This document discusses the constitutionality of delegated legislation in India. It outlines three periods: when the Privy Council was the highest court of appeal until 1949, the constitutionality was uncertain; in the case R.V. Burah in 1869, the Calcutta HC declared a section unconstitutional for delegating legislative power but the Privy Council reversed this; and when the Federal Court became the highest court, in the case Jatindra Nath Gupta V. Province of Bihar it held that the power of extension with modification given to the provincial government was ultra vires or beyond its power.

1. Constitutionality of Delegated
Legislation
Bhargav Dangar
Roll No. 21
Administration Law

2.  The phrase ‘constitutionality of administrative rule making’ means
the permissible extent of the Constitution of any country within
which the legislature,
 which has the sole authority of law making power, can validly
delegate rule making powers to other administrative agencies.
 History of delegation of powers can be seen from charter stage of
1833 , where powers were exercised by governor general .

3. Constitutionalityof DelegatedLegislationincontext
withIndia
Three sets of periods :
When Privy council was the highest court of appeal :
Till 1949
The question of constitutionality came in the case of R.V.
Burah . Act passed in 1869 .
 Lieutenant governor was authorized under section 9 to extend
the provision of this act with incidental changes to khasi and
jaintia hills .
 one Burah was tried for murder .

4.  The Calcutta HC declared S9 as unconstitutional delegation of
legislative power relying on doctrine ‘delegates non protest
delegare’.
 Privy council on appeal reversed the decision of Calcutta HC and
upheld the constitutionality of S9 on the grounds that it is merely
a conditional legislation.
 Interpreted - two different ways.
 Therefore, during this period the question of permissible limits of
delegation remained uncertain .

5. When Federal Court became the highest court of appeal :
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.
 This was challenged on the grounds of excessive delegation.
The federal court held :–
Power of extension with modification is ultra vires Bihar provincial
legislation .
 In this manner, for the first time it was held that legislative power
cannot be delegated.

6. Thank You