CASE NALYSIS

RE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1951

 FACTS –

The Central Government was able to extend laws from other provinces to Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, and
various Part C states, respectively, with the necessary modifications, through the Delhi Laws Act of
1912, followed by additional laws, including the Ajmer-Merwara Act of 1947 and the Part C States
(Laws) Act of 1950. For instance, the Governor-General used this power to impose laws on Delhi, such
as the U.P. Municipalities Act of 1916 and the U.P. General Clauses Act of 1904. The President of
India sought the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution after this delegation
expressed doubts about its constitutionality. Thus, the President of India, by an order dated 07/01/1951,
referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1)1 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
 Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912

“The Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with
such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi or any part
thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the dat e of such

 Section 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 , “Extension of

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to the
Province of Ajmer-Merwara with such restrictions and mo difications as it thinks fit any
enactment which is in force in any other Province at the date of such notification.”

 Section 2 of the Part ‘C’ States (Laws) Act, 1950 , “Power to extend enactments to
certain Part ‘C’ States. –

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any Part
‘C’ State (other than Coorg and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) or to any part of such
State, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which is in
force in a Part A State at the date of the notification and provision may be made in any

1
If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and
of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that
Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon .
1
enactment so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding law (other than
a Central Act) which is for the time applying to that Part ‘C’ State.”

 ISSUES –

1. Whether the delegation of legislative authority to the executive under the Delhi Laws Act, 1912,
was within constitutional limits?
2. To what extent could the legislature delegate its legislative function to the executive without
violating the doctrine of separation of powers?
3. Whether the powers delegated to the government under the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, Ajmer-Merwara
Act, and Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, were consistent with the Indian Constitution?

 ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLE APPLIED –

1. Delegated Legislation
In this case, the Delhi Laws Act allowed the executive to apply laws from other provinces to Delhi
with changes. The Supreme Court said this was acceptable only if Parliament laid down broad policies.
This confirmed that delegation is valid, but not unlimited.
2. Subordinate Legislation
The executive, when applying or modifying laws for Delhi, was engaging in subordinate legislation.
The Court stressed that subordinate legislation must stay within the framework set by the main law
(here, the Delhi Laws Act).
3. Conditional Legislation
The Court recognized conditional legislation as valid, where the executive only decides the “when”
and “where” of a law's application, not the “what”. Applying existing laws to new regions was seen as
conditional legislation
4. Delegatus Non Potest Delegare
The Court explained this principle does not absolutely ban delegation, but it limits it. Parliament (the
original law-maker) can delegate only specific, non-essential functions, and the delegate (executive)
can’t further delegate unless the law allows.
5. Separation of Powers
The judgment balanced this principle by saying: core law-making belongs to the legislature, but some
help from the executive is fine for administrative efficiency, as long as legislative control is retained.

2
  JUDGEMENT –

While adjudicating the issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Justice expressed different views. The
seven-judge bench held on 3 issues:

 Issue 1 -

1) Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act empowers the Central Government to extend any statute in force
in any other part of British India to the Province of Delhi with such “modifications and restrictions” as
it thinks fit. The word “restriction” connotes a limitation imposed upon a particular provision to
restrain its application. It does not by any means involve any change in the principle. It is in this
context, that it has been used along with the word “restriction” in the section mentioned in the Act. The
word “modification” has also been employed in a related sense, and it does not involve any material or
substantial alteration. The dictionary meaning of the expression “to modify” is to “tone down” or “to
soften the rigidity of the thing” or “to make partial changes without any radical alteration”. It would be
quite reasonable to hold that the word “modification” in Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act means and
signifies changes of such character as are necessary to make the statute which is sought to be
extended suitable to the local conditions of the province.
2) Court further stated that the word “modification” occurring in Section 7 of the Delhi Laws
Act does not mean or involve any change of policy but is confined to alteration of such a character
which keeps the policy of the Act intact and introduces such changes as are appropriate to local
conditions of which the executive Government is made the judge. The conclusion drawn was that there
was no unwarrantable delegation of legislative powers in Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act.

 Issue 2 -
1) The policy of this legislation(Ajmer-Merwara Act, 1947,) was almost the same as that which
underlines Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act and the intention of the Dominion Legislature(Imperial
Parliament of Britain) was that until a local legislative body was set up in this territory, the Central
Government should be given the right to select such enactments as were already in force in any other
province and introduce them to this territory with such modifications and restrictions as it thought
proper.
2) In the Court’s opinion, the grounds which could be urged in support of the validity of Section 7
of the Delhi Laws Act can, with equal force, be put forward in support of this legislative provision also.
3) Therefore, the Court, with respect to this issue, held that, Section 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara Act is
not ultra vires.

3
 Issue 3 –
1) Section 2 of the Part-C States (Laws) Act, 1950, authorises the Central Government to extend, to
any Part-C State, any enactment which is in force in a Part-A State, with such restrictions and
modifications as it thinks fit. The section further laid down that provision could be made in any
enactment which was so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding law (other than a
Central Act).
2) The Court states that the powers conferred by this section upon the Central Government were far
over those conferred by the other two legislative provisions under Issues 1 & 2.
3) Law states by the Court:
If any law exists and power is given to repeal or abrogate such laws either in whole or in part and
substitute in place of the same other laws which are in force in other areas, it would certainly amount
to an unwarrantable delegation of legislative powers. To repeal or abrogate an existing law is the
exercise of an essential legislative power, and the policy behind such acts must be the policy of the
legislature itself.
4) The Court observed that the executive Government was given the authority to alter, repeal, or
amend any laws in existence at that area under the guise of bringing in laws there which were valid in
other parts of India. This, in the Court’s opinion, was an unwarrantable delegation of legislative
duties and could not be permitted. The last portion of Section 2 of Part-C States (Laws) Act was,
therefore, held to be ultra vires the powers of the Parliament as being a delegation of essential
legislative powers.

 OBITUR DICTA –

1. Justice Fazl Ali (Dissenting but influential)

He observed that the legislature cannot abdicate its essential legislative function and must lay down
the policy and guidelines. He expressed concern that excessive delegation might violate the separation
of powers doctrine.

2. Justice Mahajan (Majority)

While agreeing that delegation of ancillary powers is permissible, he opined that delegating legislative
functions without laying down any policy or standards would amount to excessive delegation, which
is unconstitutional.

3. Justice Mukherjee

4
He noted that conditional legislation is different from delegated legislation—a distinction that
continues to be relevant in Indian administrative law. He emphasized that Parliament cannot create a
parallel law-making authority with unrestrained powers.

4. Justice Das

J. Das suggested that although some delegation is necessary in modern governance, it must be
controlled and guided. Unlimited delegation, especially without checks, could be a backdoor for
unconstitutional legislation.

 RATIO DECENDI –
The legislature may delegate certain administrative or rule-making powers to the executive, as long as
the delegation does not result in the renunciation of essential legislative functions conforming to the
doctrine of separation of powers.

 CONCLUSION –

An important constitutional turning point in establishing the limits of delegated legislation in India was
the Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 case. The Supreme Court made it clear in its advisory opinion that
although the executive may be given ancillary or procedural powers, the legislature must still be
responsible for the fundamental legislative function of establishing policy and principles. This case
established the foundational doctrine that legislative powers cannot be delegated in their entirety,
thereby safeguarding the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The plurality
of opinions also enriched Indian constitutional jurisprudence by emphasizing the need for a balance
between practical governance and democratic accountability. The decision continues to guide both
legislative drafting and judicial review in matters concerning administrative law and legislative
competence.

BY ANANYA SOOD

06817703523

4L
5