IN RE DELHI LAWS ACT 1912

CASE NAME: IN RE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912  

CITATION: AIR 1951 SC 332 | [1951] SCR 747  

COURT: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench of 7 Judges)  

REFERENCE: Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India (Advisory Jurisdiction)  

FACTS  

The case originated from a reference by the President of India to the Supreme Court  under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking an advisory opinion on the validity of  delegated legislation in India.  

1. Historical Context & Legal Uncertainty: 
2. After Independence, there was significant constitutional uncertainty regarding the  extent to which the Indian Legislature could delegate its law-making power to the  Executive.  
3. This question was critical for the governance of the newly formed Union Territories  (then known as Part C States), where the Parliament often used delegation to extend  laws efficiently.  
4. The Impugned Legislations: 

The reference specifically concerned the validity of three pre-constitutional and one post constitutional Act that delegated power to the executive:  

1. The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 (Section 7): Allowed the Provincial Government to extend any  law in force in a Part A State to Delhi, with such modifications and restrictions as it thought  fit.  
2. The Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947: Empowered the Central Government  to extend, by notification, any enactment in force in a Part A State to Ajmer-Merwara, again  with modifications.  
3. The Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950: Authorized the Central Government to extend to any  Part C State, with such modifications and restrictions as it deemed fit, any enactment in 

force in a Part A State. Crucially, it also allowed the government to “repeal or amend any  corresponding law” existing in that State.  

Core Concern 

The central question was whether such delegation of legislative power to the executive amounted to excessive delegation, violating the doctrine of separation of powers.  

 ISSUES  

1. Does the Indian Legislature have the power to delegate its law-making authority to  the Executive?  
2. If such delegation is permissible, what are the limits and restrictions on such  delegation?  
3. Were the three Acts valid ? or did they amount to excessive delegation of power?  4. Could the executive modify, amend, or repeal laws while extending them to new  territories?  

 RULE  

1. Doctrine of Delegated Legislation  

While the legislature cannot abdicate its essential functions, it can delegate  ancillary or subordinate functions necessary for implementation.  

2. Separation of Powers in India  

Unlike the strict separation in the United States, the Indian Constitution allows  controlled delegation with reasonable limitations.  

3. Excessive Delegation is Unconstitutional  

If delegation is too broad, without guidance or policy, it becomes unconstitutional and void. 

 ANALYSIS  

 Bench Composition  

The case was heard by a Seven-Judge Bench, each judge delivering separate opinions,  reflecting different interpretations of permissible delegation.  

 Findings on the Three Laws  

1. Delhi Laws Act, 1912 → Held Valid — The executive merely extended laws without  changing their substance.  
2. Ajmer-Merwara Act, 1947 → Held Valid — The delegation was within reasonable  limits.  
3. Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 → Partially Invalid — Because it permitted the  executive to repeal existing laws, which amounted to excessive delegation.  

Views of the Judges  

1. Majority View: Delegation is permitted, but core legislative functions (policy making) must remain with the legislature.  
2. Minority View: The legislature should not delegate any law-making power at all.  3. Middle Path (Accepted): The Court adopted a balanced approach, rejecting both  extremes—complete prohibition and unrestricted delegation.  

JUDGMENT 

1. The Indian Legislature can delegate ancillary powers but not essential legislative  functions.  
2. The first two Acts (Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and Ajmer-Merwara Act, 1947) were  upheld.  
3. The third Act (Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950) was partially struck down for  excessive delegation, as it authorized the executive to repeal existing laws. 

 PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED  

1. Reaffirmation of Separation of Powers  

The Court reaffirmed that the Constitution of India rests on separation of powers among  the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Excessive delegation violates this principle.  

2. Permissible Delegation  

The legislature may delegate only ancillary or subordinate functions, not its essential  functions like policy-making.  

Permitted Functions of the Executive: 

1. Extend Existing Laws – To new territories without altering their essence.  2. Frame Rules and Regulations – For effective implementation.  
2. Fill in Details – Such as dates, forms, and fees.  
3. Modify Laws in a Limited Way – Procedural adaptations consistent with legislative  intent.  
4. Administer and Enforce Laws – Within the boundaries of legislative guidance.  Prohibited Functions of the Executive: 
5. Make New Laws – Only the legislature can enact new laws.  
6. Repeal or Abrogate Existing Laws – Executive cannot nullify parliamentary  enactments.  
7. Change Legislative Policy – Only Parliament can decide core principles.  4. Impose or Alter Taxes – Taxation power rests solely with the legislature.  5. Delegate Further Without Limits – Executive cannot sub-delegate unless expressly  permitted.  
8. Test of Excessive Delegation  

The Court introduced the “Test of Excessive Delegation” — whether the delegation is so  vast that it amounts to abdication of legislative power. If so, it is unconstitutional. 

 RATIO DECIDENDI  

The legislature may delegate ancillary or administrative powers, provided it lays down  the essential legislative policy and guidance. The executive cannot alter or repeal existing  laws, nor can it create new laws beyond the scope of delegation.  

 CONCLUSION  

The Supreme Court held that the Indian Legislature can delegate powers to the executive,  but only ancillary or subordinate functions—not essential legislative functions such as  policy-making, repealing laws, or framing an entirely new legal structure.  

Outcome: 

1. Delhi Laws Act, 1912 → Valid 
2. Ajmer-Merwara Act, 1947 → Valid 
3. Part C States Act, 1950 → Partially Invalid 

 Significance of the Case  

1. Established clear constitutional limits on delegated legislation in India.  2. Ensured that legislative authority remains with elected representatives.  3. Allowed necessary flexibility for administrative efficiency.  
2. Became the foundation of administrative law jurisprudence on delegated  legislation.  

REFERENCE(S): (OSCOLA)  

1. In re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 AIR 1951 SC 332 (India).  
2. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis 2023).  
3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (14th edn, Eastern Book Company 2022). 
4. I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (10th edn, Eastern Book Company 2021). 
5. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th edn, Universal Law Publishing 2015).