eant that the legislature would frame the law, and it would be the prerogative of the executive to

implement it when conditions demanding such implementation were achieved. As by the Court
stated, “the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles which are to
control in given cases and must provide a standard to guide the official or the board empowered to
execute the law.”

This reasoning was advanced in Gwalior Rayon Mills Mfg. Co., where it was reiterated that the
essential legislative function was the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a
rule of conduct. Further, the Court warned against the legislature overstepping the limits of
delegation: “It may not lay down any policy at all; it may declare its policy in vague and general
terms; it may not set down any standard for the guidance of the Executive; it may confer an arbitrary
power on the Executive to change or modify the policy laid down by it without reserving for itself
any control over subordinate legislation.” It was stated that the legislature could not be allowed to
abdicate its legislative power as that would fall beyond the permissible limits of delegation.

Given the extant position of law, it is submitted that the present Amendment suffers from the vice of
excessive delegation as Parliament has laid down no discernible policy in either the text of the Act or
in the accompanying Statement of Objects and Reasons. According to the original Act, Information
Commissioners were to enjoy the same term of office and salaries as those of the Election
Commissioners – which is a constitutional body – in order to provide for neutral decision making and
to safeguard their independence. However, the Amendment does away with this provision, replacing
both with provisions that may be “prescribed by the Central Government.”

According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the logic behind distinguishing between the
Election Commission and Information Commission is that the former was established by the
Constitution and performed functions relating to elections, whereas the latter is a statutory body
formed under the 2005 Act with a completely different mandate. Further, the section dealing with
delegated legislation states that the delegation in the present case is of a “normal character”, as
according to the government, it was not “practicable” to provide for rules of “procedure or
administrative details” in the Bill itself.