ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Submitted to: Prof. Aditi Sharma

Submitted by: Shubham Gupta

Roll No: 81

L.L.B 4th Semester

Topic: Define Ombudsman? Explanation of

importance of Lokpal in Modern Era.

Case:

THE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912, THE AJMER-MERWARA

(EXTENSION)

Vs.
THE PART C STATES (LAWS) ACT, 1950.

Page | 1
 Table of Contents

1. Acknowledgement 03

2. Introduction 04

3. Historical Aspect of Ombudsman in Indian Era 05

4. Ombudsman / Lokpal 06

5. Meaning of Lokpal 07

6. Establishment & Administration 08

7. Characteristics of Lokpal Institution 09

8. Objectives or Responsibilities of Lokpal Institution 10

9. Importance of Lokpal in Modern Era – Indian Scenario 11-13

 In States

 Rationale for an Institution

10. The Case Study-The Delhi Laws Act-1912 & Anr. vs. The Part C States

(Laws) Act-1950

 Facts of the Case 14-15

 Issues Framed 16

 Analysis of Judicial Opinion 17-19

 Judgement 19

 Conclusion 20

 Bibliography 21

Page | 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of

gratitude to my teacher Dr. Aditi Sharma, who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful
project on ‘OMBUDSMAN and its explanation of
importance in modern era with the case study based
on the subject OMBUDSMAN, she also helped me in
completing my project. I came to know about so
many things to which I am thankful.

Secondly, I would like to thank my parents and

friends who helped a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time span.

Page | 3
INTRODUCTION

The definition of justice depends on the context it is being used. For

every society the term has a different significance. For some it may be
fairness whereas others might term it as advantage of the stronger. The
notion of justice evokes the cognition of the rule of law, of the resolution
of conflicts, of institutions that make law and of those who enforce it; it
expresses fairness and the implicit recognition of the principle of
equality.

The primary goal of a dispute resolution mechanism is to do justice, yet

dispute resolution and justice cannot be used interchangeably. The
dispute resolution mechanism chosen by a society reflects the concept of
justice in that society.

It is the duty of a state to perform the functions of legislative, executive

and judiciary. The Constitutions of democratic set up clearly define these
functions. The legislature has to make the laws. The executive has to
execute or implements these laws and the judiciary interprets and
applies these laws. Judiciary has authority to pertain the office of a
judge and this authority relates to hearing and determining the
questions in controversy. Further, this judicial authority includes Court
and appellate Court.

Page | 4
HISTORICAL ASPECT OF OMBUDSMAN IN INDIAN ERA

In the post-independence era when increasing practice of corruption,

maladministration and misuse of authority and resource couldn’t be
curbed by existing measures under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988, need for an agency independent of
the executive, legislative and judiciary, to look into citizens’ grievances
and cases of corruption have been widely needed.

To look into the solidarity of issues concerned Dr. L.M. Singhvi moved a
resolution in the Lok Sabha on 3 April 1964, reiterating his demand for
setting up an officer of Parliament known as People’s Procurator. The
resolution was discussed in detail by all sections of the House but was
withdrawn on the assurance of the Government that it would look into
the matter. In pursuance of this assurance, the Government constituted
a Special Consultative Group of Members of Parliament on administrative
reforms, in early 1965, which favoured a high powered inquiry
commission on administrative reforms. Accordingly, an Administrative
Reforms Commission (ARC) was appointed in January 1966, for making
recommendations on their organization of the administrative system of
the country.

First Administrative Reforms Commission in its report submitted in the

year 1966 suggested the three end views as under:

i. Evolution of a suitable grievance procedure for the individuals to

invoke in complaints of maladministration;
ii. Creation of a mechanism which would reduce corruption in the
administrative services; and
iii. Setting up a mechanism which would take cognizance of complaints
of favouritism and nepotism against Central and State Ministers.

Page | 5
OMBUDSMAN / LOKPAL

The Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented by Mr. Shanti Bhushan
during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.
However while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was
dissolved, and so the bill was not passed at that time. Subsequently,
Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985 (again by Ashoke
Kumar Sen when serving as Law Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet),
1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never
passed. Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was
referred to some committee for improvements a joint committee of
parliament or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry
and before the government could take a final stand on the issue, the
house was dissolved again.

In 2002, the report of the National Commission to Review the Working of

the Constitution urged that the Constitution should provide for the
appointment of the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas in the states but suggested
that the Prime Minister should be kept out of the purview of the
authority.

In 2004, the UPA government’s National Common Minimum Programme

promised that the Lok Pal Bill would be enacted. The Second
Administrative Commission, formed in 2005, also recommended that the
office of the Lok Pal be established without delay. In January 2011, the
government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by Shri Pranab
Mukherjee to suggest measures to tackle corruption, including
examination of the proposal of a Lok Pal Bill.

Thus we have seen that the establishment of the institution of

Ombudsman (called Lok Pal) is the demand of time. It will be much
useful in redressing the grievances of the citizens against the
administration. Attempts have been made to establish the institution like
Ombudsman (called Lokpal) but unfortunately it has not been done so
far.

It is also pertinent to reveal here that though the birth of an

Ombudsman in the Centre is still doubtful; however the institution of
Page | 6
Lokayukta is functioning in 13 Indian States, these are Andhra Pradesh,
Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab and Haryana. In
Tamil Nadu and Jammu & Kashmir different investigating agencies are
functioning and the similar proposal is pending in the State of Kerala.
Delhi has also established the institution of Ombudsman.

The Apex Court in Lokayukta / Upa-Lokayukta vs. T. R. S. Reddy opined that,

since the Lokayuktas / Upa-Lokayuktas are high judicial dignitaries it
would be obvious that they should be armed with appropriate powers
and sanctions so that their opinions do not become mere paper
directions. Proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by them are
not wasted and their reports are not shelved.

MEANING OF OMBUDSMAN

Ombudsman is etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word

‘umboðsmaðr’, essentially meaning “representative”.

Thus an ombudsman is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary

between either the state, elements of state or an organization, and some
internal or external constituency, while representing not only but mostly
the broad scope of constituent interests.

In its most frequent modern usage, an ombudsman is an official, usually

appointed by the government or by parliament but with a significant
degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests
of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by
individuals.

Page | 7
ESTABLISHMNENT AND ADMINISTRATION

In August 1998 the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Bajpae presented the Lok
Pal Bill in the Lok Sabha. The Prime Minister has also been brought
within the jurisdiction or power of Lok Pal. Under the Bill the LokPal was
empowered to make enquiries in the charges of completion brought
before, it against any Minister or Prime Minister or Member or either
House of Parliament. However, he was not empower thereon the Bill to
make enquires in the charges of corruption against the President, Vice
President, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Comptroller and Auditor general, Chief
Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioner, Judges of the
Supreme Court and Members of the Union Public Service Commission.
Under this Bill the institution of Lok Pal was to consist of three members
including its Chairman. Only the sitting or retired Chief Justice of India
or any Judge of the Supreme Court could be appointed its Chairman
while any sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court of Chief Justice
of any High Court could be appointed its members. The appointment was
to be made by President on the recommendations of the selection
committee consisting of seven members. The Vice-President would be
the Chairman of this selection committee. The Bill has not been enacted
into Act.

The Lokpal has not been given jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation
against the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the
Chief Justice or any Judge of the Supreme Court, the Comptroller and
auditor General, the Chief Election Commissioner or Election
Commissioner, the Chairman or any Member of the Union Public Service
Commission. The Institution cannot enquire into any matter concerning
any person if the Lok pal or any member thereof has any bias in respect
of the person or matter. Lokpal cannot enquire into any matter referred
for enquiry under the Commission of Enquiries Act. Besides, Lokpal
cannot enquire into any complaint made five years after the date of
offence stated in the complaint.

The salary, service conditions and removal from the office in the case of
the Chairman will be the same as those of the Chief Justice of India and
in the case of other member will be as those of the Judges of the
Supreme Court. These provisions have been made to ensure the
independence of the institution of Ombudsman. The Bill also provides

Page | 8
that a member of the Lokpal cannot be a Member of Parliament or State
legislature or a political party. It also provides that a member thereof

should not hold any office of trust or profit or he should not carry on any
business or practice any profession. The Bill also makes provision for the
appointment of staff to assist the Lokpal. The Lokpal can entertain a
complaint from any person other than a public servant. The Bill has
empowered the Lokpal to require a public servant or any other person to
give such information as may be desired or to produce such documents,
which are relevant for the purposes of investigation. He will have the
powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with
respect: i) to summon a person and examine him on oath; ii) to require
a person to disclose and produce a document; iii) to take evidence on
oath; iv) to require any public document or recorded to be placed before
him; v) to issue commission for the examination of evidence and
documents; vi) any other matters as may be provided.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOKPAL INSTITUTION

i. Established as separate entity that is functionally autonomous.

ii. Operationally independent of both the Legislature and the Executive.
iii. Ombudsman is a legally established Governmental Official.
iv. A monitoring specialist.
v. Administrative expert and professional.
vi. Nonpartisan.
vii. Normatively universalistic.
viii. Client centred, but not an administration.
ix. Popularly accessible and visible.
x. High status institutions
xi. Have extensive resources to perform his mission.

Page | 9
OBJECTIVES or RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOKPAL INSTITUTION

1. It is the basic proposition that the prime responsibility for dealing with
a complaint from the public lies with the government organization whose
activity or lack of activity gives rise to the complaint. Thus; the higher
levels of the hierarchical structure of an organization are expected to
look into the complaints against lower levels. If the internal
arrangements within each organization are effective enough, there
should be no need for a special ‘outside’ machinery to deal with
complaints.

2. For dealing with grievances involving corruption and lack of integrity

on the part of government servants; special machinery was brought into
existence in the form of the Central Vigilance Commission.

3. For dealing with grievances, while outside machinery was not

considered necessary of feasible for the present, the organizations and
the departments should provide for quickest redressal of such
grievances.

4. The internal arrangement for handling complaints and grievance

should be quickly reviewed by each ministry, special care being
bestowed on the task by those ministries whose work brings them in
touch with the public.

5. Every complaint should receive quick and sympathetic attention;

leaving in the outcome, as far as possible, no ground in the mind of the
complainant for a continued feeling of grievance.

6. For big organizations having substantial contact with the public, there
should be distinct cells under a specially designated senior officer which
should function as a sort of outside complaint agency within the
organization and, thus, act as a second check on the adequacy of
disposal of complaints.

Page | 10
IMPORTANCE OF LOKPAL IN MODERN ERA - INDIAN SCENERIO

After independence setting up of a democratic system of Government

raised tremendous hopes and high expectations among people. From a
purely regulatory and police administration, the government came to be
entrusted with the responsibility of economic and social transformation
and that too in a hurry. The state entered economic field in a big way
and to ensure distributive justice.
The Gandhian principle that, “governments is the best which governs the
least was substituted by a government which was as the American
saying, ‘big government’ affecting the lives of citizens from cradle to
grave, if not from conception itself.
The committee on “Prevention of Corruption” (popularly known as the
Santhanam Committee) in its report gave special attention to create
machinery in the government, which should provide quick and
satisfactory redress of public grievances.
It was averred that the hierarchical type of remedy for grievances of
citizens should be improved by tightening up the existing arrangements
and by providing an internal ‘outside’ check to keep things up to the
mark. Since the main limitation of the hierarchical remedy is that the
various authorities act too departmental check system. A proposal was
placed before the Cabinet to the effect that this “extra-departmental
check” should operate through a commissioner for redress of Citizens’
grievances, whose main functions should be to ensure that
arrangements are made in each ministry/department/office. For
receiving and dealing with the citizens’ grievances and that they work
efficiently.

In exercise of this function, the Commissioner should inspect these

units, advise those who hold charge of these units and communicate his
observations to the Head of Department or to the Secretary as may be
necessary. He should also keep the minister informed of how the
arrangements in the department under the minister are working. The
proposal in essence was that the Commissioner would be an inspector
and supervisor under each minister although located outside. The
location for the Commissioner was suggested to be in the Home Ministry
from where he would provide a common service.

Page | 11
[A] LOKAYUKTAS IN STATE

Even after a lapse of so many years nothing has been done substantially
at the central level for implementing the institution of Lokpal. But at the
state level, many states have adopted this institution in the name of
Lokayukta. There are as many as 17 states where the institution of
Lokayukta has been constituted, beginning with Orissa in 1971.
However, the power, functions of jurisdiction of Lakayuktas are not
uniform in the country. In some state, it has been applicable to the
entire elected representative including CM. on the contrary, in some
other state legislators have been deliberately kept out of his purview.
Lokayuktas have not been provided with their independent investigating
machinery making them dependent on the government agencies. As a
result there lies enough scope for the politicians and the bureaucrats to
tinker with the process of investigation.

[B] RATIONALE FOR AN INSTITUTION – LOK PAL

The mechanisms available in the regular process of government, are

inadequate to check corruption in administrative department, for
example, and any decision of an official can be appealed to a higher
official all the way up to the head of a department. However this
mechanism has inherent flaws. Though officers enjoy departmental
fraternity with those against whom complaints are made, and both sail
the same boat. Therefore their impartiality in judging appeals is always
doubted. On the legislative side, an individual can approach the member
representing his constituency for his demands but given the absence of
easy access of an ordinary to his representative, this has more remained
a myth than reality. Other than this politics is now ridden with nepotism
and favouritism, criminals have easy access to legislature, political
corruption is mounting this is more dangerous than bureaucratic
corruption.

Page | 12
Among the organs of state, the judiciary has proved itself to have
highest credibility in protecting individual right. However, due to
procedural complexities involved in the court cases– right from the filing
a case to the delivery of final verdict – there are inevitable delays of
justice, which often are considered as denial of justice. The existing
devices for checks on elected and administrative officials have not been
effective as the growing instances of corruption cases suggest.
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is designed to inquire into
allegations of corruption by administrative officials only but cannot
punish the guilty The CBI ,the premier investigating agency of the
country, functions under the supervision of the Ministry of Personnel,
public grievances and pensions (under the Prime Minister) and is
therefore not immune from political pressure during investigation it can
be said, the CVC is independent but does not have powers while CBI has
power but is not independent‖. As a result the first cannot punish while
the latter cannot investigate fairly.

All these have necessitated the creation of an independent and high

powered Lokpal with its own investigation team. Therefore there is a
need for a mechanism that would simple, independent, speedy and
inexpensive means of delivering justice by redressing the grievances of
the people. Examples from various countries suggest that the institution
of ombudsman has very successfully fought against corruption and
unscrupulous administrative decisions by the person held high offices.

Page | 13
 In Ref: THE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912,THE AJMER-MERWARA (EXTENSION)
PETITIONER
Vs.
THE PART C STATES (LAWS) ACT, 1950.
RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/05/1951

KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ) FAZAL ALI, SAIYID SASTRI,

M. PATANJALI MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS,
SUDHI RANJAN BOSE, VIVIAN MUKHERJEA, B.K.

CITATION: 1951 AIR 332, 1951 SCR 747

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE CASE:

Indian era can be divided into three phases to understand the cited case. They
are mainly: Pre-Independence, Post-Independence and Post Constitution.

In the case of Queen v. Burrah, the Privy Council primarily held regarding the
constitutionality of Delegated Legislation in the first phase i.e. pre-
independence period. The Lt. General was granted certain power by the act in
dispute (Act XXII of 1869). The power was regarding the act into effect and to
determine which law were applicable and the power of extending the
application of the said Act.

 The question which was raised before the Privy Council was, ‘whether
the power to extend the application of Act which was granted to Lt.
General is delegation of power’.

It was observed by the Privy Council that, the Indian legislature is not an
agent. It is also not a delegate against the High Court of Calcutta but it was
intended on having the legislature’s plenary power and parliament’s power of
same nature as itself. The court held that the aforementioned powers
were conferred to Lt. General only on the fulfilment of some
conditions. Therefore it was a conditional legislation which is different
from delegated legislation. It was also stated by the court that, “It is a
general principle of law in India that any substantial delegation of
legislative authority by the legislature of the country is void…..”
Substantive delegation -was laid by this case which means that, if some

Page | 14
functions which are important and are void in India, then their delegation
needs to be conditional. After many cases on delegated legislation, the
confusion was always there.

 A question was raised before the moot was whether the delegation of
legislative power should be restricted as followed in America or it should
be free as followed in England where delegation of much power could
happen.

The court was given the freedom to chose either as there are similarities
between the UK and US with India. Also, the Constitution of India is silent on
the question of legislature to delegated therefore the constitution can be made
the basis for the issues.

The President of India asked the court’s opinion under Article 143 of the
Constitution of India to remove the doubts regarding the validity of laws which
contain such delegation.

ISSUES FRAMED IN THIS CASE WERE:

 Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions
thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires
the Legislature which passed the said Act?
 Was the Ajmer Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the
provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent
ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act?
 Is section 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, or any of the
provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent
ultra vires the Parliament?

 RULE OF LAW

Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 states:

“The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend

with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi
or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India
at the date of such notification.”

Section 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 states:

”Extension of Enactments to Ajmer-Merwara.–The Central Government may,

by notification in the official gazette, extend to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara

Page | 15
with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit any enactment which is
in force in any other Province at the date of such notification.”

Section 2 of Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 states:

“Power to extend enactments to certain Part C States.–The Central

Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any Part C
State (other than Coorg and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) or to any part
of such State, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any
enactment which is in force in a Part A State at the date of the notification and
provision may be made in any enactment so extended for the repeal or
amendment of any corresponding law (other than a Central Act) which is for
the time being applicable to that Part C State.”

ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL OPINION IN THE CITED CASE:

The bench comprised of seven judges thus provided us with seven different
opinions. The questions were limited to which legislative can be delegate by
legislature in India. The counsels put forth two extremist views.

M. C. Setalvad was of the view that, ‘the power of delegation and legislation
comes together and it does not result in abdication of powers’. The other
counsel was of the view that, ‘the concept of separation of powers exists in
India and the country follows delegates non-potest delegare’.

Therefore prohibition of power delegation is implied. Both of these views were

‘extremely extremist.’

Hence a middle view was taken by the court.

The following views were taken up by the Supreme Court and the opinions of
the judges were based on the following views:

 Separation of powers” is not a part of Indian Constitution.

 Indian parliament was never considered as an agent of anybody.
Therefore doctrine of delegates non potest delegare is not applicable.
 Parliament cannot completely abdicate itself by creating a parallel
authority.
 Only ancillary functions can be delegated.
 There is a limitation on delegation of power. Legislature cannot delegate
its essential functions. Essential functions involve laying down the policy
of the law and enacting that policy into binding rules of conduct.

Page | 16
On the two points, the unity of outlook was observed:

 Firstly, the exigencies of the modern government have to be kept

in view. To deal with several issues which are prevailing in India,
Central and State Government have to delegate power.
 The second point is that the excessive freedom of delegation of
legislative power cannot be exercised the same as the British
Constitution, as the Indian legislature derives its power from the
Indian Constitution.

The question as to the limits that were permissible within which the
legislature can delegate their power is where the judges differed:

1. One view was propounded that the legislature can delegate their power
up to the limit where its own power is not abdicated and also have
ultimate control over delegate where the legislature can withdraw the
delegation if delegate did wrong.
2. Another view that was propounded was that the legislative power for
essential functions cannot be delegated by legislature such as
formulation of policy etc. It means that policy or standards should be laid
down by legislature in the delegating Act and thus delegate have the
power to execute the policy.

Justice Fazal Ali gave the following conclusion regarding this case:

 The primary legislative function should be discharge by legislature and

not through others.
 This delegated power is ancillary to and is necessary for the total and
effective in exercising the legislature’s power.
 Legislative function cannot be abdicated by the legislature and not
becoming a parallel legislature.
 Legislature should enact legislation and it cannot retire and leave the
duty of law drafting to any other body. Delegating of law making
authority from one legislature to another body is forbidden by the
Constitution.

Page | 17
Attorney General M C Setalvad claimed that Parliament has the authority to
delegate because the legislative power that it has, is for the power to delegate.

This claim was rejected by Chief Justice Kania and Justices Mahajan and
Mukherjea. They opined that the it is never per se warranted by the
constitution about the delegation of powers at any stage and has agreed on
the point that legislature can conditionally legislate. While doing so, conditions
and facts can be stated which when ascertained or fulfilled according to the
executive authority’s decision or decision by another body then in that
particular area, the legislation can become applicable and this is known as
conditional legislation.

Justice Bose was in favour of delegated legislation and he also agreed with the
above-mentioned opinion but Justices Sastri and Justice Das agreed to the
contention and it differed from the opinion of the other judges. They made
theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a basis for their decision and observed
that where there is power to delegate, power to make law comes along with it.

After this case, things drastically changed in the country and now it is judicially
accepted that power to delegate is a constituent element of ‘legislative power’
and it resides with the legislature. This is however near to the contention made
by the Attorney General.

The legislative function cannot be a delegate in its true and intrinsic sense.
Therefore it can be concluded that only non-essential functions can be
delegated that are ancillary to the legislature’s essential function. Justice
Mukherjea was of the opinion that if the policy in the broad term is laid down
in an Act, the authority of formulation of policy details can be passed to the
executive. Justice Mahajan commented that the legislature cannot delegate
essential matters. Chief Justice Kania opined that laying down of policy which
underlies rule of conduct cannot be delegated by legislature.

While extending an Act to a given area, the discretion to do alterations and

modification and to do a consequential amendments in an existing law, is
conditioned with the proposition that ‘essential function cannot be delegated’.
The amount of discretion that is exercisable by a delegated authority is a
question that cannot be defined.

Page | 18
The questions in this case are answered by the judges and the maximum of
the judges answered the question affirmatively. Chief Justice Kania and
Justice Mahajan are the only judges that answered in a negative way. They
were of the view that the authority to alter or modify the law in a substantive
sense lies with legislature only. Justice Fazal Ali observed that the power to
change the things that are necessary to incidental to apply law. Within the
framework, any modification is done and the identity or structure is not
changed then no objection should be taken. It was observed by Justice
Mukherjea that modification does not mean changing the policy but it is
restricted within the alterations which introduces appropriate changes which
suits the local conditions and keep the policy intact. Justice Bose was also of
the same opinion.

It is therefore concluded that the majority was of the opinion that executive
can be authorized to do modification but it cannot be in an essential and
intrinsic sense. When the question of “Repeal of law” comes, it is a legislative
power essentially and delegating this power to Government ultra vires the
power to delegate.

JUDGMENT

Justice Fazal Ali, Das and Sastri held that all the sections in issues are
perfectly valid. The opinion of the majority was based on the maxim unis est
exclusion alterious, and they ruled that an express provision that permits
delegation which is contained in Article 357 would mean that legislation is
uncontrolled which the constitution does not permit. The essential delegations
cannot be delegated by the legislature in any condition. The minority’s opinion
was based on the theory of legislative omnipotence of Parliament of Britain
and the reflection of it in Canadian, Indian and Australian systems which
included the power of delegating legislative function and subjected to the
condition of “non-abdiction”.

 Delhi Laws Act, 1912 was delegated to the provincial Government whose
power extended to parts of Delhi with restrictions and modification in
any law that is in force in any part of British India.
 Ajmer Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 delegates the power to
the Government for extending to province with the restriction and
modification that Government seems fit.

Page | 19
  Part C State (Laws) Act, 1950 states that Parliament legislate Central
Government controlled Part C states which doesn’t have a legislature of
their own. The power to extend the Part C states with restriction and
modification that deems fit any enactment in Part A states which is in
force is delegated by the Act to the Central Government. This Act also
empowered the Government to amend or repeal the corresponding law
which is applicable in the area.

The first two Acts and Section 2 of Part C State (Laws) Act was held
VALID by the Court, but the power to repeal or amend was held to be
excessive delegation.

CONCLUSION

In this case it was observed by the Supreme Court for the first time that the
principle that,’ one organ should not perform the essential functions
belonging to other organ is followed in India except the power vested by
Constitution’. This case laid down that because of the difference in the
Constitution, the British model of delegated legislation cannot be implemented
in India. This case defined the scope of delegated legislation while laying down
the difference in Delegation and Conditional Delegation.

Majority of the judges except Chief Justice Kania and Justice Mahajan were
in favour of delegated legislation. The two Judges emphasized on Conditional
Delegation. On the contention by the opposite counsel, the court cleared that
separation of powers does not fall under the Indian Constitution.

The necessity for this concept was realised as the powers and function of the
organs increased and the need for delegation was felt.

This case achieved two ends:

 It legitimized delegation of Legislative Power by the Legislature to

Administrative Organs;
 It imposed an outer limit on delegation by the Legislature.

Page | 20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 www.indiankanoon.org

 Textbook on Administrative Law by Dr. A.B Kafaltiya

 Introduction to Administrative Law by Dr. K.C Joshi

Page | 21