Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

Delegated legislation, a vital component of India’s legal landscape, provides the government with the authority to enact laws within defined parameters. This article explores the constitutionality of this practice in India, shedding light on the principles and guidelines established by the Supreme Court.

The Indian Constitution permits delegation but imposes specific restrictions to ensure alignment with the parent act and protect legislative intent. This exploration delves into the pivotal role of the legislature in setting limits, the evaluation of reasonableness and procedural safeguards and the significance of the context in which rule-making powers are exercised. Understanding the constitutionality of delegated legislation is pivotal to India’s legal framework.

Meaning of Delegated Legislation

‘Delegated legislation’ refers to laws created by a person or group to whom Parliament has given the power to make laws. This is unlike ‘primary’ laws, which are made by Parliament and approved by both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament and then signed by the Governor-General.

Delegated legislation, like rules, is often created by the Governor-General based on advice from the Federal Executive Council. Delegated legislation aims to provide more details to a set of laws by addressing matters that Parliament doesn’t need to decide through primary laws.

Why Delegated Legislation Is Necessary?

The process of delegated legislation allows the government to create laws without having to wait for another Act of Parliament to be approved. It also grants the authority to change or adjust penalties under a specific law or make technical legal modifications.

Since more delegated laws are passed each year than Acts of Parliament, delegated legislation plays a significant role in the legislative process. Additionally, delegated legislation holds the same legal weight as the original Act of Parliament.

Delegated Authority in Administrative Law

In many countries worldwide, the concept of delegated law is recognised. It is up to the courts to determine if a nation’s constitution is silent regarding the exact scope of delegated legislation. Notably, the constitutions of countries like the United States, India, Australia, Canada and South Africa do not address this issue.

In the context of India, various courts, from the Privy Council to the current Supreme Court, have had to assess the constitutionality of administrative regulations. In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court of India has established legal standards that now serve as a benchmark for assessing the constitutionality of any delegation.

The court stated in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation, Jullundhar that any delegated law must be in harmony with the parent act and should not contradict relevant legislative policies. It was made clear that a delegate should not have greater legislative authority than any other delegate.

The legislature is not allowed to delegate its fundamental legislative responsibilities, including creating a strategy for overseeing a specific law. Delegating non-essential tasks, even if they are essential, is not permissible according to a different interpretation of the same principle. The courts have accepted alternative approaches to the challenged Act, which will be required to assess the grounds for constitutionality after thorough study, discussion and consideration.

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the reason for delegated legislation lies in its inability to provide a reliable basis for evaluating the competence of the authority. Instead, the court takes into account the relevance and significance of past and present circumstances related to the use of rule-making power.

The Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

The legality and constitutionality of delegated legislation in India can be understood through two distinct periods: the pre-independence era and the post-independence era.

The Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation During Pre-independence

Before India gained independence, a case known as Queen v. Burah (1878) set a precedent where the Privy Council allowed conditional legislation. In this instance, legislative authority was delegated to the executive.

The administration of civil and criminal justice in a territory could be assigned to officials regularly chosen by the Lieutenant Governor. The Privy Council employed legislative conditions in the case of King v. Benoari Lal Sharma, similar to Queen v. Burah. This case involved a challenge to the legality of the Governor-General of India’s Emergency Ordinance, which aimed to replace the provincial government and establish unique criminal courts.

The provincial government was the sole authority with jurisdiction to establish such courts and the judicial committee of the Privy Council ruled that this did not constitute delegated legislation. They explained that it was an unconventional legislative authority, wherein a regional administrative body determined the local implementation of state laws when necessary.

The Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation During Post-independence

The Indian Constitution does not grant legislative powers in the same way as the British Parliament. The extent to which delegation is permissible in India is determined by the specific provisions of the Indian Constitution. In legislative matters, there is no concept of an unlimited right to delegate. In the case of Raj Narain Singh vs. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee (1954), the Supreme Court of India upheld the transfer of power from the legislative body to the executive body.

This case empowered the local government to expand the provisions of the Bengal Municipality Act. However, in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India (1959), the Supreme Court declared the transfer of powers unconstitutional due to its lack of clarity. It held that the Center’s authority to designate diseases and conditions under the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954 was “uncontrolled” and exceeded the permissible boundaries of legal delegation, rendering it unconstitutional.

In a 1973 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasised that its understanding of delegated legislation had evolved in response to the practical needs of a modern welfare state.

Delegated Legislation: Status under the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution grants the legislature the authority to delegate its responsibilities to other bodies and to establish policies for implementing the laws it enacts. In the case of D. S. Gerewal v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 312 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of delegated legislation. Justice K.N. Wanchoo pointed out that there is nothing in the language of Article 312 that diminishes the ordinary power of delegation, which typically resides with the legislature. The phrase “Parliament may by law provide” in Article 312 should not be interpreted to mean that there is no room for delegation in a law enacted under Article 312.

While the legal system in England allows Parliament to delegate an unlimited number of functions, in both America and India, Congress and Parliament, respectively, can only delegate certain powers. This means that they do not possess unrestricted or uncontrolled authority.

Therefore, delegated legislation is constitutionally valid in India, but it is subject to specific and well-defined constraints to ensure that it is carried out in an explicit and regulated manner. In simple words, the Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation is there in India but there are restrictions to ensure alignment with the parent act.

Grounds to Determine Constitutionality of Administrative Delegated Legislation

The Supreme Court of India has established jurisprudential norms through various decisions that serve as a framework for determining the constitutionality of administrative rule-making. The following inferences can be drawn from these cases:

Consistency with Parent Act: In the Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation, Jullundhar case, the court ruled that any delegated legislation must align with the parent act and should not contradict its legislative policies. It was implied that a delegate should not have more legislative authority than that of the delegator.

Limits Determined by the Legislature: The permissible boundaries of administrative rule-making are to be set by the legislature. This limit applies to all forms of delegated legislation.

Essential Legislative Functions: The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative functions, including setting the policy to govern an act. Delegation of non-essential functions, no matter how significant, is also not allowed.

Divergent Statements as Suitable Policy: After thorough debates and discussions, the courts have decided that any differing statement should be considered as a suitable policy for the relevant Act, which is essential for determining its constitutionality.

Unreasonableness and Procedural Safeguards: Unreasonableness is a necessary element for evaluating the validity of delegated legislation. Compliance with any procedural safeguards established in the main act is also essential.

Motive Irrelevant: The Supreme Court clarified that the motive behind delegated legislation is not a valid ground for assessing the competence of the authority. Instead, the context and background in which the rule-making power is used are taken into account.

Public Interest and Doctrine of Proportionality: The violation of public interest is evaluated through the adoption of the doctrine of proportionality to determine the constitutionality of rule-making power.

Court’s Decision Binding: In the Bihar State Govt. Secondary School Teachers Assn. v. Ashok Kumar Sinha case, the court held that any administrative authority cannot overturn the court’s decision by changing its rules, as this would amount to contempt of court. This underlines the court’s commitment to preventing excessive delegated legislation.

Wide Scope for Grounds: While the scope of delegated legislation allows for several other criteria to assess its constitutionality, the mentioned grounds are robust enough to comprehend the necessity of defining permissible limits for delegated legislative functions. Article 245 of the Indian Constitution acknowledges the potential of delegation as a constituent element of legislative power. Its aim is not to restrict the function of delegated legislation but to serve as a filter to prevent unnecessary conflicts in administrative processes.

In the case of the Kerala Education Bill, the court upheld delegation to the government as long as it was not “unguided” and “unconstitutional” by relying on two protective grounds.

Establishing Preferred Rules Before the Legislature: It is essential to outline the preferred rules before the legislature. The legislature must pass a resolution before the government can take any action. This resolution serves as an indicator that the legislature has not relinquished its role in decision-making and governance.

Conclusion

The constitutionality of delegated legislation in India is rooted in specific principles and guidelines. The Indian Constitution allows for delegation, but it must adhere to certain constraints. Delegated legislation must align with the parent act, ensuring it does not contravene legislative policies. The extent of delegation is determined by the legislature, while essential legislative functions cannot be delegated.

Unreasonableness and adherence to procedural safeguards are necessary. Motive is irrelevant and the focus is on context and background. The violation of public interest is assessed through the doctrine of proportionality. Courts must not permit excessive delegated legislation. In essence, the Indian Constitution permits delegated legislation, but it is subject to controlled and specific limitations to avoid conflicts in administrative processes.