Scribd
Upload
9 views

Delegated Leguslations Case Laws

CLASS NOTES ON delegated legislations

Uploaded by

Anmol Saini
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views

Delegated Leguslations Case Laws

CLASS NOTES ON delegated legislations

Uploaded by

Anmol Saini
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

delegated leguslations case laws:

Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing v. CST (1973)


Issue: Whether Parliament could delegate power to set tax rates on interstate
transactions to State Legislatures.
Challenged Section: Section 8(2)(b), which allowed States to set higher tax
rates on intrastate sales, affecting interstate sales.
Argument: Parliament's delegation of power was seen as an abdication of its
legislative authority to the States.
Ruling: Chief Justice rejected the challenge, stating it wasn't a case of
delegated legislation but legislation by reference.
Outcome: Section 8(2)(b) upheld as valid.

In the case of Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration


Committee Air,[9] the Supreme Court of India upheld the delegation of power
given to the executive by the legislature.
also that the essential fxns of the legislatiure canot be explained in general
terms

Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh


The case raised questions about the validity of the Cotton Textile (Control of
Movement) Order, 1948.
The Supreme Court clarified the concept of essential legislative function:
● Essential legislative function involves determining or choosing the
legislative policy and formally enacting that policy into a binding rule
of conduct.
● The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 was not ultra
vires the legislature due to delegation.
● The Court emphasized that the essential power of legislation cannot
be delegated.
● However, ancillary or subordinate functions can be delegated,
provided there are adequate safeguards against arbitrary exercise of
power. I

The Edward Mills Co. Ltd v. state of ajmer


The petitioners, The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and others, challenged a
notification issued by the State Government of Ajmer.
The central issue was whether the notification was illegal and ultra vires
(beyond the legal authority) under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.
Such an order qualifies as a “law in force” and continues to be in effect under
Article 372.
The Court rejected the challenge to the notification, emphasizing that it was
legally valid.
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan v. Union of India case.:
The case revolved around the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Act, 1954 (21 of 1954).
In this case, the Act empowered the executive (lower in rank to the Legislature)
to make rules regarding drug advertisements.
The Act itself is the “Enabling Statute” or “Parent Act” that grants this authority.
The delegation of legislative power to the executive was considered reasonable
in the context of public health.

parliamentary control
Lohia Machines Limited v. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 421 case, the Court
observed that the underlying object of parliamentary control is to keep watch
over the rulemaking authorities and if there is an excess of power exercise or
there is an abuse of power, it provides an opportunity to the parliament to
criticize them. This mechanism is described as a “legislative veto’.

In Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321, Krishna Iyer J. rightly
stated that parliamentary control over delegated legislation should be a living
continuity as a constitutional necessity.

In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430,


the Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 3(5) of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 which provided that the rules framed under the act
must be laid before both houses of parliament, are mandatory and therefore
clause 4 of the non-ferrous control order, 1958 has no effect unless laid before
parliament.

Jan Mohammad v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 385, the court deviated
from its previous judgment. Section 26(5) of the Bombay Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1939 contained a laying provision but the rules framed under the
act could not be laid before the provincial legislature in its first session as there
was then no functioning legislature because of World War II emergency. The
rules were placed during the second session. The court held that the rules
remained valid because the legislature did not provide that the non-laying at its
first session would make rules invalid. Even if the requirement of laying is the
only directory and not mandatory, the rules framed by the administrative
authority without conforming to the requirement of laying would not be
permissible if the mode of rulemaking has been violated.

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1149, the Court
commented on whether the provision in the statute, that laying of rules made
by delegated legislation before the house is mandatory or merely directory. The
Court held that the use of the word “shall” is not conclusive in such cases and
that the intention of the legislature is more important.

judicial control
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1951 SC 118)
Principle: The principle established is that any delegated legislation or
administrative action must not contravene fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution

DWARKA NATH & ANR. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI


This case deals with the matter related to the Doctrine of Ultra Vires, it is a rule
according to which delegated legislation should not be ultra vires of the
enabling act under which it was made.
rule 32 of the act Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was declared
ultra vires

hindustan times v. state of UP


administrative legislations hsould not be contraryr to law of the land ,
The case significantly impacted Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to equality before the law. since it is against the law of
land the legislation is ultra vires . as it was unreasonably arbitrary AND
discriinatory

You might also like