Sub-delegation of powers
Sub-delegation of Powers
What is Sub-delegation?
Delegation is when a legislature or a superior authority (usually the legislature or a statutory authority) delegates its powers to a subordinate authority.
Sub-delegation (also called "further delegation") occurs when the subordinate authority to whom the power has been delegated passes on that power to another subordinate or agent.
In other words, sub-delegation means the delegate further delegates the power to another.
Legal Position of Sub-delegation
Generally, delegation is allowed when expressly or impliedly authorized by the parent Act.
However, sub-delegation is generally prohibited unless expressly or impliedly permitted by law.
This is because sub-delegation can lead to dilution of accountability and the decision-making authority of the original delegate.
The principle: "Delegatus non potest delegare" — A delegate cannot delegate further unless authorized.
Why is Sub-delegation Restricted?
Accountability: The original delegate is responsible for the exercise of delegated powers. If they further delegate, accountability gets diluted.
Statutory Intent: The statute might intend that the delegate should personally exercise discretion.
Prevent Abuse: To prevent arbitrary and unauthorized use of power.
Control: Legislative or superior authority wants to ensure proper control over the delegation chain.
When is Sub-delegation Permissible?
When the parent Act expressly allows it.
When it is necessary for practical reasons and can be implied from the statute.
When the nature of the delegated power is administrative rather than judicial or quasi-judicial.
When it relates to ministerial or clerical functions.
Important Case Laws on Sub-delegation of Powers
1. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
Facts: The question was about the sub-delegation of powers by the Central Government during the Emergency under Article 359.
Held: The Supreme Court observed that powers delegated by the legislature to the executive cannot be further delegated unless expressly permitted.
Significance: Reinforced the doctrine that sub-delegation is generally not allowed and should be backed by statutory authorization.
2. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1969)
Facts: The Karnataka government delegated certain powers to officials who further delegated them without authority.
Held: The Court held that sub-delegation without statutory sanction is invalid.
Significance: Clarified that sub-delegation violates the principle of accountability unless the law expressly permits it.
3. Rama Krishna Dey v. Union of India (1958)
Facts: The Central Government delegated powers to an officer, who further sub-delegated without statutory authority.
Held: The Supreme Court struck down the sub-delegation as unauthorized.
Significance: Emphasized that sub-delegation is ultra vires if the parent Act or delegation order prohibits it.
4. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (1976)
Facts: It involved the delegation of disciplinary powers in the public service.
Held: The Court held that where the power is quasi-judicial or discretionary, it should not be sub-delegated unless clearly permitted.
Significance: Distinguished between administrative and quasi-judicial powers regarding sub-delegation.
5. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1963)
Facts: Question arose about whether powers under the Essential Commodities Act could be sub-delegated.
Held: The Supreme Court held that sub-delegation is valid if the statute expressly allows or necessarily implies it.
Significance: Established that sub-delegation is permissible if the statute contemplates or does not prohibit it.
6. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975)
Facts: Challenge regarding the validity of an order issued by a sub-delegate without proper authority.
Held: Court held that such sub-delegation was invalid as no power was conferred to delegate further.
Significance: Reiterated the principle that sub-delegation is unlawful unless statutory provisions permit.
Summary Table of Sub-delegation Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| General Rule | Delegatus non potest delegare – Delegate cannot delegate |
| Exception 1 | Express or implied authorization by statute |
| Exception 2 | Sub-delegation of ministerial/clerical functions permitted |
| Exception 3 | When necessary for practical administration |
| Invalid if | No statutory authority; affects discretion/judicial powers |
Practical Implications
Administrative authorities must be cautious while delegating powers.
Where further delegation is necessary, clear statutory or administrative authorization is essential.
Unauthorized sub-delegation renders the act or order ultra vires and invalid.
Protects accountability and rule of law.
Conclusion
Sub-delegation of powers is a restricted and exceptional practice in administrative law. The principle ensures that delegated powers remain accountable and properly exercised. Courts have consistently struck down sub-delegation without clear statutory backing. However, practical needs and explicit legal provisions can justify sub-delegation, especially in administrative functions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments