Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

The Constitution of Indian empowers Legislature to make laws for the country. One of the
significant legislative functions is to determine a legislative policy and to frame it as a rule of
conduct. Obviously such powers cannot be conferred on other institutions. But keeping in
mind various multifarious activities of a welfare State, it is not possible for the legislature to
perform all the functions. In such situation, the delegated legislation comes into the picture.
Delegated Legislature is one of the essential elements of administration whereby the
executive has to perform certain legislative functions. 
The phrase ‘constitutional validity of administrative rule making’ means the permissible
extent of the Constitution of any country within which the legislature, which strictly speaking
is the sole authority of law making power, can validly delegate rule making powers to other
administrative agencies. In today’s world, there has been a tremendous expansion of the
government’s authority due to the shift from the laissez faire regime to a welfare state
concept. As a result, the new role of the state can only be fulfilled through the use of greater
power in the hands of the government which is best suited to carry out the social and
economic tasks before the country.
The major problem associated with constitutional validity of administrative rule-making is
regarding the permissible limit of delegation of powers by legislature. This paper endeavours
to elaborate on following issues:
Federal Court of India, the predecessor of the present Supreme Court, examined the problem
of delegation of legislative power to an extraneous authority in the case of Jatindra Nath
Gupta v. the Province of Bihar.
Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar 

In this case, the provincial government was authorized to extend the applicability of The
Bihar Maintenances of Public Order Act, 1948 for one year, under Section 1(3) of the Act.
The extension could be made with such modifications as it may deem fit. This was
challenged on the grounds of excessive delegation.
The Federal Court held that the delegation of power of extension with modification is ultra
vires the Bihar Provincial Legislature as it is an essential legislative function. A dissenting
opinion was delivered by J.Faizal Ali, wherein, he held that the delegation of power of
extension was constitutional as it only amounted to continuation of the Act. [10]
This judgment marks a shift from the position adopted by the Privy Council in R v. Burah.
This decision is of great importance, as it implies the acceptance of a rigid theory of
separation of powers by the Federal Court.
n the end we can conclude that the delegated legislation is important in the wake of the rise in
the number of legislations and technicalities involved. But at the same time with the rise in
delegated legislation, the need to control it also arises because with the increase in the
delegation of power also increases the chance of the abuse of power.