Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. - As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.

 SCI (2024.07.30) in Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. [2024 INSC 558, Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023] held that;  

• As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.

• Although delegated legislation enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, it does not enjoy the same immunity as the parent legislation.It is now well established that delegated legislation can be challenged on the following grounds:

(i) lack of legislative competence to make delegated legislation;

(ii) violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution;

(iii) violation of any provision of the Constitution;

(iv) failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act;

(v) repugnance to any other enactment; and

(vi) manifest arbitrariness.

• A similar legislative scheme is reflected in Sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates Act. Where a rule-making power is conferred upon the delegate in general terms, a subsequent enumeration of matters on which the delegate may frame rules is illustrative and does not limit the scope of the general power.The enumerated matters in such a situation provide guidelines for the delegated authority while framing rules in exercise of the general power.

Excerpts of the Order;

iii. Delegated legislation

# 27. The basic principle underlying the concept of delegated legislation is that the legislature cannot directly exert its will in every detail.34 It lays down the legislative policy and delegates the subsidiary or ancillary powers to the delegated or subordinate authorities to carry out the legislative policy.35 It is now a settled legal principle that the legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions to the delegated authority.36 The legislature can entrust subsidiary or ancillary legislation to the delegate. Before such delegation, the legislature should enunciate the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegated authority.37 As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.38

# 28. Although delegated legislation enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, it does not enjoy the same immunity as the parent legislation. It is now well established39 that delegated legislation can be challenged on the following grounds:

• (i) lack of legislative competence to make delegated legislation;

• (ii) violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution;

• (iii) violation of any provision of the Constitution;

• (iv) failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act;

• (v) repugnance to any other enactment; and

• (vi) manifest arbitrariness.

# 29. Modern legislation often contains provisions enabling the delegate of the legislature to frame subordinate legislation. The statutory provision for delegation is often couched in general terms empowering the delegate the power to frame rules “to carry out the purposes of this Act” or a particular segment of the statute contained in a Chapter. The general provision is then followed by a provision enumerating specific matters on which the delegate may frame rules. A similar legislative scheme is reflected in Sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates Act. Where a rule-making power is conferred upon the delegate in general terms, a subsequent enumeration of matters on which the delegate may frame rules is illustrative and does not limit the scope of the general power.40 The enumerated matters in such a situation provide guidelines for the delegated authority while framing rules in exercise of the general power.41

--------------------------------

34 Mahachandra Prasad Singh (Dr.) v. Bihar Legislative Council, (2004) 8 SCC 747 [13]

35 In re Delhi Laws Act 1912, (1951) SCC 568 [22]

36 Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 27 [4]

37 Harishankar Bagla v. State of MP, (1954) 1 SCC 978 [12]

38 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 13 [13], [71]

39 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 [77]; State of Tamil Nadu v. P Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 [15]

40 Azfal Ullah v. State of U P, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 76 [13]; Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co.Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 75 [18].

41 D K Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20 [33]

———--------------------------------