Test: Delegated Legislation - 1 - CLAT PG MCQ

A significant risk of delegating power to the executive for modifying statutes is the potential for ambiguity in law. When the legislature grants broad modification powers without clear guidelines, it can lead to confusion about the scope and application of the law, making it essential for the legislature to articulate policies in clear terms to mitigate such risks.

The case of Arvinder Singh v. State of Punjab emphasized that the legislature must uphold its essential powers and cannot delegate them to the executive. This ruling reinforces the principle of separation of powers and the need for each government branch to exercise its designated functions independently.

Delegated legislation refers to laws created by the executive branch under the authority granted by the legislature. This process allows the legislature to set broad policy frameworks while permitting the executive to fill in the details, often necessary for practical governance.

The need for technical expertise in legislative processes arises from the requirement for specialized knowledge in areas such as environmental regulation, healthcare, and technology. Legislators may not possess the necessary expertise, making it essential to delegate legislative powers to subject matter experts who can effectively handle these complex issues.

The principle of "delegatus non potest delegare" states that a delegate cannot further delegate their powers. This doctrine enforces the idea that the original delegate must maintain the authority and responsibility bestowed upon them, ensuring accountability and preventing the dilution of power. This principle is vital for preserving the integrity of legislative functions and the trust placed in elected representatives.

An overburdened legislature that delegates too many powers without clear guidelines risks creating a situation where the executive holds arbitrary power. This can lead to decisions that are not accountable or aligned with the intent of the legislature, undermining democratic governance and the rule of law.

'Skeleton legislation' refers to laws that set out general principles while delegating the authority to the executive to supply the specific details necessary for implementation. This approach allows for a more adaptable legislative framework, enabling the executive to respond to practical needs while ensuring that the core legislative intent is upheld.

In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1960), the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act due to excessive delegation but emphasized that not all delegation is inherently excessive. The ruling highlighted the necessity of having clear standards to regulate delegated powers, ensuring that legislative intent is maintained while allowing for administrative flexibility.

The significant increase in delegated legislation is primarily due to the need for urgent responses to emerging issues. In times of crisis or when rapid changes are required, delegated legislation enables the executive to act quickly without waiting for the slower legislative process.

The legislature is tasked with enacting laws and establishing legislative policy, which are considered essential functions that cannot be delegated to any other branch of government, including the executive. This is crucial to maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring that elected representatives are responsible for legislative decisions.

The Donoughmore Committee was established in 1929 to examine the practice of delegated legislation in England. Its 1932 report acknowledged the extensive use of delegated legislation and the associated concerns regarding the surrender of parliamentary functions. Despite these concerns, the committee affirmed that delegated legislation is legitimate and constitutionally desirable within certain limits and safeguards.

The executive's primary role in the context of delegated legislation is to administer laws made by the legislature. While the legislature enacts laws, the executive is responsible for implementing those laws and often has the authority to create further rules and regulations under the framework set by the legislature.

In Whitman v. American Trucking Association (2001), the Supreme Court upheld the delegation of legislative powers to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish air quality criteria. The ruling recognized that the delegation allowed for a degree of discretion necessary for the effective implementation of environmental standards, demonstrating a pragmatic approach to modern governance.

In Field v. Clark (1892), the Supreme Court established that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the President. This principle is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the separation of powers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The ruling emphasizes the importance of clearly defined roles within the government, ensuring that legislative authority remains with Congress.

The principle of Modern Complexities acknowledges that due to the intricacies of contemporary governance, the legislature may need to delegate certain functions. However, it emphasizes that the legislature must first set the legislative policy to guide any delegation, ensuring that essential functions remain under its control.

The Delhi Laws case established that the Indian legislature could delegate legislative powers to the executive but outlined important limitations. The ruling emphasized that while delegation is necessary for effective governance, the legislature must retain essential functions, including the power to repeal or modify existing laws and ensure that any delegation does not alter legislative policy.

"Subordinate legislation" is typically utilized for rules made by local authorities under the authority of an Act of Parliament. This form of legislation must comply with the limits set by the parent Act and is used to implement detailed regulations necessary for local governance.

In Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which allowed the President to approve codes of fair competition. The Court determined that the discretion given to the President was virtually unfettered, constituting an uncontrolled delegation of legislative power, thus reinforcing the need for clear standards in delegation.

Lawful delegation means that any power granted to the executive must comply with constitutional provisions. This ensures that while the legislature can delegate certain non-essential functions, it does so within the framework of the law, maintaining its core responsibilities and authority as conferred by the Constitution.

Permissible delegation refers to the transfer of specific powers or responsibilities from the legislature to the executive, allowing for flexibility and efficiency in implementing laws. This delegation is recognized in various statutes, where the legislature establishes a framework while the executive handles the details of implementation. This process enhances the operational capacity of the government while maintaining legislative authority.

The imposition of taxes is a function that cannot be delegated by the legislature, as it is a core legislative power. According to Article 265 of the Constitution, taxes can only be levied or collected by authority of law, which emphasizes the necessity of legislative oversight in tax matters to safeguard against arbitrary executive actions.

The Appointed Day Clause allows the government to specify a date for an Act to come into force. For instance, Section 1(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, empowers the Central Government to decide the effective date of the Act through a notification. This mechanism provides flexibility in the implementation of laws without altering their fundamental provisions.

The government can exempt certain establishments from the provisions of a statute as outlined in Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. This provision allows for flexibility in legislative application, acknowledging that the legislature may not be able to address every unique situation while enforcing the law.

The growth of delegated legislation in England is primarily attributed to the complexity and technicality of various matters. As Parliament faced challenges in addressing intricate issues due to time and resource constraints, it became necessary to delegate legislative responsibilities to the government. This trend reflects the need for more specialized and efficient governance in an increasingly complicated society.

The Statute of Sewers in 1531 is a historical example that illustrates the delegation of legislative power from the legislature to the executive. This statute allowed appointed Commissioners to create, amend, and repeal laws, showcasing an early instance of mixing legislative and administrative powers.

The Henry VIII clause, also known as the 'removal of difficulties' clause, permits the government to modify existing statutes to address unforeseen challenges that arise during the implementation of a law. This clause is intended to enhance the practicality of legislation, though it has faced criticism for potentially allowing executive overreach if not properly regulated.

Excessive delegation raises concerns about popular sovereignty because it can dilute the authority of elected representatives. When the legislature delegates too much power to the executive, it risks allowing non-elected officials to make significant policy decisions, which undermines the democratic principle that the government should be accountable to the people.

One of the main reasons for the rapid growth of delegated legislation in the twentieth century is the expansion of state functions into economic and social spheres. As governments took on more responsibilities and faced complex societal issues, the ability to enact subordinate legislation became essential to address these challenges effectively and efficiently.

When delegating legislative powers, it is crucial to maintain a clear delineation of limits and guidelines. This principle ensures that the executive operates within the boundaries set by the legislature, preventing potential overreach and ensuring that the core legislative objectives are preserved. Properly defined limits help maintain the balance of power between branches of government.

Abdication refers to the complete or partial surrender of legislative power by the legislature to the executive or another agency. This can be problematic as it may lead to the creation of a parallel legislative body, which undermines the constitutional framework that separates powers among branches of government.