Administrative Law

In Re Delhi Laws Act, 1912

AIR 1951 SC 332

Facts

This was a Presidential Reference under Article 143 to clarify the limits of delegated legislation in India.
Three provisions were examined:
Section 7, Delhi Laws Act, 1912;
Section 2, Ajmer-Merwara Act, 1947;
Section 2, Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950.
These provisions allowed the Government to extend laws from one territory/state to another, with “restrictions and modifications.”

How much legislative power can the legislature delegate to the executive without becoming unconstitutional?

Legislature can delegate ancillary/subordinate functions.
Legislature cannot delegate essential legislative function.
Essential legislative function means deciding the legislative policy and laying down the basic rule of conduct.
The delegate cannot be turned into a parallel legislature.

The Court accepted that modern governance requires delegation.
Legislatures cannot personally work out every administrative detail.
Therefore, giving the executive power to extend an existing law to another area was generally valid.
The executive was not making a new law from scratch; it was selecting and adapting a law already made by a competent legislature.
But the difficult part was the power to make “modifications.”
The Court treated modification power as valid only when used to make the law workable in the new territory.
For example, changes in names, local authorities, procedure, or administrative machinery may be allowed.
But the executive cannot use “modification” to change the essential policy of the law.
The Court was stricter with the Part C States Act because it allowed the Government not only to extend a law, but also to repeal or amend an existing law in that Part C State.
That was closer to giving the executive independent legislative power.
So, the Court drew the line between:
adapting/extending an existing law — allowed;
changing policy or repealing/amending existing law as if executive is legislature — not allowed.

Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act and Section 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara Act were held valid by majority.
The first part of Section 2 of the Part C States Act, allowing extension of laws, was also valid.
But the part allowing the Government to repeal or amend existing laws in Part C States was held invalid by majority.
Use this case for: delegated legislation is allowed, but legislative policy cannot be delegated.
This is the foundational Indian case on excessive delegation.