Doctrine of excessive delegation
Doctrine of Excessive Delegation
What is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation (or subordinate legislation) is the law made by an authority other than the legislature but with the legislature's authorization. It allows the legislature to delegate its law-making powers to administrative authorities, regulatory bodies, or executives for detailed rule-making.
What is the Doctrine of Excessive Delegation?
The Doctrine of Excessive Delegation (also called the Doctrine of Unconstitutional Delegation) holds that the legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative powers to the executive or other authorities without adequate guiding principles and limits.
This doctrine ensures:
The legislature does not abdicate its fundamental role.
Delegation must come with clear guidelines, policies, and boundaries.
Administrative bodies cannot act as legislatures; they must act within delegated authority.
Why is the Doctrine Important?
Prevents misuse or arbitrary use of delegated powers.
Maintains the separation of powers among legislative, executive, and judiciary.
Protects democratic accountability by ensuring elected bodies retain law-making control.
Tests for Excessive Delegation
The courts have developed certain principles to decide whether delegation is excessive:
Intelligible Principle Test: There must be clear principles or guidelines in the parent act directing the delegated authority.
Policy Guidelines: The delegation must specify policy or framework within which the delegated authority can act.
Adequate Safeguards: Controls like judicial review or legislative oversight should exist.
Landmark Case Laws on Doctrine of Excessive Delegation
1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Mohan Lal (1967)
Summary:
This is a classic case on excessive delegation.
Facts:
The Rajasthan Electricity Board was empowered to fix electricity tariffs. The question arose whether such delegation was constitutionally valid.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that fixing rates involves policy decisions, and the legislature cannot delegate this essential legislative power without clear guidelines.
The delegation was upheld as valid because the Act provided principles and factors to be considered.
Impact:
Established the "intelligible principle" test in India.
Allowed delegation if sufficient guidelines are provided.
2. A.K. Roy vs Union of India (1982)
Summary:
Dealt with broad powers delegated under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
Facts:
The Act gave broad powers to the executive to detain individuals.
Judgment:
The Court held that delegation was valid due to clear objectives and safeguards.
However, the Court cautioned against excessive delegation without limits.
Impact:
Reaffirmed delegation with safeguards is valid.
Emphasized need for judicial oversight.
3. Golak Nath vs State of Punjab (1967)
Summary:
Though primarily about constitutional amendments, it touched on delegation.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that Parliament cannot delegate its core powers in a way that undermines constitutional limits.
Highlighted the inviolability of essential legislative functions.
Impact:
Set limits on delegation concerning constitutional powers.
4. Union of India vs R. Gandhi (2010)
Summary:
Considered delegation of powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Facts:
The act delegated broad powers to authorities to attach and confiscate property.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the delegation, noting clear statutory guidelines and safeguards.
Delegation was held valid as Parliament defined limits and procedures.
Impact:
Showed that even broad powers are permissible if legislative policy and safeguards exist.
5. K.K. Verma vs Union of India (1954)
Summary:
Early case on the limits of delegation.
Facts:
Challenged the validity of broad delegated powers without guidelines.
Judgment:
The Court struck down excessive delegation lacking guidelines.
Held such delegation unconstitutional.
Impact:
Reinforced the necessity of intelligible principles in delegated legislation.
Summary of Principles from These Cases
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Mohan Lal | Intelligible principle test for valid delegation |
| A.K. Roy vs Union of India | Broad powers valid if legislative safeguards exist |
| Golak Nath vs State of Punjab | Essential legislative functions cannot be delegated |
| Union of India vs R. Gandhi | Delegation valid with clear guidelines and safeguards |
| K.K. Verma vs Union of India | Delegation without guidelines is unconstitutional |
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Excessive Delegation protects the legislature’s core law-making function from being improperly delegated to executive or administrative agencies without adequate guidance. The Indian judiciary has balanced the need for delegation in complex governance with constitutional safeguards by insisting on clear principles, policy guidelines, and judicial oversight.
Thus, while delegation is necessary for efficient administration, it must not amount to abdication of legislative responsibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments