In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912

Facts

Parliament, lacking time to legislate for Part C States (centrally administered territories without legislatures), enacted the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950. Section 2 authorised the Centre to extend to any Part C State, with modifications it thought fit, any enactment in force in a Part A State, and while doing so to repeal or amend any corresponding provincial law then operating there. The President referred to the Supreme Court the question of the validity of this and similar extension provisions.

Issues

• Whether an Indian legislature can validly delegate its legislative power to the executive, and if so within what limits.
• Whether power to extend laws to a territory with modifications, including power to repeal or amend laws already in force there, is a permissible delegation.

Arguments

Setalvad argued that legislative power carries an inherent power to delegate and there is no restriction short of complete abdication or effacement. Chatterjee, relying on separation of powers and delegatus non potest delegare, argued there is an implied prohibition against delegation of legislative power.

Held

Seven judges delivered seven separate opinions but agreed that delegation is a practical necessity yet, because the Indian legislature is the creature of a written Constitution, some limit must be placed on it (unlike the British Parliament). The legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative functions, namely declaring legislative policy and laying down the standard to be enacted into a binding rule of conduct; only ancillary or subsidiary functions may be delegated. By 5:2 the Court upheld the power to extend laws with modification, the word modification being confined to local adjustments not involving a radical change of policy. By 4:3 it struck down the power to repeal or amend existing laws in the area, holding that to repeal or abrogate a law is an essential legislative function whose policy must be the legislature's own.

Ratio decidendi

An unlimited right of delegation is not inherent in legislative power; the legislature may delegate ancillary functions only after laying down policy and standards, but it cannot abdicate or efface itself, and delegation of essential legislative functions such as the power to repeal or amend law amounts to excessive delegation and is void.

Significance

Described as the bible of delegated legislation, it judicially created the doctrine of excessive delegation in India, legitimising delegation while fixing an outer constitutional limit. Followed and applied in Ramesh Birch v Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 560), Vasu Dev Singh v Union of India (2006) 12 SCC 753 and J.K. Industries Ltd. v Union of India (2007) 13 SCC 673.

Related