 732: AIR 1995 SC 691.
43. (1941) 2 KB 306.
44. Id. at p. 316.
45. (1898) 2 QB 91 (99-100): 67 Li QB 782: 79 LT 647; see 'unreasonableness,
(supra).
46. AIR 1960 Sc 430: (1960) 2 SCR 375.
47. Id. at p. 433 (AIR).
112 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.
From these observations an inference may be drawn that courts may
consider the mala fide exercise of power by the statutory authority.
The point is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in S.
Shivdev Singh v. Stare of Punjab. Under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agri-
cultural Lands Act, 1955, rules were framed by the State Government.
It was contended that the standards of yields prescribed in Schedule C under
Rule 31 were arbitrary , unreasonable, unrealistic, unattainable and the same
was in mala tide exercise of power by the statutory authority. Negativing
this contention, Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) observed:
"[I}f the standard fixed in Schedule C is to be taken to apply to the
best quality irrigated land and that standard is reduced to 80 per
centum in view of Rule 3](2), we would hesitate to say that Schedule
C had fixed an unattainable standard and so was a malafide exercise
of power to frame rules with the object of defeating the intention of
the legislature. * ' (emphasis supplied)
Howevçr, in Nagraj v. State of A.P. 50, an Ordinance issued by the
Andhra Pradesh Government reducing the age of superannuation of gov-
ernment employees from 58 years to 55 years was challenged, inter alia,
on the ground of mala fide exercise of power. The Supreme Court re-
jected the contention observing that this kind of "transferred :malice"
is unknown in the field of legislation.
It is submitted that the above observations are very wide and do not
lay down correct law. When a statute enacted by a competent legislature
can be challenged as malafide, there is no reason why a delegated legis-
lation is immune from such challenge.
In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar5 ' the Supreme Court disapproved
the practice of issuing Ordinances on a large scale being arbitrary and
colourable exercise of power by the executive. Bhagwati, CJ. rightly
stated: "If there is constitutional provision inhibiting the constitutional
authority from doing an act, such provision cannot be allowed to be
defeated by adoption of any subterfuge. That would be clearly a fraud
on the constitutional provision." (emphasis supplied)
48. AIR 1963 SC 365: (1963) 3 SCR 426.
49. id. at p. 372 (AIR).
50. (1985) 1 SCC 523 (550): AIR 1985 SC 551; see also LN. [Link] v, State of
Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 433 (458) AIR 1988 Sc 1136.
51. (1987) 1 SCC 378 (393): AIR 1987 SC 579 (589); A .K. Roy v. Union of India,
(1982) 1 SCC 271: AIR 1982 SC 710; Mitral v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC
51: AIR 1983 Sc I. For detailed discussion, see V.G. Ramachandran: Law of
W rits, 1993, pp. 452-58.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 113

(vi) Sub-delegation
This topic can be studied under three sub-heads;
(a) Sub-delegation of legisl?tive power.
(b) Sub-delegation of judicial power,
(c) Sub-delegation of administrative power.
(a) Sub-delegation of legislative power
As discussed above, the maxim . 'delegatur non potest delegare' (a
delegate cannot further delegate) applies to delegated legislation also and
it is not possible for the delegate to sub-delegate the power conferred
on him unless the parent Act authorises him to do so either expressly or
by necessary implication. Assuming that the sub-delegation is permissible
under the parent Act, what are the limitations and safeguards in this
behalf? Here, the following propositions may be laid down:
(1) If the parent Act permits sub-delegation to officers or authorities
not below a particular rank, then the power can be delegated only to
those officers or authorities.
Thus, in A jaib Singh V. Gurbachan Singh", under Section 3 of the
Defence of India Act. 1962, the Central Government was empowered to
make rules authorising detention of persons by an authority not below
the rank of a District Magistrate. Section 40 authorised the State Gov-
ernment to delegate its powers to any officer or authority subordinate to
it. The Supreme Court held that .the power of detention could be sub-
delegated to any officer not below the rank of a District Magistrate and
the exercise of power to the Additional District Magistrate was illegal.
But even if there is no, provision in the parent Act that the sub-dele-
gation should be made to an officer or an authority not below a particular
rank, the courts have taken the view that the power can be sub-delegated
'only to competent and responsible persons'.
(2) The sub-delegate cannot act beyond the power conferred on him
by the delegate.
Thus, in Blackpool Corpn. v. Lockers, [Link] Defence Regula-
tions, 1939, the Minister was empowered to take possession of land. By
issuing circulars, he sub-delegated this power to the Blackpool Corpor-
ation, as was within his powers. The circulars contained certain condi-
tions and one of them was that furniture should not be requisitioned. The
corporation requisitioned the defendant's dwelling house with furniture.

[Link] IV (supra).
53. AIR 1965 SC 1619: (1965) 2 SCR 845.
54.(1948) 1 KB 349: (1948) 1 All ER 85.
 4 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.

The Court of Appeal held the impugned action ultra vires since it went
beyond the power conferred by the Minister on the Corporation.
(3) If some conditions are imposed by the delegate which must be
complied with by the sub-delegate before the exercise of power, those con-
ditions must be fulfilled; otherwise exercise of power will be ultra vires.
In Radhakishan v. State 55 , under Section 4 of the Essential Supplies
(Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, certain powers were sub-delegated by
the Central Government to the Provincial Government subject to the con-
dition that before making any order, concurrence of the former must be
obtained by the latter. An order was passed by the Provincial Government
without obtaining concurrence of the Central Government. The order was
held ultra vires as the condition was not satisfied.
Similarly, in Naraindas v. State of M.P. 56 , the Supreme Court held
that if sub-delegation can be made through regulations, it could not be
effected by passing a resolution.
(b) Sub-delegation of judicial power
In England57 and in America 58 , it is well-established that a judicial
or quasi-judicial power conferred on a particular authority by a statute
must be exercised by that authority and cannot be delegated to anyone
unless such delegation is authorised by the statute either expressly or by
necessary implication. In Morgan (I) v. U.S., the Supreme Court of
America held that the duty to decide cannot be performed by one who
has not considered evidence or argument. It is not an impersonal obli-
gation. It is akin to that of a judge. 'The one who decides must hear.'
(emphasis supplied)
de Smith says: "the maxim (delegatus non potest delegare) is ap-
plied with the utmost rigour to the'proceedings of the ordinary courts,
and in the entire process of adjudication a judge must act personally,
except insofar as he is expressly absolved from his duty by statute. 'Only
in very exceptional circumstances may judicial functions be sub-dele-
gated in the absence of express authorisation.' 1161
(emphasis supplied)
55. A IR 1952 Nag 387.
56. (1974) 4 SCC 788: A IR 1974 SC 1232.
57. Halsbury's Laws of England. 4th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 34; de Smith: Judicial Review
of A dminjs,ra,jv e A ction, 1995, pp. 360-61; Local Govt. Board v. A rlidge, (1915)
A C 120: 84 UKB 72; Wade: A dministrative Law, 1994, pp. 352-54.
58-'Runkle v. U.S., (1887) 122 US 593.
59. (1936) 298 US 468 (481).
60. Judicial Review of A dministrative A ction, 1995, pp. 358-60.
61. Id. at p. 1079.
VJ DELEGA TED LEGISLA TION (CONTROLS A ND SA FEGUA RDS) 115

Lord Denning 2 rightly states: 'While an administrative function can

often be delegated, a judicial function rarely can be; no judicial tribunal
can delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by
necessary implication."
The same principle is accepted in India as the basic principle. 63 In
the words of Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Bombay Municipal
Corpn. v. ThonduM , "it goes without saying that judicial power cannot
ordinarily be delegated unless the law expressly or by clear implication
Permits it''. In the historic case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v.
A ,PS.R.T.C. 65I under the relevant Act and the Rules the Minister was
empowered to hear the parties and to pass the final order, but he dele-
gated his function of hearing to his Secretary, who heard the parties and
put up a note before the Minister for final decision and the order was
passed by the Minister. Quashing the orders, passed by the Minister,
Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) held that it was not a judicial hearing.
"If one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an
empty formality."
At the same time, practical difficulties must also be appreciated. It
is not possible for all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to take the
entire evidence in all cases, hear the parties and their representatives or
advocates, and give decisions. In these circumstances courts have allowed
some relaxation and held that it is permissible for judicial or quasi-judi-
cial bodies to delegate certain functions, e.g. holding of inquiries, taking
of evidence, hearing of parties and to appoint assistants for the said pur-
pose6, provided always that after receiving evidence in the aforesaid man-
ner they give an opportunity to the parties to clarify their stand before
a decision is finally arrived at by them.
It is submitted that the following observations of Mahajan, J. (as he
then was) in the leading case of Delhi Laws A ct, 1912, Re, lay down
correct law on the point, wherein His Lordship stated:
"No public functionary can himself perform all the duties he is
privileged to perform, unaided by agents and delegates, but from this
circumstance it does not follow that he can delegate the exercise of
his judgment and discretion to others.... [TJhe Judges are not allowed
62. Barnard v. Naironal Dock Labour Board. (1953) 1 A ll ER 113, (11 18-19):
(1953) 2 QB 18: (1953) 2 W LR 995.
63. Sahni Silk Mills V. ES! Corpn., (1994) 5 SCC 346(352).
64. A IR 1965 SC 1486 (1488): (1965) 2 SCR 929 (932).
65. A IR 1959 SC 308(327): 1959 Supp (1) SCR 319.
66. A IR 1951 SC 332: 1951 SCR 747.
116 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd.
to surrender their judgment to others. It is they and they alone who
are trusted with the decision of a case.' ' (emphasis supplied)
(c) Sub-delegation of administrative powet
(vii) Exclusion of judicial review
As discussed above, the validity of a delegated legislation can be
challenged in a court of law. As early as 1877 in Empress v, Burali,
the. High Court of Calcutta had declared Section 9 of Act XXII of 1869
ultra vires. Though the decision of the Calcutta High Court was reversed
by the Privy Council 70 , neither before the High Court. nor before the
Privy Council it was contended that the court had no power of judicial
review and, therefore, cannot decide the validity of the legislation. But
sometimes, attempts are made by the legislature to limit or exclude judi-
cial review of delegated legislation. Thus, in an Act a provision may be
made that rules, regulations, bye-laws, etc. made under it "shall have
effect as if enacted in the Act", "shall be conclusive evidence", "shall
not be called in question in any court", "shall not be called in question
in any legal proceedings whatsoever" and the like. The question is
whether in view of these provisions judicial review of delegated legis-
lation is ousted?
In Institute of Patent v. Lockwood, Lord Herschell observed that
the jurisdiction of courts to question the validity of delegated legislation
could be taken away. But this view was disapproved subsequently by
the House of Lords in Minister of Health v. R., ex p Y affe 72. In that case
Lord Dunedin observed: "It is evident that it is inconceivable that the
protection should extend without limit. If the' Minister went out of his
province altogether ... it is repughant to common sense that the order
would be protected......In that case it was held that since the order was
in conflict with the provisions of the Act, it was not an order within the
meaning of the Act and was not saved by the clause (shall have effect
as if enacted in this Act). According to Allen 73, the words 'as if enacted
in the Act' do not preclude judicial consideration of 'vires'.
67. AIR 1951 SC 332 at 386; see also .Pradya: Kumar V. Chief Justice of Calcutta,
AIR 1956 Sc 285(291); Marathwada University v. Seshrao, (1989) 3 SCC 132:
AIR 1989 Sc 1582.
68. For detailed [Link] see Lecture VIII (infra).
69. ILR 3 Cal 64: 1 CLR 161 (FB).
70. Queen v. Burah, (1878) 3 AC 889: 5 IA 178: 4 Cal 172 PC).
71, (1894) AC 347: 63 UPC 75: 71 LT 205.
72. (1931) AC 494 (501-02): 100 LJKB 306: 145 LT 98.
73. Law and Orders, 1965, p 258.
V] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 117

The Committee on Ministers' Powers had also not favoured such

clauses and has made the following recommendation:
"The use of clauses designed to exclude the jurisdiction of the
Courts to enquire into the legality of a regulation or order should be
abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases, and should not be
permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds stated in the
ministerial memorandum attached to the Bill.' 174
The aforesaid clauses have been used in many Statutes in India, but
their legal effect is not free from doubt. In some cases, the Supreme
Court has adopted the Herschell doctrine75, while in some cases like
Y affe76 is followed.
In Chief Inspector of Mazes v. K.C. Thapar", speaking for the Su-
preme Court, Das Gupta, J. observed: "The true position appears to be
that the Rules and Regulations do not lose their character as rules and
regulations, even though they are to be of the same effect as if contained
in the Act. They continue to be rules subordinate to the Act, and though
for certain purposes, including the purpose of construction they are to
be treated as if contained in the Act their true nature as subordinate rules
is not lost. ''78
It is submitted that the following observations of Shah, J. (as he then
was) in the case of State of Kerala v. A bdulla & Co2, lay down correct
law on the point:
"V alidity of a rule whether it is declared to have effect as if
enacted in the A ct or otherwise is always open to challenge on the
ground that it is unauthorised." 80 (emphasis supplied)
It is submitted that the above view is correct particularly when under
the Constitution of India the doctrine of judicial review is accepted and
treated as basic structure and essential feature of the Constitution which
cannot be taken away by any statutory provision or even by a constitu-
tional amendment.
74. Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, (1932), p. 65.
75. Subba Rao v. CIT. AIR 1956 SC 604: 1956 SCR 577; Orient Weaving Mills V.
Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 98: 1962 Supp (3) SCR 481.
76. Chief Convnr. of Ajmer v. Radhe Shyam. AIR 1957 SC 304: 1957 SCR 68;
Chief Inspector of Mines v. K.C. Thapar, (infra); State of Kerala v. Abdulla &
Co., (infra).
77. AIR 1961 SC 838-.(1962) 1 SCR 9.
78. Id. at p. 845 (AIR).
79. AIR 1965 SC 1585: (1965) 1 SCR 601,
80. Id. at p. 1589 (AIR).
118 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.

(viii) Retrospective operation

It is well-settled that delegated legislation cannot have any retrospec-
tive effect unless such a power is conferred on the rule-making authority
by the parent Act. The legislature can always legislate prospectively as
well as retrospectively subject to the provisions of the Constitution. But
the said rule will not apply to administrative authorities exercising dele-
gated legis1aive power. Some statutes specifically confer power to the
rule-making authority to frame rules with retrospective effect.81
The danger of conceding such a wide power to a delegated authority
should not be overlooked. In Howell v. Fatmouth Boat Construction Co.
Lid. 82, a licence was issued which was to operate retrospectively so as
to cover the works already done under the oral sanction of the authority.
Holding this to be invalid, the House of Lords observed:
"It would be a dangerous power to place in the hands of Min-
isters and their subordinate officials to allow them, whenever they
had power to licence, to grant the licence ex post facto; and a statu-
tory power to licence should not be construed as a power to authorise
or ratify what has been done unless the special terms of the statutory
provisions clearly warrant the 'construction," 83
The same principle is accepted in India. In Stare of M.P. v. Ti-
kamdas, the Supreme Court observed: "There is no doubt that unlike
legislation made by a sovereign legislature, subordinate legislation made
by a delegate cannot have retrospective effect unless the rule-making
power in the concerned Statute expressly or by necessary implication
confers powers in thishalf.'85
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, in V zjayalakshmi Rice Mills v. State of A .P. 86, the Court held
that in the absence of express words or appropriate language from which
81. For instance, S. 295(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under:—
"The power to make rules conferred by this section shall include the power
to give retrospective effect, from a date not earlier than the date of
commencement of this. Act, to the rules or any of them and, unless the contrary
is permitted (whetherexpressly or by necessary implication); no retrospective
effect shall be given to any rule so as to prejudicially affect the interest of
assessees)'".
See also S. 46, Gift Tax Act, 1958; S. 85, Estate Duty Act, 1963; S. 184-A,
Navy Act, 1957; S. 36-A, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
82. (1951) AC 837: (1951) 2 All ER 278.
83. Id. at p. 847 (AC).
84. (1975) 2 SCC 100(103): AIR 1975 $C 1429(1431).
85. Id., at p. 103 (SCC): 1431 (AIR).
86. (1976) 3 SCC 37: AIR 1916 SC 1471.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 119
retrospectivity may be inferred, a notification takes effect from the date
on which it is issued and not from any prior date.
Similarly, in Gurcharan Singh v. State87, delegated legislation was
held invalid. A fresh order was passed and a clause has been added that
anything done or action taken under the old order should be deemed to
have been taken under the new order. The court declared the said clause
Invalid since it was retrospective.
It is well-settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the con-
ditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
ckries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with retrospective
effect. But in the leading case of B. S. Yadav v. State of Haryana, the
Supreme Court rightly observed:
"It should also be realised that giving retrospective effect to the
rules creates frustration and discontentment since the just expecta-
tions of the officers are falsified. Settled seniority is thereby unset-
1ed, giving rise to long drawn-out litigation between the promotees
and direct appointees. That breeds indiscipline and draws the High
Court into the arena, which is to be deprecated.9
Again, no retrospective effect can be given to a delegated legislation
which deprives a person of an• accrued right vested in him.
In Wachane v. Union of India 90, the Supreme Court held that retro-
spective amendment in Life Insurance Corporation of India Class Ill and
IV Employees (Bonus and Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1981 cannot nul-
lify the effect of the writ issued by the court in an earlier case.
In State of Gujarat v. Raman LaS 91 , the High Court held that pan-
chayat employees were government servants. The State carried the matter
to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Act was
amended with retrospective effect nullifying the decision of the High
Court
Holding the Act ultra vires, the Court stated: "A legislature cannot
legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years
ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued
in the course of the twenty years. That would be most arbitrary, unrea-
sonable and a negation of history... Past virtue (constitutional) cannot
87. AIR 1974 P&H 223.
88. 1980 Supp SCC 524: (1981) 1 SCR 1024.
89. Id. at p. 558 (SCC): 1070.(SCR).
90, (1982) 1 SCC 205 AIR l'982 SC 1126.
91. (1983) 2 5CC 33: AIR I994SC 161.
 120 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.
be made to wipe out present vice (constitutional) by making retrospective
laws." (emphasis supplied)
It is submitted that the following observations of Grover, J. in the
case of ITO v. Ponnoose93 lay down correct law on the point:
"The Parliament can delegate its legislative power within the
recognised limits. Where any rule or regulation is made' by any per-
son or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the
legislature it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to
give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed
in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary
implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regu-
lation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be
found it has been held by the courts that the person or authority
exercising subordinate legislative fwzctions cannot make a rule, regu-
lation or bye-law which can operate with retrospective effect.'4
(emphasis supplied)
(d) Ultra vires act: Effect
An action which is ultra vires is without jurisdiction, null and
' void,
and of no legal effect whatsoever. It has no legal leg to stand on. 15 Once
the court has declared that some administrative act is legally a nullity,
the situation is as if nothing had happened.. There is no question of es-
toppel against an ultra vires act. A plea of ultra vires cannot be defeated
by a rule of estoppel. It has been rightly said: "It would entirel y destroy
the whole doctrine of ultra vires if it were possible for the donee of a
statutory power to extend his power by creating an estoppel. The ques-
tion of approbate and reprobate also does not apply in such a case. No
question of acquiescence or waiver can be raised against an ultra vires
act. In Lohia Machines W . v. Union of Indi#7 , the Supreme Court has
observed: "If a rule made by a rule-making authority is outside the scope
of its power, it is void and it is not at all relevant that its validity has
92. (1983) 2 SCC 33 at 62: 177 (AIR): see also T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana,
1986 Supp SCC 584: AIR 1987 SC 516; Haribans v. Rly. Board, (1989) 2 SCC
84: AIR 1989 SC 696; Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Admn., (1990) 3 SCC
261: AIR 1990 SC 1305.
93. (1969) 2 SCC 351: AIR 1970 SC 385.
94. id. at p. 354 (SCC): 387 (AIR). For other cases, see C. K. Thakker
A dministrative Law, I996, pp. 134-37,
95. Lord Greene in Minister of A griculture Y. Mathews. (1950) 1 KB 148 (153):
(1949) 2 All ER 724.
96. (1985) 2 SCC 197 (223): AIR 1985 SC 421.
97. (1985) 2 SCC 197: AIR 1985 SC 421.
V) DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 121

not been questioned for a long period of time; if a rule is void it remains
void whether it has been acquiesced or not." (emphasis supplied)
But in Sahni Silk Mills v. ES!. Corpn., the parent Act enabled the
Corporation to delegate its power to the Director General who in turn
sub-delegated that power to Regional Directors. Regional Directors in
exercise of the power recovered damages, which action was challenged.
Though sub-delegation was held invalid, the Supreme Court did not direct
refund of amounts already realised as damages from the employers. Thus,
the Ccurt virtually applied de facto doctrine observing that it was not in
public interest to do so.
It is submitted that the following observations of Lord Denning, M.R
lay down correct law on the point:
Next, it was suggested that, even if the board could not delegate
their functions, at any rate they could ratify the actions of the port
manager, but, if the board have no power to delegate their functions
to the port manager, they can have no power to ratify what he has
already done. The effect of ratification is to make it equal to a prior
command, but as a prior command, in the shape of delegation, would
be useless, so also is a ratification.' ' (emphasis supplied)
(B) Procedural ultra vires
(a) Definition
When a subordinate legislation fails to comply with certain proce-
dural requirements prescribed by the parent Act or by the general law,
it is known as procedural ultra vires.
(b) Principle explained
While framing rules, bye-laws, regulations, etc., the parent Act or
.enabling statute may require the delegate to observe a prescribed proce-
dure, such-as holding of consultations with particular bodies or interests,
publication of draft rules or bye-laws, laying them before Parliament,
etc. It is incumbent on the delegate to comply with these procedural
requirements and-to exercise the power in the manner indicated by the
legislature. Failure to comply with the same may invalidate the rules so
framed. But at the same time, it is also to be noted that failure to observe
the procedural requirements does not necessarily and always invalidate
the rules. This arises out of a distinction between mandatory requirements
98. (1994) 5 SCC 346.
99. Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, (1953) 1 All ER 1113 (1119): (1953)
2 QB 18; sec also Bar Council of India v Surjeei Singh, (1980) 4 SCC 211:
AIR 1980 SC 1612.
 122 LEcru1s ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LEd.
and directory requirements. In this book, though we are not concerned
with the distinction between the two, we may say that generally, non-
compliance with a directory provision does not invalidate subordinate
legislation, but failure to observe a mandatory and imperative require-
ment does. "It is a well-settled rule that an absolute enactment must
be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enact-
ment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially."'
(c) Requirements
The following two procedural requirements may now be discussed:
(I) Publication.
(2) Consultation.
(1) Publication
(i) Object
It is a fundamental principle of law that 'ignorance of law is no
excuse' (ignorantia juris non excusat), but there is also another equally
established principle of law that the public must have access to the law
and they should be given an opportunity to know the law. According to
Wade 2, "the very justification for that basic maxim is that the whole of
our law, written or unwritten, ,,s accessible to the public—in the sense,
of course, at any rate, its legal advisers have access to it, at any moment,
as of right." As observed by Domat 3 , " all laws ought either to be known
or at least laid open to the knowledge of all the world in such a manner,
that no one may with impunity offend against them, under pretence of
ignorance". In the case of an Act made by Parliament this poses little
difficulty as it receives sufficient publicity during the introduction of a
Bill, printing, reference to a Select Committee and its report thereon,
reading before the House or Houses, discussion, voting, final approval
of the Bill, radio and newspaper reports thereon, etc. But this is not true
in the case of delegated legislation. As Roscoe Pound' observes, "the
first knowledge that those affected have of a rule, is usually after it has
gone into effect. The-first opportunity they have to challenge it, is usually,
after it is enforced against them". M.P. Jain 5 rightly stated: "It is es-
sential, therefore, that adequate means are adopted to publicize delegated
1. Raw Buland Sugar Co. v. Rarnpur Municipal Council,
I SCR 970; Pratap Singh V. Shri Krishna Gupta, AIR 1965 SC 895: (1965)
SCR 1029. AIR 1956 SC 140: (1955) 2
2. A dministrative Law, 1994, p. 890.
3. Quoted by (Janguly: Admirastratjve Legislation,
1968. p. 74.
4. Qt'oed by S. Rajgopalan: A dministrative Law,
1970, p. 107.
5. Treatise on A dministrative Law, 1996, V ol. 1, p. 150.
VI DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 123

legislation so that people are not caught on the wrong foot in ignorance
of the rules applicable to them in a given situation. The system of pub-
lication ought to he such that delegated legislation is not only made
known to the people. but it is also easy to locate as and when necessary."
(ii) England
In England, by the Rules Publication Act. 1893, certain provisions
were made for the giving of notice and inviting representations trout
interested public bodies. Under the Statutory Instruments Act. 1940. cci -
tain provisions were made with a view to ensure that the public would
he aware of the delegated legislation.
In Johnson V. Sargoii(. the impugned order was passed on May 16,
but was published on May 17. The court held that the order could come
into operation only on May 17, i.e. when it was made known.
Though Prof. C.K. Allen" criticises this decision and describes it as
'a hold example of a judge-made law, soundncss of which is very doubt-
ful'. in subsequent cases also, the same principle has been followed.
(iii) L LA.
Before 1935, therc was no machinery for puhlcttiiin of delegated
legislation in the U.S. and there was hardly an y for alTcctcd
persons to get information about it But after the deciaon ii the Pwrww
[Link] 5 (wherein, the court found that there was no [Link]:iie ruhilcaton
of delegated legislation). the Federal Register Act w:t' pasc ..l in P) 5.
requiring publication of all regulations. The provisions for puh!ie of
delegated legislation were further strengthened b y enacting the .\Iitiirt
istrativc Procedure Act, 1946.
Thus. in Hutch v. U.S.". a Circular Court held that if a rcuIui on
was not published in accordance with the Act of 1935. it as invalid,
irrespective of whether the person charged with its 'ntrj entu 'n had
actual knowledge of its contents or 110!.
On the other hand, in Eo-ierul Cro,' Insurance C'orjm. V. i1e, ill ,
regulation was published in the Federal Reiszer in accordance v. ith thic
Act of 1935 and in spite of the conceded fact' that the fill ::M knc
nothing about the reL'ula(ion, the U .S. Supreme Court 1w tnto v
the regulation valid and binding on him. Justice Jackson dtcnting
served:

6.(1919J t KR till.
7. Liv and Orders, 1 ) e ,S . pII2
S. Pa,wn.j [Link]:n C. Rvz. (!9.14) 293 US 3,SS
19541 212 F j 5()
10 1947) 332 US ISi)
 124 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.

"To my mind, it is an absurdity to hold that every farmer who

insures his crops knows what the Federal Register contains or even
knows that there is such a publication. If he were to peruse this
voluminous and dull publication as it is issued from time to time in
order to make sure whether anything has been promulgated that af-
fects his rights, he would never need crop insurance, for he would
never get time to plant any crops."
It is submitted that though factually what Justice Jackson says is
true, the court was required to decide the question in accordance with
law and the majority view was, therefore, correct. In India, the same
principle is followed.
(iv) India
The above principles apply in India also. Unlike England and
America, there is no statutory provision requiring publication of dele-
gated legislation. Yet the courts have treated some sort of publication of
delegated legislation as an essential requirement for its validity.
(v) Directory or mandatory
Is the requirement of prior publication of delegated legislation man-
datory? What will be the effect of non-compliance with this requirement?
What is the effect in defect of publication of delegated legislation? These
are some of the problems which are not free from doubt. Let us consider
them in the light of decided cases.
In Harla v. State of Rajasthan2, the legislation in question passed
by the Council was neither published nor was it made known to the
genera] public through any other means. Holding its publication necess-
ary and applying the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court
observed:
"The thought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of a
chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their
accredited representatives have no access and of which they can nor-
mally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives, liberty and
property by the mere passing of a Resolution without anything more
is abhorrent to civilised man. It shocks his conscience. Promulgation
or publication of some reasonable sort is essential." '
(emphasis supplied)
1. at p. 387.
AIR 1951 SC 467 1952 SCR 110.
13. Id. at p. 468 (AIR).
VJ DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 125
Again, in Narendra Kumar V. Union of India 14, Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 required all the rules to be made under the Act
to he notified in the Official Gazette. The principles applied by the li-
censing authority for issuing permits for the acquisition of non-ferrous
metals were not notified. The Supreme Court held the rules ineffective.
However, in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George", a notification,
dated November 8. 1962 was published in the Gazette of India on No-
vember 24, 1962. prohibiting import of gold in India except on certain
conditions. The respondent left Zurich on November 27, carrying gold
with him and was arrested at the Bombay airport on November 28. He
pleaded his ignorance of the notification. Negativing the contention the
Supreme Court held that the notification had been published and made
known in India and the ignorance pleaded by the respondent-accused
was wholly irrelevant.
The majority observed: "[Pjublication in the Official Gazette, viz.
the Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subor-
dinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned.... [ T ] he notifi-
cation by the Reserve Bank was published in the Gazette of India on
November 24. 1962 and hence ... the notification must he deemed to
have been published and brought to the notice of the concerned individ-
uals on the 25th of November, 1962."16
(vi) Mode of publication
A question may also arise about the mode, manner and method of
publication. As a rule, a distinction must be drawn between publication
of delegated legislation and the mode, manner or method of publication.
Even if a requirement of publication is held to be mandatory, the mode
or manner of publication may be held to he directory and strict com-
pliance thereof may not be insisted upon. In the oft-quoted passage from
the judgment in Raza Buland Sugar Co. v. Rampur Municipal CounciP7,
speaking for the Supreme Court, Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) observed:
'The question whether a particular provision of a statute which
on the face of it appears mandatory - inasmuch as it uses the word
'shall' as in the present case - or is merely directory cannot be
resolved by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts
of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making
the provision is the determining factor. The purpose for which the
[Link] 1960 SC 430 (1960) 2 SCR 375.
[Link] 1965 Sc 722: (1965) 1 SCR 123.
[Link]. 743 (AIR).
[Link] 1965 SC 895: (1965) 1 SCR 970.
 126 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.

provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legis-
lature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience
or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read
one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to
other provisions dealing with the same subject and other consider-
ations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including
the language of the pros ision, have all 10 be taken into account
in arriving at the conclusion whether a particular provision is man-
datory or directory.''
In Raza Buland Sugar Co., the Supreme Court held that the statutory
provision requiring publication of rules before imIx)sitkm of tax was
,nwidrvato, but the manner in which the rules were required to be pub-
lished was threciorv. and as there was substantial compliance with the
requirement of publication, the rules were valid. On the other hand, in
Govindlal C/:haganlal Pate! v. A gricultural Produce Market Commit-
tee 19 , the notification was issued under the parent Act (Gujarat Agricul-
tural Produce Markets Act, 1964) and was required to he published in
Gujarati in a newspaper being circulated in that area. The Supreme Court
held that the requirement of publication in Gujaiati was mandatory and
as the same was not complied with, the notification was invalid.
(vii) Ei5'ect of publication
Once the delegated legislation is proinulatcd or published, it takes
effect from the date of such promulgation or publication. In MI!.
George` the Supreme Court held that the notificatidli became effective
from November 24, 1962 when it was published in the Government Ga-
zette. In !'anhaj fain .4ge,:cies v. Llawn of I,ulia, the notification was
published in the Government Gazette oil 13, I 1986 prescribing
the rates of custom duty which were Co come in oice from February 19.
1986. The notification was held valid.
(viii) Defect in publication
In some statutes, a provision is made that no act done or proceeding
taken under the Act shall he called in question merely on the ground of
any defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding, not affectin g the
merits of the case. Relying oil provisions, the Supreme Court has
IS. Id. at p. 899 (A IR).
19 1 I975 2 SCC 452: A IR 1976 SC 273.
20. A IR 1965 SC 722 k 1965)I SCR 123.
21 (1994) 5 5CC 198: A IR 1995 Sc 360; see also Sonik Ind. v. Rajkos Municipal
QS6) 2 SCC Go g : A IR 1956 SC IS S:Snnivc-zsa,x v State of
[Link], ft 'tIm )
V1 DELEGATED LEGISLATION tCONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS P 127

held that failure of proper publication does not invalidate the act) in
Srinitason v. Stale of Kan,atoka. such 'Omnibus Curative Clause' has
been described as the Gan go' clause.
(ix) Conclusions
The necessity and need of the publication of subordinate or delegated
legislation cannot, however. he underestimated. Whether law is viewed
from the standpoint of the 'conscientiouS good man' seeking to abide by
the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes's 'Unconscientious had
man' seeking to avoid the law, law must be known. that is to say. it must
he so made that it can he known. Delegated or subordinate legislation is
all-pervasive and there is hardly any field of activity where gii eniance
by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important, if not
more important, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. But uiiILe
Parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate
legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, it
Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It is, therefore.
necessary that subordinate legislation. in order to take effect. must he
published or promulgated in s oine suitable manner. whether such publi-
cation or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. Ii will
then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation.
It is submitted that the following observations of Chmnappa Reddy,
J. in Srinit'a,swt v. Suite of Karnataka", lay down correct law on the
point, and arc, therefore, worth quoting:
"Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or
promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute
is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner
of publication, such a mode of publication may he sufficient. ii rea-
sonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode
of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly
unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is
published through the customarily recognised official channel.
22. Berar [Link]ü Vanacpathi v. Municipal Committee. Sliegoon. AIR 1 062 SC
420: (1962) I SCR 596; Bangalore Wuollcn. Cotton and Silk Mills v. Corpn.
of Bonçah,re. AIR 1962 SC 52: 1961 3 SCR 707: Munit .piil Board. )laj'ur
v. Raghuendru, AIR 1961) SC 693: (1966) I SCR 950: Munveipal llorl.
Simpur v. Pravag Nuru yun. 1969) I SCC 399: AIR 1970 SC 58.
23. (1987) I SCC 658; AIR 1987 SC 1059.
24. According to the belief of Hindu religion, the holy water of riser Ganga purf?2c
and cleanses all sins of a person who lakes a bath in it.
25. Srinib'osan v. Stare of Karnataka (infra).
26. (1987) 1 SCC 658: AIR 1987 SC 1059.
 128 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELEcT.
namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of pub-
lication. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned
with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such
cases publication or promulgation by other means may be suffi-
cient.' 127
(2) Consultation
(i) Meaning
The term 'consult' implies a conference of two or more persons or
an impact of two or more minds in respect of a topic in order to enable
them to evolve a correct or, at least satisfactory solution of a problem.
It is a process which requires meeting of minds between the parties to
consultation on material facts to come to a right conclusion.28
(ii) Object
An important measure to check and control the exercise of legislative
power by the executive is the technique of consultation through which
affected interests may participate in the rule-making process. This modus
operandi is regarded as a valuable safeguard against misuse of legislative
power by the executive authorities. As Wade and Philips 29 remark: 'One
way of avoiding a clash between department exercising legislative powers
and the interest most likely to be affected is to provide for some form
of consultation." This process of exchange of ideas is beneficial to both:
to the affected interests itself insofar as they have an opportunity to im-
press on the authority their point of view; and to the rule-making auth-
ority insofar as it can gather necessary information regarding the issues
involved and thus be in a better position to appreciate a particular Situ-
ation. The Administration is not always the repository of ultimate wis-
dom: it learns from the suggestions made by outsiders and often benefits
from that advice.30
(iii) Nature and scope
Consultation does not mean consent or concurrence. At the same
time, however, it postulates full and effective deliberation, exchange
of mutual viewpoints, meeting of minds and examination of relative
merits of the other point of view. Consultation is not complete unless
27. id. at pp. 672-73 (SCC): 1067-68 (AIR).
28. Union of India v. S.H. Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193: AIR 1977 SC 2328; S.P.
Gupta v. Union of India, 1991 Supp SCC 87: AIR 1982 SC 149; Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Assn. v. Union of India. (1993) 4 SCC 441: AIR 1994
SC 268.
29. Constitutional Lw, 1960. p. 584.
30. M.P. Jam; Treatise on Administrative Law, (1996), Vol. I. p. 164.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 129

the parties thereto make their respective viewpoints known to others

and examine relative merits of their views. Even when consultation
is not a legal requirement, such a step generates greater confidence
of the persons who may he affected by an action that may he taken
by the authority.31
(iv) England
In England, though there is no statutory provision requiring consult-
ation of affected interests before the making of subordinate legislation,
it is considered mandatory. This practice is so well-established that "no
Minister in his senses, with the fear of Parliament before his eyes would
ever think of making regulations without (where practicable) giving the
persons who will be affected thereby or their representatives an oppor-
tunity of saying what they think about the proposal" •2 Sir Cecil Carr3
enunciates:
It is unthinkable that any important niles would be made about
solicitors in England without consulting the Law Society or about
doctors, without consulting the British Medical Association, or about
local Government without consulting the County Council Association
and the Association of Municipal Corporations.''
With regard to the absence of statutory provisions requiring consult-
ation, the Lord Chancellor says: "sVe no longer promulgate the regula-
tions or rules in the Gazette and wait for representations to be made. We
go to the trade or interest concerned and deal with it by getting them
round the table, hearing what they have to say, and then drafting the
rules after obtaining their views."
According to Griffith 14, such consultations are of two types:
(I) Ordinary types of consultation, and
(2) Extraordinary types of consultation.
(1) Ordinary types of consultation—These can be further sub-
divided into two categories:
(A ) Individual Objections.— Generally, consultations of this kind
are by statutory provisions, e.g., factory laws. The proposed regulations
31, Prakash Chand v. Zila Parishad. (1971) 2 SCC 489 (499): AIR 1971 SC 1696;
[Link] pni Khandsiri v. State of (1?, (1981) 2 SCC 600 (633): AIR 1981 SC
873; State of J&K v. Zakki, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584: AIR 1992 SC 1546.
32. Sir W. Graham cited by Griffith: Delegated Legislation, Some Recent Developments,
1949) 12 Mod LR 297.
33. Cited by Griffith: Concerning English Administrative Law, p. 54.
34. Concerning English Administrative Law, p. 54.
I LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (LECT.

are rciured to he published, objections are invited and opportunity of

hcii ii' ; '. ivcn to the affected persons.
fl ( ,[Link],i it:tii specified interests.—Here the Minister is re-
i u iedconsult srecilied interests before he makes the regulations. Nor-
idk hc.• are nt'rsts
statutory advisory bodies or local authorities,
\Jiorv Committee, Merchant Shipping Advisory Commit-
ice. ek

Extraordinar y types of consultation—These can also be sub-

dI\ ;J hut' two categories:
Prepci as 'i by affected interests.—Here the power to draft the
iceiltii n t delegated to the individual or group and the Minister
ee c. a et ii lilming or approving authority. Under certain factory laws.
the ' er of making rules to compel the observance of requirements of
the Lw' icgtiding cleanliness, ventilation and general health matters is
delceated to the occupier of the factory.
li . f ' /ru th a! I ' .SUitiiiorv Bodv.—Some Statutes provide for sub-
m iih l ii Of the di aft ill 'the regulations to a statutory body by the Minister
.md the p . t Of that bod y is to he laid before Parliament. The effect is
that etthei tic Minister must accept the report with its proposed amend-
iiielil.s Of l'id his attit)n of [elual in Parliament.
IF) (..SA
j he technique of prior consultation is very much common in the
: rljtetJ SLIL . S. The Administrative Procedure Act. 1946 makes de-
1.1 ed rru ' i - i 'os !or consultation requiring that interested parties

,Iwuld he given ari opportunity to participate in the rule-making pro-

In some [Link]' Congress has prescribed even a formal hearing.
Pc ofi, like] to he affected are afforded an opportunit y by the itile-
[Link] . it urht is to [Link] in the rule-making process. The
lb ct'ii,nder the written data, views, arguments. etc of those
and t i :.tI c the rules. I karings preliminary to rule- making
hoc thus he ''mc All important part of the administrative process in
the nntel Smac \\ hen formal heaiines are held. the y are almost
uK.c uJi a! pi cedmngs. °
/i4Ial
In India. there is mm general statutor y provision requiring consultation
'A1111 the at feeted t Clclis in the making of delegated legislation. But

I Q'Lt. pp. 895-96.

V] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 131

some statutes specifically provide for consultation which fall under the
follo'xint heads.36
(1) Official consultation.—The rule-making power is delegated
subject to a stipulation that it is to he exercised in consultation with a
named official authority or agency, e.g. the Central Government is re-
quired to make rules under Section 52 of the Banking Companies Act,
1949 after consulting the Reserve Bank of India.
(2) Consultation with Statutory Bodies—In certain statutes, the
rule making power is conferred on the Central Government which can
he exercised after consulting the Boards concerned, e.g. the Central
Government is empowered to make rules under Sections 6 and 12 of
the Drugs Act. 1940 after consulting the Drugs Technical Advisory
Board.
(3) Consultation with Advisory Bodies.—Under sonic statutes,
advisory bodies are constituted to assist the Central Government or other
subordinate authorities in framing rules. Thus. Mining Boards are con-
stituted under the Indian Mines Act. 1901 to assist and advise the Gu y
-cinmtakgrules.
(4) Draft Rules by Affected Interests.--In some cases, the power
to frame rules is directl y conferred on the affected interests, e.g. under
Section 61 of the Indian Mines Act, 1961, the power is conferred on the
owner of a mine to frame and submit to the Inspector of Mines a draft
of bye-laws for the prevention of accidents and for the safety, conveni-
ence and discipline of those employed in the mine. Ultimatel y , the draft
rules may he approved by the Central Government alter hearing affected
interests.
(vii) Failure to consult: Lffi'ci
As discussed above, in England, the position requiring consultation
has generally been regarded as mandatory. In Rollo v. Minister of Town
and Counu-v Plcz,z,iim'. holding the consultation as 'an important statu-
tory obligation. Bucknill. L.J. observed:
"On the one side the Minister must supply sufficient information
to the local authority to enable them to tender advice, and on the
other hand, a sufficient opportunity must be given to the local auth-
ority to tender that advice."

3 ' i)de , 'arrd Ll'gsiolilnn in India, tLI. 1964. pp. 42-49.

37 45) I All ER 13(17).
132 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.
In India, provisions regarding consultation were held to be directory
in some cases. Thus, in Ibrahim v. Regional Transport A uthority 38 , con-
sultation with the Municipality was required to be made by the Transport
Authority before certain routes for public buses were fixed. The Supreme
Court held it to be merely directory.
Similarly, in Hindustan Zinc lid. v. A ndhra Pradesh State Electricity
Boara° 9 , the Apex Court held that failure on the part of the Board to
consult the Electricity Council before revising electricity tariffs was not
bad. One of the factors considered by the Court was that the consequence
of non-compliance was not provided by the Act and, hence, at the most
such consultation could be said to be persuasive.
On the other hand, in Banwarilal v. State of Bihar40, the Supreme
Court held that the provision under Section 59 of the Mines Act requiring
consultation with the Mining Boards by the Central Government before
framing regulations was mandatory.
In Union of India v. S.H, Shet/i 41 , in a different context, however,
while considering the legality of an order of transfer of a High Court
Judge under Article 222 of the Constitution of India. the Supreme Court
has elaborately discussed the requirement of consultation.
(viii) 'Concluding remarks
In New India Industrial Carp!?. v. Union of India 4 2 , Wad, J. states:
"Consultation of interest infuses law-making process with democratic
forms, particularly in what is called Bureaucratic legislation. Apart from
this, it is an administrative necessity. Effective and meaningful admin-
istration is impossible without imaginative administrative process. If the
citizens are to receive the advantage of any beneficent measures of the
administration, the administrative process should be such that the benefit
reaches the citi',cn in lull measure and with expedition.' M.P. Jam43
rightly observes: " A consultative technique is useful in balancing indi-
vidual interests and administrative exigency.... The consultative process
can he a salutary sa/'gewrd against improper use oj over aJ delegated
legislation as it infuses democratic norms in bureaucratic legislation."
(emphasis supplied)
38. A IR 1953 SC 79: 1953 SCR 290.
39. (1991) 3 SCC 299: A IR 1991 SC 1473.
40 A IR 1961 SC 849 (1962) 1 SCR 33.
41. (1977) 4 SC 193 A IR 1977 SC 2328: see also State of U.P. v. %lanbodhan,
A IR 1957 SC 912. 1958 SCR 533: La,uni Khandsari v. State of UP., (1981)
2 SCC 600: A IR 19$1 SC 873 (para 86).
42. ,AJJ 1980
Del 277 (282).
43. Treatise an A thainistrauve Iiw, 1996, pp. 163.64.
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 133
3. LEGISLATIVE CONTROL

(a) General
It is of course open to Parliament to confer legislative power upon
anyone it likes, including the captain of an English cricket team, or to
the author of administrative law. 44 But if Parliament delegates legislative
powers to an y other authority, e.g. to the executive, it must also see those
powers are properly exercised by the administration.
With regard to the control of the legislature over delegated legisla-
tion, M.P. Jain 45 states: ''In a parliamentary democracy it is the function
of the Legislature to legislate. If it seeks to delegate its legislative power
to the Executive because of some reasons, it is not only the right of the
Legislature, but also its obligation, as principal, to see how its agent i.e.
the Executive carries out the agency entrusted to it. Since it is the legis-
lature which grants legislative power to the Administration, it is primarily
its responsibility to ensure the proper exercise of delegated legislative
power, to supervise and control the actual exercise of this power, and
ensure against the danger of its objectionab l e, abusive and unwarranted
use by the administration."
(b) Object
Thus, the underlying object of parliamentary control is to keep watch
over the rule-making authorities and also to provide an opportunity to
criticise them if there is abuse of power on their part .46
Modes
Legislative control can be effectively exercised by:
(i) Laying on Table; and
(ii) Scrutiny Committees.
Laying on Table
(A ) Object
In almost all the Commonwealth countries, the procedure of 'Laying
on the Table' of the legislature is followed. It serves two purposes-, firstiv,
it informs the legislature as to what rules have been made by the execu-
tive authorities in exercise of delegated legislative power; and secondly,
44. Id. p. 100.
45. Treatise on Administrative Law, 1996, Vol. 1, p. 136. See also Wade:
Administrative Law, 1994, pp. 898-99: Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Stare of
Harvana, (1979) 2 SCC 196 (203): AIR 1979 SC 1149.
46. Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 197 (para 26): AIR 1985
SC 421.
 134 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT
it provides an opportunity to the legislators to question or challenge the
rules already made or proposed to be made. Through this 'safcty-valve'
the legislature exercises supervision, check and control over executivc
rule-making power. 'Laying technique' brings legislature into close and
constant contact with the administration .4 1
(B) Types
There are several types of laying'. The extent of legislative control
necessarily differs in these cases. The Select Committee on Delegated
Legislation summarised the procedure under seven heads .48
(1) Laying without further provision for control.— Here the parent
Act merely provides that the rules shall be laid before Parliament. They
become operative from the date they are laid before the Houses and in
exceptional cases, even before they arc so laid. This procedure is only
to inform Parliament as to what rules were made by the executive auth-
orities.
(2) Loving with thferred operation.— The requirement of laying is
linked with postponement of operation of the rules and thus Parliament
gets more control.
(3) Loving with i,n,nt'/ia(e effect but subject to unnu/menr.— Here
the rules come into force when laid before Parliament. but cease to be
in operation if disapproved by it within a specified period. As May49
ommenIs, 'this is the most common form of Parliamentar y control' and
is known as the 'negative res n iution' procedure.
(4) Loving in draft but subject to resolution that no further proceed-
inçs be taken.— This is also a'negative resolution' procedure. Here draft
of statutory rules are required to be laid before Parliament but the parent
Act provides that the rules should not he made effective until a particular
period has expired.
(5) Lay ing in draft and requiring affirmative resolution.— This
belongs to the realm of 'positive resolution' and provides a stringent
parliamentary supervision over delegated legislation unlike the 'nega-
tive resolution' procedure. The draft rules do not become effective
until an affirmative resolution approving the same has been passed by
Parliament. An opportunity is provided to the members to discuss and
47. N.K. Papiah v. Ecise C'ominr., (1975) I SCC 492: AIR 1975 SC 1007; State of
M.P. v. Mahalax,ni Fabric Mills, 1995 Supp (I) SCC 692: AIR 1995 SC 2213.
48. Delegated Legislation in India, ILl, 1964. pp. 166-69.
49. Parliamentary Practice. 15th Edn.. p. 287.
P1 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 135
act to the rules before they can finally be given effect to by the cx-
CLltivC.
(6) Lay ing with operation deferred until approval given b y affirm-
live resolution,—Here the rules are actually made but they do not come
ito operation until approved by Parliament. There is virtually no dif-
rcnce between this procedure and a 'positive resolution' procedure,
iscusscd under head (5).
(7) Lay ing ssith immediate effect but requiring affirmative resolu-
on as a condition for continuance— This form of laying is used where
rompt operation of delegated legislation is essential but strict parliamcn-
ry supervision is also necessary. The confirmatory resolution keeps the
elegated legislation alive, which would otherwise die, It is often applied
i cases of taxation or to rules made during Emergency.
In India, there is no statutor y provision requiring 'laying' of all dde-
ated legislation. 5° According to the Committee on Delegated Legislation,
e statutes contain four methods of laying:
(i) Requirement of mere publication of rules in the Official Gazette:
(ii) Requirement of such publication and laying on the Table;
(iii) Over and above the aforesaid two conditions, some statutes
allowed modification b y Parliament: and
(iv) Requirement of laying of rules for a specified period before they
are published in the Official Gazette
C) Suggestions
As there was no uniform practice in the laying procedure, the Scrut-
iy Committee made the following suggestions:
(i) All Acts of Parliament should uniformly require that the rules
shall be laid on the Table of the House 'as soon as possible';

Generally, a provision of laying is found in a number of siiitutcs, in the following

words:
"Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may he. after
it is made, before each House of Parliament ss bile it is in session, for a iot,il
period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session o: in to successive
sessions and if before the expiry of the session both Flouses agree in making
any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not he
made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or to he
of no effect, as the case may be: so however that anN such modifiition or
annulment shall be without prejudice to the validit y of anthing previously done
under that rule."
 136 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [LECT.

(ii) This perbd hould he uniform and should be a total period of

thirty dav ñn the date of their final publication; and
(iii) The rules wii be subject to such modification as the Houses may
like to make.
• (D) Effect of laying
When the Act merely requires laying of rules before Parliament, they
come into force as soon as they are made. If the parent Act provides
'affirmative procedure', they will be effective from the date they are
approved by the House. The 'laying procedure', however, does not confer
on rules, Status equal to the Act in absence of specific provision in the
parent statute-"
(E) Failure to lay
In England, the position is not clear. In Bailey v. Williamson52, the
condition of laying was held to be directory. However, the position has
changed after passing of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and in R.
v. Sheer Metal Craft 53 , the court held that delegated legislation became
valid only after it was laid before Parliament.
In India also, the position is not categorical. In Express Newspaper
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India 54, the Supreme Court observed by way of
obiter dicta that the provision regarding laying was mandatory. But in
Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re", the Supreme Court most emphatically
and lucidly observed:
"After the rules are laid before the Legislative Assembly, they
may be altered or amended and it is then that the rules as amended
become effective." (emphasis supplied)
But in Jan Mohd. v. State of Gujarat, the court held that the rules
made under the parent Act were valid, and observed that though the rules
were not laid before the legislature, they became valid from the date on
which they were made as the Act did not provide that they could in case
be invalidated by failure to place them before the legislature.
In N.K. Papiah v. Excise Commissioner, the court held that the
rules under the parent Act came into force as soon as they were framed.
Negativing the contention that the power of the legislature to annul or
51. Bharat Hari v. CW T. 1994 Supp (3) SCC 46: AIR 1994 SC 1355.
52. (1873) QB 118.
53. (1954) 1 All ER 542: (1954) 1 QB 586.
54. AIR 1958 SC 578: 1959 SCR 12.
5. AIR 1958 SC 956 (975): 1959 SCR 995.
56. AIR 1966 SC 385 (1012): (1966) 1 SCR 505.
57. (1975) 1 SCC 492 (498): AIR 1975 SC 1007 (1012).
VI DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 137
repeal rules subsequently could not be regarded as a sufficient control
over the delegated legislation, Mathew, J. observed:
"The dilution of parliamentary watch-dogging of delegated legis-
lation may be deplored hut, in the compulsions and complexities of
modern life, cannot be helped."
(F) Conclusions
What are the consequences of failure to lay? It is submitted that the
correct answer to this question depends on the terms relating to a par-
ticular laying clause. If the provision relating to laying is a condition
precedent, the requirement of laying must be held to he mandatory and
the rules do not conic into force until they are laid. In case of 'negative
clause', however, the rules come into operation immediately and the pro-
vision of laying is generally construed as directory.
(II) Scruthzy Committees
(A ) Object
As discussed above, laying on the table has not always been held to
be mandatory. Even if that requirement is complied with, mere laying
of rules before Parliament would not he of much use, unless the rules
were properly studied and scrutinized. And, therefore, with a view to
strengthening Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, Scrutiny
Committees are established. In England, the Select Committee on Statu-
tory Instruments was established by the House of Commons in 1944. In
India also, there are two Scrutiny Committees: (1) the Lok Sabha Com-
mittee on Subordinate Legislation; and (2) the Rajya Sabha Committee
on Subordinate Legislation.
(B) Functions
The function of these Committees is 'to scrutinise and report to the
respective Houses whether the powers to make regulations, rules, sub-
rules, bye-laws, etc., conferred by the Constitution or delegated by Par-
liament are being properly exercised within such delegation'. "They act
as watch-dogs which bark and arouse their master from slumber when
they find that an invasion on the premises has taken place."58
(C) Suggestions
The Indian Committee on Subordinate Legislation has made inter
alia the following recommendations and suggestions:
(a) Power of judicial review should not be taken away or curtailed
by rules.
58. Delegated Legislation in India, ILl. 1964, p. 201.
138 LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ELECT.

(b) A financial levy or tax should not be imposed by rules.

(c) Language of rules should be simple and clear and not compli-
cated or ambiguous.
(d) Rules should not be given retrospective operation, unless such a
power has been expressly conferred by the parent Act, as they
may prejudicially affect the vested rights of a person.
(e) Legislative policy must he formulated by the legislature and laid
down in the statute and the power to supply details may be left
to the executive, and can be worked out through the rules made
by the administration.
(f) Sub-delegation in very wide language is improper and some safe-
guards must be provided before a delegate is allowed to sub-
delegate his authority to another functionary.
(g) Discriminatory rules should not be framed by administration.
(h) Rules should not travel beyond the rule-making power conferred
by the parent Act.
(i) There should not be inordinate delay in making of rules by the
administration.
(J) The defects in rules pointed out to the administration should be
cured as soon as possible.
(k) The rules framed by the administration and required to be laid
before the House by the parent Act should be laid before Par-
liament as soon as possible, and whenever there is inordinate
delay, an explanatory note giving the reasons for such delay
should he appended to the rules so laid.
(1) The final authority of interpretation of rules should not be with
the administration.
(tn) Rules should contain short titles, explanatory notes, reference to
earlier amendments for convenience of location, ready reference
and proper understanding.
(n) Sufficient publicity must be given to the statutory rules and or-
ders.
The working of the Committee is on the whole satisfactory and it
has proved to he a fairly effective body in properly examining and ef-
fectively improving upon delegated legislation in India. Sir Cecil Carr"
aptly remarks: ''It is evidently a vigorous and independent body."
59. P,zr/,ü:nenhirv C(uIlroI of j)eJeitei Legislation. Public Law, 1956. P. 200 (215).
 DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 139

(ci) Conclusions
Parliamentary control is, however, not effective. Wade 6° says: "One
Df the features of the twentieth century has been a shift of the constitu-
tional centre of gravity, away from Parliament and towards the executive.
Mr Lloyd George once said: 'Parliament has really no control over the
Executive; it is a pure fiction'." The accusation against the House of
Commons at the present time is that it allows government departments
to do things, without knowing what is being done.6'
Prof. Ramsay Muir states: "There is no country in North-Western
Europe in which the control exercised by Parliament over the Govern-
ment over legislation, taxation and administration - is more shadowy
and unreal than it is in Britain. Parliament is no longer, in any real
sense, the sovereign power." 62 (emphasis supplied)
4. OTHER CONTROLS
Over and above judicial and parliamentary controls, sometimes other
controls and safeguards are also provided. One of such safeguards against
the abuse of delegated power is to properly and precisely limit the power
of the delegate. If the extent of power is not properly defined in the parent
Act, the executive authority may usurp some powers of the legislature and
may be tempted into unjustified interference with the rights of the individ-
uals. The courts also should interpret the provisions of rules and regulations
ii such a manner as not to give blanket powers to the executive authority.
It is also argued that the delegation of power should be conferred
only on trustworthy authorities, e.g. Central Government, State Govern-
ments, etc., as these authorities will exercise the power conferred on
them in a reasonable manner. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India63,
the Supreme Court has observed:
"It is true that when the order impounding a passport is made by
the Central Government, there is no appeal against it, but it must be
remembered that in such a case the power is exercised by the Central
Government itself and it 4tim safely be assumed that the Central Gov-
ernment will exercise the power in a reasonable and responsible manner.
W hen power is vested in a high authority like the Central GovernnwnZ
abuse of power cannot be lightly assumed." (emphasis supplied)
60. A dministrajive Law, 1994, p. 897.
61. Lord Hemingford cited by Jois: Delegated Legislation, 1982, p. 150.
62. Cited by Jois (ibid.), p. 146.
63. (1978) 1 SCC 248: A IR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 2 SCR 621.
64. Id. at p. 294 (SCC) 632 (A IR) (Per Bhagwaxi, J.), see aiw C.K Thakkcr
A dministrative Law, 1996, pp. 156-57.
 140 LECTURES ON ADM1NISTRATWE LAW [LEd.

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India65, dealing with the power of the

President to proclaim Emergency, Jeevan Reddy, J. stated:
"It is necessary to reiterate that the court must be conscious while
examining the validity of the Proclamation that it is a power vested in
the highest constitutional functionary of the Nation. The court will no
lightly preswne abuse or misuse." (emphasis supplied)
In collective exercise of power also, there is no likelihood of abuse
of power. In K. A shok Reddy v. Govt. of India, an action of transfer
of a Judge of a High Court was challenged. The decision was based on
collective exercise of power by high constitutional functionaries on ob-
jective criterion. Treating it as inbuilt safeguard on arbitrariness and
bias, the Supreme Court observed: "W e have no doubt that the Chief
Justice of India acting on the institutional advice available to him is
the surest and the safest bet for preservation of the independence of
judiciary." (emphasis supplied)
Certain Central Acts provide some additional safeguards also. They
empower the State Governments to frame rules, but prior approval of
the Central Government is necessary, e.g. Section 1.7 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958. Some statutes empower the Government to frame
rules subject to previous publication in the Official Gazette, e.g. Section
29 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Sometimes, powers are conferred
on the Government to frame rules or regulations only after consultation
with the affected interests, e.g. Section 59 of the Mines Act, 1952.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Plenary powers of law-making are entrusted to elected representatives.
But in reality, the political Government, instructed by the bureaucracy, gets
bills passed through either by the aid of whip or by other methods. Thus,
law making has remained, more or less, exclusive, prerogative of a small
cross-section of elites. It affects not only the quality of the law made but
reinforces centralised system of power. There must, therefore, be social
auditing by public at large. Constitutional legitimation of unlimited power
of delegation to the executive by the Legislature may, on critical occasions,
be subversive of responsible Government and erosive of democratic order.67
The system of law-making, therefore, needs careful and radical re-
structuring, if participative, pluralist Government by the People is not to
be jettisoned. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated: "That peril prompts us to hint
65. (1994) 3 SCC 1 (268).
66. (1994) 2 SCC 303 (314): AIR 1994 SC 1207 (1214) (Per Vetma. I.).
67. A voider Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 1 SCC 137 (160); AIR 1979 SC 321
(336); see also observations of Prof. Upendra Baxi cited in that case.
V] DELEGATED LEGISLATION (CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS) 141
at certain portents to our parliamentary system, not because they are
likely now but because society may have to pay the price some day.68
It is submitted that the following observations of Shah, J. (as he then
was) in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Birla Cotton MilIs 9 are worth
remembering:
"(T)he guidance which saves delegation from the vice of excess-
iveness may be express or may be implied: and the extent of the
guidance must be determined by the subject-matter of legislation and
the power entrusted. But in our judgment, the delegation cannot be
upheld, merely because of the special status, character, competence
or capacity of the delegate or by reference to the provisions made in
the statute to prevent abuse by the delegate of its authority. The ques-
tion is one of the restriction upon the power of the legislative body
to delegate the power of legislation and that restriction is not removed
because the delegate is a high dignitary of the State or is especially
versed in a particular branch of administration or has special infor-
mation or is in a position to collect that information, or is not likely
to abuse its authority. The Constitution entrusts the legislative func-
tions to the legislative branch of the State, and directs that the func-
tions shall be performed by that body to which the Constitution has
entrusted and not by some one else to whom the Legislature at a
given time thinks it proper to delegate the function entrusted to it. A
body of experts in a particular branch of undoubted integrity or special
competence may probably be in a better position to exercise the power
of legislation in that branch, but the Constitution has chosen to invest
the elected representatives of the people to exercise the power of legis-
lation, and not to such bodies of experts. Any attempt on the part of
the experts to usurp, or of the representatives of the people to abdicate
the functions vested in the legislative branch is inconsistent with the
constitutional scheme. Power to make subordinate or ancillary legis-
lation may undoubtedly be conferred upon a delegate, but the Legis-
lature must in conferring that power disclose the policy, principles or
standards which are to govern the delegate in the exercise of that
power so as to set out a guidance. A ny delegation which transgresses
this limit infringes the constitutional scheme."° (emphasis supplied)

68. Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ibid.

69. AIR 1968 Sc 1232: (1968) 3 SCR 251.
70. Id. at p. 1262 (AIR). See also observations of US Supreme Court in Industrial
Deptr. v. American Petroleum Institution, (1980), 448 US 607; "We ought not
to shy away from our judicial duty to invalidate unconstitutional delegations of
legislative authority."