Excessive Delegation Under Administrative Law

The concept of excessive delegation is crucial in administrative law, preventing the arbitrary handover of legislative authority. It sets limits on how much power administrative bodies can have, ensuring they stay within legal boundaries.

By closely examining laws and sticking to established rules, excessive delegation issues can be spotted and resolved. This principle upholds democracy, accountability and the rule of law in administrative processes.

Doctrine of Excessive Legislation under Administrative Law

The doctrine of excessive delegation under Administrative Law holds that if a legislative body excessively delegates its authority to another entity, such delegation can be deemed unconstitutional.

The legislature is required to establish the policy of the law, set forth legal principles and provide standards for the guidance of the delegated authority in promulgating regulations. Failure to do so may render the law invalid due to excessive delegation. This issue arises particularly when essential legislative functions are delegated beyond reasonable bounds.

Nature and Scope of Excessive Delegation

The nature and scope of excessive delegation are grounded in the understanding that Parliament, as a legislative body, does not inherently possess absolute legislative power; rather, it has been granted such power by the constitution.

Parliament is obligated to exercise this power itself, as mandated by the Constitution and cannot simply delegate it to the executive branch. The delegation of essential legislative functions to the executive is constitutionally impermissible. Essential legislative functions include the determination of legislative policy and the formulation of rules of conduct.

Once these primary functions are fulfilled by the legislature, it may delegate ancillary and incidental functions to the executive.

In jurisdictions like Great Britain, concerns over excessive delegation of parliamentary powers are primarily political in nature, while in the United States (and in India), they are predominantly addressed through judicial review.

Regarding the operation of the doctrine of excessive delegation:

Powers and Duties of Courts: The principle of legislative power being vested in representatives of the people underscores the rule against excessive delegation, as it ensures that legislation is enacted not just in the name of the people but also by their elected representatives. However, given the complex tasks of a modern welfare state, legislatures often lack the time and expertise to delve into detailed matters. Delegation of law-making authority thus becomes essential for the functioning of modern government.

Court’s View on Excessive Delegation: Challenges to the validity of enactments based on delegated legislation present complex legal issues. Judicial opinions vary on how to address such challenges. If the legislature establishes the principles and guidelines underlying a statute and provides adequate direction for their implementation, it is generally permissible for the legislature to delegate the actual implementation to its chosen delegate.

Principles Governing Excessive Delegation

The determination of whether excessive delegation has occurred is guided by three overarching principles:

• Essential Legislative Functions: The legislature cannot delegate its core functions, which include enacting laws and establishing legislative policies.
• Practical Considerations: Given the complexities of modern conditions, it is impractical for the legislature to foresee and address every conceivable scenario in detail. Therefore, the legislature may delegate certain functions provided it sets clear legislative guidelines.
• Lawful Delegation: Delegation to the executive is permissible if done in a lawful manner and such delegation cannot be deemed excessive solely because the legislature could have provided more detailed provisions.

Tests Applied by Courts

When assessing the validity of a statute challenged on the grounds of excessive delegation, courts apply two tests:

Delegation of Essential Legislative Functions: The court examines whether the delegation involves the surrender of essential legislative functions.

Clarity of Legislative Policy and Principles: The court determines whether the legislature has clearly articulated its policy and principles to guide the executive in implementing the delegated authority.

If the answers to these inquiries affirm the delegation of essential legislative functions and the absence of clear policy guidance, then excessive delegation exists. Conversely, if the delegation does not compromise essential legislative functions and the legislature has provided clear policy direction, the challenge against the statute must fail.

Excessive Delegation – Perspective of Indian Courts

The principle of excessive delegation holds paramount importance within the Indian legal framework, as it safeguards the integrity of due process by underscoring the necessity of delegation while cautioning against unjustified and excessive transfer of powers to administrative bodies. It is established that legislative bodies may delegate authority only within the confines of a skeletal structure and defined limits established by the legislature itself.

In the United States, the delineation of permissible delegations emerged in the 19th century, notably in the case of Wayman v. Southard, where distinctions were made between “important subjects” and “mere details.” The courts recognized that while general provisions could be established, the power to fill in the details could be granted to designated authorities.

In India, the Privy Council, in the case of Queen vs Burah, asserted the plenary legislative authority of the Indian legislature, rejecting the notion of agency or delegation. However, post-independence, the issue arose concerning the delegation of substantive law-making powers without a prescribed structure.

The case of In Re Delhi Laws Act marked a significant shift, with Indian courts departing from the English model of extensive delegation and adopting limits on delegated legislation, emphasizing that legislative power is derived from the constitution and cannot be sub-delegated.

Indian courts, through various judicial pronouncements in recent decades, have delineated the parameters of excessive delegation. In the Re Delhi Laws Act Case, the court invalidated authority delegation beyond constitutional bounds, rendering the delegation void.

Similarly, in Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3(d) of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act due to lack of specified criteria, standards or principles, granting unguided power to the Executive.

The case of Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and Ors v. Union of India addressed the wide-ranging authority conferred by clause (b) sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, deeming it legislative and excessively broad, thus warranting its nullification by the Supreme Court.

In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and Ors., the court ruled against the unilateral extension of an employee’s retirement by the Managing Director of Air India, deeming it an unreasonable discretionary power that contravened constitutional provisions.

Why is Excessive Delegation Unconstitutional?

Excessive delegation is deemed unconstitutional due to several crucial factors that necessitate examination:

Clarity and Exposition of the Law: Understanding the law in question involves analysing its exposition, including its purpose, grounds of application as outlined in its preamble and overall scheme.

Background and Circumstances: The factual context surrounding the enactment of the law is essential for assessing its constitutionality.

These considerations were established in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. National Council for Teacher Education, which aids in determining whether a particular legislation exceeds its bounds of delegation. While prior case law and factual circumstances suggest that excessive delegation is inherently unconstitutional, the inherent dangers posed by excessive concentration of power cannot be overlooked.

When a statute is challenged for its constitutionality, it must not only avoid arbitrariness but also align with the principles of reasonableness enshrined in Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian constitution. Therefore, any rule-making function that unfairly prejudices individuals without lawful authority violates the constitutional principles of fairness and legality, rendering it invalid by its very nature.

The Question of Control of Excessive Delegation

Acknowledging the indispensability of delegated legislation, the issue of controlling this administrative activity becomes paramount. Control over delegated legislation arises at two stages:

Legislative Power Delegation: In England, where Parliament is supreme, the courts cannot intervene in legislative delegation. However, in the United States, due to the doctrine of separation of powers, there are limitations on the delegation of legislative power. The prevailing proposition here is that the legislature should not delegate unlimited power to administrative authorities. Instead, it should retain the essential legislative functions of formulating policy, delegating only the authority to establish details to implement that policy.

Judicial Control: Once delegated legislation is enacted, ensuring proper exercise of delegated powers becomes imperative. The focus shifts from questioning the necessity of delegated legislation to ensuring its proper execution under adequate controls to minimise institutional harm. This underscores the vital role of judicial oversight in controlling delegated legislation.

Conclusion

The doctrine of excessive delegation under administrative law serves as a vital safeguard against the unconstitutional transfer of legislative powers. Through careful examination of legislative intent, clarity of statutes and adherence to constitutional principles, excessive delegation is identified and remedied.

Both legislative and judicial oversight play crucial roles in upholding the integrity of the legal framework, ensuring that delegated powers remain within defined boundaries. By maintaining a delicate balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional principles, the doctrine of excessive delegation fosters accountability and preserves the rule of law in governance.