Full Judgement
Ramesh Birch & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1989] INSC 136 (21 April 1989)
Rangnathan, S. Rangnathan, S. Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)
CITATION: 1990 AIR 560 1989 SCR (2) 629 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 430 JT 1989 (2) 483 1989 SCALE (1)1489
ACT:
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: s. 87--Power to extend enactments to Union Territory of Chandigarh--Delegation of to the Executive--Validity of--Held, not a case of abdication or effacement of legislative power--Contains sufficient declaration of guideline--Power to extend future laws and amendments necessary corollary.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act 1985-Extension of to Union Territory of Chandigarh by Central Government Notification dated December 15, 1986--Validity of.
Constitution of India, Article 246(4)--Executive--Power of adaptation by extension of laws to Union Territory of Chandigarh by notification--Constitutional validity of.
Administrative Law: Central Government Notification dated December 15, 1986--Extension of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 to Union Territory of Chandigarh--Nature and scope of--Whether suffers from vice of impermissible delegation.
HEAD NOTE:
Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 empowered the Central Government to extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thought fit, to the Union Territory of Chandigarh any enactment which was in force in a State at the date of the notification. Section 89 provided for adaptation and modification by the appropriate Government of any law made before the appointed day, whether by way of repeal or amendment, for application in relation to the State of Punjab or Haryana or to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh or Chandigarh before the expiration of two years. The State of Punjab, of which the Union Territory of Chandigarh originally formed part, was then governed by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Section 2(j) of that Act defined 'urban area' as any area administered by a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town committee, or a notified area committee or any area declared by the State Government by notification to be an urban area for the purposes of the Act.
630 The Central Government had issued under s. 89 of the Reorganisation Act, the Punjab Reorganisation (Chandigarh) (Adaptation of Laws on State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968 with effect from 1st November, 1966 Paragraph 4 of which directed that in all the existing laws, in its application to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, any reference to the State of Punjab should be read as a reference to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In exercise of the power conferred by s. 2(j) of the Rent Act, the Central Government had also issued on 13th October, 1972 a notification declaring the area comprising Chandigarh to be an "urban area" for the purpose of that Act.
This notification was, however, quashed by the High Court in Harkishan Singh v. Union, AIR 1975 P & H 160, on the ground that no notification had been issued prior to 1st November, 1966 under s. 2(j) declaring Chandigarh to be an urban area, and there was no notification under s. 87 making the 1949 Act operative in Chandigarh with the necessary adaptation. Thereupon, Parliament enacted the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974.
Section 3 of that Act extended to Chandigarh the 1949 Act subject to modifications specified in the schedule with retrospective effect from 4th November, 1972 with a view to regularies all proceedings for eviction which might have been initiated during the interregnum. These included a modification of the definition of 'urban areas' as including the area comprising Chandigarh, as defined in s. 2 of the Capital of Punjab (Development Regulation) Act, 1952, and such other areas comprised in the Union Territory of Chandigarh as the Central Government may by notification declare to be urban for the purposes of the Act.
In 1982 Parliament passed the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982 effecting certain amendments in the 1949 Act in its application to Chandigarh.
In 1985 the Legislature of the State of Punjab enacted East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 to make the 1949 Act more effective. This amendment came into force with effect from 16th November, 1985.
By a notification dated 15th December, 1986 purportedly in exercise of its power under s. 87 of the Reorganisation Act the Central Government extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the provisions of the 1985 Act as in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned therein, with 631 the result that while the provisions of the 1949 Act had been brought into force with effect from 4th November, 1972 by the Act of Parliament, the provisions of the 1985 Act had been extended to the said territory by means of a Notification of the Central Government issued under s. 87. The High Court upheld the validity of the said notification.
In these appeals by special leave and the writ petitions it was contended for the appellants/petitioners that in the purported exercise of its power under Article 246(4) of the Constitution, the Parliament could not delegate its legislative function in favour of an executive authority to such an extent as to amount to an abdication of its legislative function; that by enacting s. 87, Parliament instead of legislating for the Union Territory had left it to the Central Government to decide for all time to come what should be the law in force in that Territory; whereas s. 89 gives a limited transitory power to the Central Government to adapt existing laws within a period of two years; that such adaptation could hold the field only until they were altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or authority; that s. 87 confers on the executive government a wide power of choice, for application to Chandigarh, of not only one legislative enactment on any subject in operation in various parts of the country but also groups of provisions from one or more of them and thus enforce a law which would be an amalgam of various statutory provisions; that there was no legislative guidance as to the manner in which these choices should be exercised by the executive; that s. 87 enables extension by Government notification even of any legislation which might have come into force in any part of India at any time between 1966 and the date of the notification; that the effect, therefore, of s. 87 could be that the entire legislation for the Union Territory in respect of any particular subject would entirely depend upon the fancy of the Central Government without any sort of legislative or parliamentary application of mind; that a power to exercise such wide power could not be described as a ministerial power, it is essential legislative power; that these facets of s. 87 clearly render it an instance of excessive delegation by Parliament to executive amounting in effect, to the total abdication of its legislative powers in regard to Chandigarh.
It was further contended that s. 87, on its proper construction, permits the extension of the laws of another State to Chandigarh only so long as there is a vacuum of.
laws on any particular subject; that once Parliament itself steps in and assumes legislative responsibilities in respect of that subject, a transplantation of laws from elsewhere by extension is neither necessary nor valid; that as early as 1974 Parliament having applied its mind and legislated in respect of landlord632 tenant matters for the Union Territory, it was for Parliament and Parliament alone to legislate on the subject thereafter; that by purporting to extend by an executive notification under s. 87 the provisions of the 1985 Act to Chandigarh what the Central Government had really done was to modify or amend an existing parliamentary law operating already in the State, which was impermissible, and that the notification dated 15th December, 1986 having thus exceeded the purview of s. 87 it was, therefore, ultra vires.
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petitions,
HELD: 1.1 Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 should be interpreted constructively so as to permit its object being achieved rather than in a manner that will detract from its efficacy or purpose. So construed, its validity has to be upheld. [683C]
1.2 It is impossible to carry on the government of a modern State with its infinite complexities and ramifications without a large devolution of power and delegation of authority. While Parliament should, therefore, have ample and extensive powers of legislation, these should include a power to entrust some of those functions and powers to another body or authority. Such entrustment, however, could not be so extensive as to amount to abdication or effacement. The legislatures cannot wash their hands off their essential legislative function of laying down the legislative policy with sufficient clearness and enunciating the standards which are to be enacted into a rule of law. This function cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is only the task of subordinate legislation which is by its very nature ancillary to the statute which delegates the power to make it and which must be within the policy and framework of the guidance provided by the legislature. [668G-H; 669C-D]
1.3 Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act did not cross the line beyond which delegation amounts to abdication and self-effacement. It was not the power to make laws that was delegated. The provision only conferred a power on the executive to determine, having regard to the local conditions prevalent in the Union Territory, which one of several laws, all approved by one or the other of the legislatures in the country, would be the most suited to Chandigarh. The power given as such was more in the nature of ministerial than in the nature of legislative power because all that the Government had to do was to study the laws and make selection out of them. Thus viewed, it was not really an unguided and arbitrary power. [675F-G] 633 In re Delhi Laws Act, [1951] SCR 747 applied.
Registrar of Cooperative Societies v. Kunhambu [1980] 2 S.C.R. 260; R. v. Burah, [1878] 51.A. 178; Jatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihar & Ors., [1949] FCR 595;
Harishankar Bagla & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 SCR 380; Rajnarain Singh v. The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna & Anr., [1955] 1 SCR 290; Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, [1957] SCR 605; Pandit Banarsi Das v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [1959] SCR 427; The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar v. The State of Ajmer, [1955] 1 SCR 735; The Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona, [1959] 2 Supp. SCR 71; Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan v. Union of India, [1960] 2 SCR 671; Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay & Ors., [1961] 1 SCR 341; Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, [1962] 2 SCR 125; Shama Rao v. The Union Territory of Pondichery, [1967] 2 SCR 650; Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad & Anr. v. The State Of Bombay & Anr. [1962] 2 SCR 659; Corporation of Calcutta & Anr. v. Liberty Cinema, [1965] 2 SCR 477, Devi Das Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1967] 3 SCR 557; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills, Delhi & Anr., [1968] 3 SCR 251; Sita Ram Bishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1972] 2 SCR 141; Hira Lal Rattan Lal etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr. etc. etc., [1973] 2 SCR 502; Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. The Ass,. Commissioner of Sales Far & Ors., [1974] 2 SCR 879; M.K. Papiah & Sons. v. The Excise Commissioner & Anr., [1975] 3 SCR 607; Brii Sundar Kapoor v. First Additional District Judges, [1980] I SCC 651 and Sprigg. v. Sigcau, [1897] AC 238, referred to.
2.1 Section 87 was quite valid even on the policy and guidelines theory. It is not necessary that the legislature should "dot all the t's" and cross all the t's" of its policy. It is sufficient if it gives the broadest indication of a general policy of the legislature. [673E-F]
2.2 The policy behind s. 87 seems to be that it was necessitated by changes resulting In territories coming under the legislative jurisdiction of the Centre. These were territories situated In the midst of contiguous territories which had a proper legislature. They were small territories falling under the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament, which had hardly sufficient time to look after the details of all their legislative needs and requirements. To require or expect Parliament to legislate 634 for them would have entailed a disproportionate pressure on its legislative schedule. It would also have meant the unnecessary utilisation of the time of a large number of members of Parliament for, except the few members returned to Parliament from the Union Territory none else was likely to be interested in such legislation. In such a situation the most convenient course of legislating for them was the adaptation by extension of laws in force in other areas of the country. [673F; 674A-B]
2.3 There could have been no objection to the legislation if it had provided that the laws of one of the contiguous States should be extended to Chandigarh. But such a provision would have been totally inadequate to meet the situation for two reasons. There might have been more than one law in force on a subject in the contiguous States-say one in Punjab, one in PEPSU and one in Himachal Pradesh etc.-and Parliament was anxious that Chandigarh should have the benefit of that one of them which would most adequately have met the needs of the situation in that territory. Or, again, there might have been no existing law on a particular subject in any of the continuous 3teas which was why the power had to include the power of extending the laws of any State of India. While in a very strict sense this might have involved a choice, it was in fact, and in general run of cases. only a decision on suitability for adaptation rather than choice of a policy. It was a delegation not of policy, but of matters of detail for a meticulous appraisal of which Parliament had no time. Even if it be assumed that this involved a choice of policy, the restriction of such policy to one that was approved by Parliament or a State Legislature constituted a sufficient declaration of guideline within the meaning of the "policy-guideline theory." [675GH; 676A-C] In re Delhi Laws Act, [1951] SCR 747 referred to.
3. Once it is held that the delegation of a power to extend a present existing law is justified, a power to extend future laws is a necessary corollary. If Parliament had no time to apply its mind to the existing law initially to be adapted, it could have hardly found time to consider the amendments from time to time engrafted on it in the State of its origin. It would then seem only natural as a necessary corollary that the executive should be permitted to extend future amendments to those laws as well. [676D-E] In re Delhi Laws Act, [1951] SCR 747 referred to.
4.1 The concept of vacuum is as much relevant to a case where there is absence of a particular provision in an existing law as to a case 635 where there is no existing law at all in the Union Territory on a subject. For instance, if Parliament had not enacted the 1974 Act but had only enacted an extension of the Transfer of Property Act to Chandigarh, it could not have been said that a subsequent notification cannot extend the provisions of the 1949 Act to Chandigarh simply because the subject of leases was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, which had been already extended and there, was, therefore, no "vacuum" left which could be filled in by such extension. Again, suppose, initially, a Rent Act was extended by Parliament which did not contain a provision regarding one of the grounds on which a landlord could seek evictionsay, one enabling the owner to get back his house for reoccupation-and then the Government thought that another enactment containing such a provision also be extended, it could not perhaps be said that the latter was a matter on which there was no legislation enacted in the Territory and that the extension of the latter enactment only filled up a void or vacancy. Again, suppose the provisions of a general code like. say, the Code of Civil Procedure were extended to the Union Territory. In that case s.87 could not be construed so as to preclude the extension of a later amendment to one of the rules to one of the orders of the C.P.C. merely on the ground that it will have the effect of varying or amending an existing law. There is no-warrant to thus unduly restrict the scope of a provision like s. 87. [682D-H]
4.2 The extension of an enactment which makes additions to the existing law would thus also be permissible under s. 87 of the Reorganisation Act, so long as it does not, expressly or impliedly repeal or conflict with, or is not repugnant to, an already existing law. [683A-B] In the instant case, the extension of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh only added provisions in respect of aspects not covered by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 and in a manner not inconsistant therewith. [683F] Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, [1976] 2 SCR 795 and Hari Shankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 SCR 380 referred to.
5. A notification while extending a law can make only such modifications and restrictions in the law extended as are of an incidental, ancillary or subservient nature and as do not involve substantial deviations therefrom. In the instant case, the 1985 Act has been extended as 636 it is, with only very minor modifications. The notification dated 15th December. 1986 was, therefore, quite valid and not liable to be struck down. [684E-F] Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, [1976] 2 SCR 785; referred to and Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, [1980] 1 SCR 854;
distinguished.
6. Any addition, however, small does amend or vary the existing law but so long as it does not really detract from or conflict with it, there is no reason why it should not stand alongside the existing law. In the instant case the modifications introduced by the 1985 Act in the 1949 Act, as were reenacted by the 1974 Act were minor modifications and restrictions. They do not incorporate substantial changes in the scheme of the pre-existing law. Both sets of provisions can stand together and effectively supplement each other.
[684F, H] Hari Shankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 SCR 380 and Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, [1976] 2 SCR 795 referred to.
7. There is a very crucial difference between s. 87 and 89 in as much as within the period of two years mentioned in s. 89, the Central Government could while adapting preexisting laws make any changes by way of repeal or amendment. But s. 87, though capable of enforcement indefinitely, confers a more limited power. It can be invoked only to extend laws, already in existence, to the Union Territory and cannot make any substantial changes therein. The power under s. 89 is limited in time but extensive in scope, while under s. 87 the power is indefinite in point of duration but very much more restricted in its scope. Therefore, resort to s. 87 did not render s. 89 redundant. [686E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2448 of 1989 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 736 of 1987.
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Harbhawan Walia, Kapil Sibal, M.S. Gujral, Anil Dev Singh, M.R. Sharma, D.V. Sehgal, Naresh Bakshi, R. Bana, Jitendra Sharma, S.M. Satin, S.K. Mehta, D. Mehta, Atul Nanda, P.N. Pun, B.B.
Sawhney, M.C. Dhingra, A.K. Gupta, T.C. Sharma, Mrs. Sushma Suri, Ms. Indu Goswami, R.S. Yadav, Manoj Prasad, Manoj Swarup M.L. Verma, S. Bagga, D.S. Gupta, B.R. Kapur, Anis Ahmad Khan, S. Sehgal and 637 N.K. Aggarwal for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. This is a batch of appeals and writ petitions challenging the validity of a notification issued on.15.12.1986 by the Central Government under section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (Act of Parliament No. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the Reorganisation Act'.
By this notification, the Central Government purported to extend to the Union Territory of Chandigarh hereinafter referred to also as 'Chandigarh'--the provisions of the East' Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act'), as it was in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union, AIR 1988 P & H 281 upheld the validity of the above notification and hence the special leave petitions. The writ petitions have been directly filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification. In view of the importance of the question involved, we have heard the parties on the merits of the cases. We, therefore, grant special leave in the special leave petitions and rule nisi in the writ petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals and the writ petitions by this common judgment.
Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act is in the following terms:
"87. Power to extend enactment to Chandigarh--The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with such restrictions or modifications as it thinks fit, to the Union Territory of Chandigarh any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the notification." There are other provisions of this Act which will be referred to later. But it is necessary to refer to s. 87 here for a specific purpose and that is to point out that the provisions of section 87 are pari materia with the provisions of Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 19 12 and Section 2 of the Ajmer Marwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, which, for convenience, we shall refer to as Act I and Act II respectively. These provisions read as follows:
"Section 7 of Act 1: The Provincial Government may, by 638 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 Act H: The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend to the province of Ajmer Marwara 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." It is also necessary here to contrast the above two provisions with section 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to, for purposes of convenience, as Act III). That provision reads as follows:
"Section 2 of Act 111: The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend to any Part C State (other than Coorg and the Amendment and Nicobat Islands) or 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." The reference to these provisions is being made at this stage because the validity of section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and section 2 of Ajmer Marwara (Extension of Laws) Act 1947 were upheld by this court in the decision reported as In re Delhi Laws Act, [1951] S.C.R. 747. The decision also upheld the validity of the first part of section 2 of Act III but struck down the second part of that provision (underlined above) as vitiated by the vice of excessive delegation. A good deal of the arguments addressed before us naturally turned on the ratio and effect of the decision of this Court in the Delhi Laws Act case (supra), but, before turning to the arguments, it is necessary to give a brief history of s. 87, the interpretation of which is presently in question.
When the Constitution of India came into force on 26th January, 1950, the component units of the Indian Union were grouped into four 639 types of territories. There Were nine States in Part A (one of which was Punjab, earlier known as East Punjab), nine States in Part B (which included Pepsu), ten States in Part C (which included Himachal Pradesh) and only one State, namely, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in Part D. At this stage, although several of the former Indian States had acceded to the Indian Union, the process of their integration as component units of the Indian Union was not complete. Some units were accepted as units of the Union in the form in which they existed at the time of independence while some were formed by grouping together one or more of the former princely States. After the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission in 1955, the Constitution was amended to classify the units of the Indian Union into States and Union Territories.
At the time of the 1956 reorganisation one State of Punjab was created by merging the erstwhile States of Pepsu and Punjab. In 1966 a new State of Haryana was created by carrying out certain territories from the State of Punjab.
Certain hill areas of the Punjab were merged with the adjoining Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. A new Union Territory of Chandigarh was carved out which became the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana. The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 gave effect to these proposals. Sections 3 and 4 dealt with the delimitation of the territories of the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh. One of the important aspects of the reorganisation, in respect of which specific statutory provision was needed, was regarding the applicability of laws to the various territories which underwent reoganisation. This was effected by Part X of the Reorganisation Act comprising of sections 86 to 97. It is however sufficient for our present purposes to refer to the provisions contained in sections 87 to 90. These provisions were in the following terms:
Section 87: Power to extend enactments to Chandigarh set out earlier.
Section 88: Territorial extent of laws-The Provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Punjab shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within the State immediately before 1 the appointed day.
640 Section 89: Power to adapt laws-For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the State of Punjab or Haryana or to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh or Chandigarh of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate Government may, before the expiration of two years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority.
Section 90: Power to construe laws-(1) Notwithstanding that no provision or insufficient provision has been made under section 89 for the adaptation of a law made before the appointed day, any court, tribunal or authority, required or empowered to enforce such law may, for the purpose of facilitating its application in relation to the State of Punjab or Haryana, or to the Union of territory of Himachal Pradesh or Chandigarh construe the law in such manner, without affecting the substance, as may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority.
(2) Any reference to the High Court of Punjab in any law shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed, on and from the appointed day, as a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The dispute in this batch of cases is regarding the applicability of certain rent laws to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The territories originally comprised in the former Province of East Punjab--later designated as the State of Punjab--were governed by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'principal Act' or the '1949 Act'). This Act applied to all urban areas in the State of Punjab. Section 2(j) of that Act defined 'urban area' as any area administered by a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town committee or a notified area committee or any area declared by the State Government by notification to be an urban area for the purposes of the Act. The Central Government had earlier issued, under section 89, the Punjab Reorganisation (Chandigarh) (Adaptation of Laws on State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968 w.e.f. 641 1.11.66. Paragraph 4 of the Order directed that in all the existing laws, in its application to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, any reference to the State of Punjab should be read as a reference to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and para 2(1)(b) of the Order defined the expression 'existing law'. The Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by section 2(j) of the principal Act, issued on 13.10.72 a notification declaring the area comprising Chandigarh to be an 'urban area' for the purposes of the principal Act. The notification was published in the Gazette of India on 4.11.72. This notification was however quashed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court by its decision in the case of Harkishan Singh v. Union, AIR 1975 P & H 160. That was on the short ground that, as no notification had been issued prior to 1.11.66 under s. 2(j) declaring Chandigarh to be an urban area, the Act could not be said to have been in force within the said area prior to 1.11.66. Neither s. 88 not the notification of 13.10.72 could, it was held, be effective to make the principal Act operative in Chandigarh unless it had first been applied to the Union Territory of Chandigarh or any part thereof by a notification under s. 87 with the necessary adaptation. This decision, of a Full Bench of the High Court, was rendered on 9.10.1974.
Two courses were open to the Government to set right the lacunae pointed out by the High Court. The first, as pointed out by the Full Bench, was to extend the principal Act to Chandigarh by a notification under s. 87. The second was to invoke the legislative powers of Parliament available in respect of Chandigarh under article 246(4) of the Constitution to enact a legislation for this purpose. But it was important that any corrective measure had to be made retrospective in its operation if the large number of suits for eviction that had been filed in the meanwhile on the strength of the notification and were pending disposal in various courts were to be saved from being rendered nonmaintainable consequent on the decision of the High Court.
Presumably for this reason, the second of the above courses was adopted and Parliament enacted the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act (Central Act 54 of 1974) hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Act'.
Section 3 of this Act provided for the enforcement of the principal Act in Chandigarh. It reads:
"Section 3: Extension of East Punjab Act 111 of 1949 to Chandigarh-Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the Act shall, subject to the 642 modifications specified in the Schedule, be in force in, and be deemed to have been in force with effect from 4th day of November, 1972 in the UniOn Territory of Chandigarh, as if the provisions of the Act so modified had been included in and formed part of this section and as if this section had been in force at all material times." Three features of the above legislation may be emphasised at this stage. The first was that, though this purported to extend the principal Act to Chandigarh, it was in truth and substance a Parliamentary enactment applicable to Chandigarh incorporating within itself by reference, for purposes of convenience and to avoid repetition, all the provisions of the principal Act. The second was that the Act was given retrospective effect from 4.11.72, the date on which the previous notification under section 89 had been gazetted with a view to regularise all proceedings for eviction which might have been initiated during the interregnum. Thirdly, the principal Act was re-enacted subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule. These included a modification of the definition of 'urban area' as including the area comprising Chandigarh as defined in section 2 of the Capital of Punjab (Development Regulation) Act, 1952 and such other areas comprised in the Union Territory of Chandigarh as the Central Government may by notification declare to be urban for the purposes of the Act.
Before turning to the issues before us, it is necessary to refer to three subsequent developments:
(i) In 1976, when Parliament was not in session, the President of India promulgated Ordinance 14 of 1976 on 17.12.76. By this Ordinance, the 1949 Act, as in force in Chandigarh, was amended in the following respects:
(a) In section 13, an exlanation and subsection (4A) were introduced;
(b) New sections 13A. 18A and 18B were inserted;
(c) A new sub-section (2A) in section 19 was inserted;
(d) A Schedule II prescribing the form of summons to be issued in proceedings under the newly inserted s. 13A was added. This ordinance was allowed to lapse and was not enacted into law thereafter.
643 (ii) In 1982, Parliament passed the East Punjab Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act (No. 42) of 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1982 Act'). By this Act, two amendments were effected to the principal Act in its application to Chandigarh. One was a formal one replacing reference to "East Punjab" by a reference to "Punjab". The second was the substitution of a new definition of "non-residential building" in s. 2(d) of the Act. This amendment Act did not, however, incorporate the amendments earlier effected in the principal Act (as in force in Chandigarh) by the Ordinance of 1976 which had lapsed, though this opportunity could have been availed of by Parliament had it been so minded, to introduce those amendments as well.
(iii) In 1985, the provisions of the principal Act were amended in their application to the State of Punjab. The legislature of the State of punjab enacted Punjab Act 2 of 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act') by which the principal Act was amended to insert therein new sections 13A, 18A and 18B and a new Second Schedule and to make certain amendments in sections 13 and 19 of the Act. These amendments were substantially the same as those that had been effected by the Ordinance of 1976 except that a new definition of "specified landlord" was added in s.
2 and the other provisions verbally altered in consequence. This amendment came into force w.e.f. 16.11. 1985.
When the last of the above developments took place, the Central Government considered it necessary to extend the 1985 Act to the territory of Chandigarh. In order to effectuate this object, it issued a notification dated 15.12.86 purportedly in exercise of its powers under section 87 of the Reorganisation Act. By this notification the Central Government extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the provisions of the 1985 Act as in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification (i.e. to say as on 15.12.1986) and subject to the modifications mentioned therein. The resultant position is that while the provisions of the principal Act had been brought into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh w.e.f. 4.11.72 by an Act of Parliament, the provisions of the 1985 Act have been extended to the territory of Chandigarh by means of a notification of the Central Government issued under s. 87. The short question posed before us is whether the latter "extension" is permissible and valid in law.
644 Ex facie, the impugned notification appears to be intra vires s. 87. The 1985 Act is an enactment in force in a State on the date of the notification and s. 87 clearly permits the Central Government to extend it to Chandigarh.
If the petitioners/appellants seek to challenge its validity, they have either to contend that s. 87 itself is ultra vires the Constitution or that, though s. 87 is a valid provision, on a proper construction thereof, the notification travels beyond the area of extension permitted Under it and is hence invalid. Both these contentions have been urged before us. Sri Gujral had so much confidence in the latter argument that he had made it his principal argument, taking up the former as a plea in the alternative. But young Sri Swarup boldly concentrated on attacking the validity of s. 87 while also lending support to Sri Gujral's principal argument as an argument in the alternative. We shall proceed to examine these two contentions.
The argument contesting the validity of s. 87 proceeds on the following lines. The main premise of the argument is that, under Article 246(4) of the Constitution, Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on matters enumerated in the State List and Concurrent List (i.e. List II and List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution) in respect of a Union Territory except where (as in the case, say, of Pondicherry) the territory has a legislative assembly, in which event the power will vest in such assembly under s. 18 of the Government of Union Territories Act (18 of 1963).
There being no legislative assembly set up for Chandigarh, Parliament and Parliament alone has any legislative power with regard to that territory. This power, however, plenary and extensive, cannot be self effacing. In purported exercise of such power, Parliament cannot delegate its legislative function in favour of an executive authority to such an extent as to amount to an "abdication" of such legislative function. The argument is that this is exactly what has been done under s. 87. By enacting s. 87, Parliament, instead of legislating for the Union Territory, has left it to the Central Government to decide for all time to come what should be the laws in force in that territory. This, it is said, is clear from the extraordinary ambit of the powers conferred by s. 87 on the Central Government in three important directions:
(i) S. 87 is not transitional in nature but confers an all time power on the executive. This will be clear if one contrasts it with s. 89. Section 89 gives a limited power to the Central Government to adapt existing laws within a period of two years. Though, as will be noticed later, s. 89 is wider in certain respects, it is clearly a transitory provision intended to enable the Central Government to tide over the 645 difficulties caused by the sudden creation of a new territory and the immediate need for having laws applicable therto.
The transitoriness is indeed emphasised by the concluding words of s. 89, (which are really superfluous) that the adaptation will hold the field only until they are altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or authority.
But s. 87 empowers the Central Government to extend any legislation to Chandigarh at any time: even today, twenty three years after the passing of Reorganisation Act.
(ii) The second feature of s. 87 is this. Under it, the Central Government could extend to the Union Territory any law in force in any part of India. For instance, it could be the Rent Control Act in force in Punjab or the Rent Control Act in operation in a distant State like the State of Tamil Nadu. It could perhaps extend to the Union Territory some provisions of the rent control legislation in one State side by side with certain other provisions of legislations in force in any other State or States and thus enforce a law which would be an "amalgam" of various statutory provisions in force in various parts of the country. Though a concession against this possibility was made in Delhi Laws Act case (1951 SCR 747 at p. 1005), it would seem to be possible if such provisions are contained in independent enactments.
Here, for e.g. the 1949 Act and the 1985 Act, both of Punjab, have been made applicable to Chandigarh. But suppose, after the provisions of the 1949 Act had been made applicable to Chandigarh by the 1974 Act, an amendment Act of the nature presently in question had been introduced not in the Punjab but, say, in Kerala, there is nothing in the language of s. 87 to prohibit the Central Government from extending the Kerala Amendment Act to Chandigarh to stand side by side with the 1974 Act. In other words, the section confers on the executive government a wide power of choice, for application to Chandigarh, of not only one legislative enactment on any subject from among various enactments on that subject in operation in various parts of the country but also of groups of provisions from one or more of them. There is no legislative guidance as to the manner in which these choices should be exercised by the executive government.
(iii) The laws that can be extended to the Union Territory under s. 87 would include not only the laws in force in any State in India on the date of the Reorganisation Act (i.e. 1.11.66) but any Act that may come into force in those States upto the date of the notification. If it had been restricted to laws in force as on the day the Reorganisation Act came into force, one could at least say that Parliament could be attributed with a knowledge of the various provisions in existence in 646 the various states, and to have decided, as a matter of policy that anyone of them could be good enough for Chandigarh and hence left it to the executive government to choose and extend any one of them for application to the territory.
But section 87 goes further and enables extension, by Government notification, even of any legislation which might come into force in any part of India at any time between 1966 and the date of the notification. Parliament, while enacting the Reorganisation Act, could certainly have had no knowledge or even inkling of possible laws that might be enacted in future in any part of the country on any subject.
The effect, therefore, of s. 87 would be that the entire legislation for the Union Territory, in respect of any particular subject, would entirely depend upon the fancy of the Central Government without any sort of legislative or parliamentary application of mind, except the fact that some legislature in some part of the country has considered the law good enough for the conditions prevailing in that territory. Learned counsel contends that these facets of section 87 clearly render it an instance of excessive delegation by Parliament to executive amounting, in effect, to the total abdication by Parliament of its legislative powers in regard to Chandigarh.
The problem posed before us is, what Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Registrar of Cooperative Societies v. Kunhambu, [1980] 2 SCR 260 described as, the "perennial, nagging problem of delegated legislation and the so called Henry VIII clause".
This is an issue on which there is an abundance of authority, of even larger Benches of this Court. The judgments in R.v. Burah, [1878] 51.A. 178; Jatindra Nath Gupta, [1949] FCR 595; the Delhi Laws Act case, [1951] SCR 747; Hari Shankar Bagla, [1955] 1 SCR 380; Rajnarain Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 290; Sardar Inder Singh, [1957] SCR 605; Banarsi Das, [1959] 1 SCR 427; Edward Mills, [1959] 1 SCR 735; Western India Theatres, [1959] Supp 2 SCR 71; Hamdard Dawakhana, [1960] 2 SCR 671; Vasantlal Maghanbhai, [1961] 1 SCR 341; Jyoti Prashad, [1962] 2 SCR 125; Shama Rao, [1962] 2 SCR 650; Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad, [1962] 2 SCR 659; Liberty Cinema, [1965] 2 SCR 477; Devi Dass, [1967] 3 SCR 557; Birla Cotton, [1968] 3 SCR 251; Sitaram Bishambar Dayal, [1972] 2 SCR 141; Hiralal Ratanlal, [1973] 2 SCR 502; Gwalior Rayon, [1974] 2 SCR 879; Papiah, [1975] 3 SCR 607 and Kunhambu, [1980] 2 SCR 260 and Brij Sunder Kapoor, [1989] 1 SCC 561 can be referred to for a detailed discussion and application of the relevant principles in the context of various kinds of legislative provisions. It is unnecessary, for our present purposes, to undertake a detailed examination of the several opinions expressed in these cases. Suffice it to say that these decisions have been interpreted as holding that the power of 647 Parliament to entrust legislative powers to some other body or authority is not unbridled and absolute. It must lay down essential legislative policy and indicate the guidelines to be kept in view by that authority in exercising the delegated powers. In delegating such powers, Parliament cannot "abdicate" its legislative functions in favour of such authority.
Doubts have been expressed in some quarters as to the correctness of the principle indicated above. It has been suggested that, had the question been res integra or even if one carefully analysed the observations made in these various cases, there is much to be said for a different view advocated by the Privy Council in R. v. Burah, [1878] 51.A.
178 and adhered to by it ever since. This view is that, given the present system of Parliamentary democracy, the extensive range of governmental functions today and the kind and quantity of legislation which modern public opinion requires, the legislatures under the Constitution should be held to be supreme and unrestricted in the matter of legislation and should not be prohibited from delegating some of their powers of legislation to such other agencies, bodies or authorities as they may choose, so long as they do not altogether divest themselves of their legislative power and confer them on another and so long as they retain the power, whenever it pleases them, to remove the agency they have created and set up another or take the matter directly into their own hands. The reasons put forward in support of this line of thought are these:
(1) The whole doctrine of excessive delegation is based either on the doctrine of separation of powers or on the doctrine of the law of agency: "delegata potestas non potest delegari", neither of which can validly apply to the constitutional context we are concerned with.
(2) The Privy Council, ever since its leading decision in R. v. Burah, [1878] 51.A.
178, has taken this view consistently. This is also the view to which American and Australian courts have veered round in recent years.
(3) The doctrine enunciated in the above cases is so difficult of practical application and has resulted in such a large number of separate judgments that litigants are encouraged to raise the plea in respect of every conceivable piece of delegation banking on an off chance of being ultimately successful.
648 (4) The magnitude of the controversies raised on this issue is so great that legislations, if invalidated on this ground, have to be invariably validated with retrospective effect. The result is that, on the one hand, the implementation of important legislations is held up due to interim orders for the long period of pendency of the litigation and even the final determination, on the other, achieves no practical result. In short, the consideration of such issues is practically a waste of judicial time.
5. The doctrine is based on the theory that it is the legislature and not the executive that has to apply its mind to the basis of all legislation. Judicial dicta are not wanting which emphasise that this is a theory wholly unrelated to the practical realities of the modern functioning of a cabinet system of Government.
6. An examination of the cases decided on this principle show that it is very difficult to define the scope of "essential legislative function" which cannot be delegated. In the ultimate analysis, only lip service is paid to the doctrine of legislative policy and guidance and courts are inclined to grab at the weakest of straws as a policy or guideline with which to bale out an impugned piece of legislation rather than invalidate it.
(7) There have been cases where the delegation of the taxing powers has been upheld by drawing on non-existent distinctions such as, for example, one between the delegation of a power to fix the rates of the taxes to be charged on different classes of goods and the power to fix rates of taxes simpliciter.
(8) There is clear inconsistency between Shama Rao, [1962] 2 SCR 650 and the decision in the Delhi Laws Act, case upholding the delegation to the executive of the power to extend not only present but also future laws to a particular territory. Shama Rao does not answer the question posed before it that the validity of such legislation follows on the answer given by Delhi Laws to categories (3) and (4) of Bose J.'s summary of its decision in Rajnarain.
(9) The Indian Statute book contains any number of legislations, on tax matters as well as others, conferring a wide range of delegation of powers and a search for guidelines or policy underlying them may well prove an unending quest.
649 (10) Judicial dicta abound where it has been pointed out that, so long as the legislature has preserved its capacity in tact and retained control over its delegate, so as to be able, at any time, to repeal the legislation and withdraw the authority and discretion it had vested in the delegate, it cannot be said to have abdicated its legislative functions.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Kunhambu, [1980] 2 SCR 260, did not wish to be drawn into the pros and cons of the above line of reasoning. His Lordship observed that the clear trend of a large number of the decisions of this Court was in favour of the "policy" and "guidelines" theory and he was content to adopt the same for the purposes of the case before the Court. This theory, which is capable of being formulated in broad terms, though difficult of practical application to individual cases as and when they arise, can be set out best in the words of Reddy, J. in the above case:
"It is trite to say that the function of the State has long since ceased to be confined to the preservation of the public peace, the exaction of taxes and the defence of its frontiers. It is now the function of the State to secure to its citizens 'social, economic and political justice', to preserve 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship', and to ensure 'equality of status and of opportunity' and 'the dignity of the individual' and the 'unity of the nation'.
That is what the Preamble to our Constitution says and that is what is elaborated in the two vital chapters of the Constitution on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The desire to attain these objectives has necessarily resulted in intense legislative activity touching every aspect of the life of the citizen and the nation. Executive activity in the field of delegated or subordinate legislation has increased in direct, geometric progression. It has to be and it is as it should be. The Parliament and the State Legislatures are not bodies of experts or specialists. They are skilled in the art of discovering the aspirations, the expectations and the needs, the limits to the patience and the acquiescence and the articulation of the views of the people whom they represent. They function best when they concern themselves with general principles, broad objectives and fundamental issues instead of technical and situational intricacies which are better left to better equipped full time expert executive bodies and specialist public 650 servants. Parliament and the State Legislatures have neither the time nor the expertise to be involved in detail and circumstance. Nor can Parliament and the State Legislatures visualise and provide for new strange, unforeseen and unpredictable situations arising from the complexity of modern life and the ingenuity of modern man. That is the raison d'etre for delegated legislation. That is what makes delegated legislation inevitable and indispensable. The Indian Parliament and the State Legislatures are endowed with plenary power to legislate upon any of the subjects entrusted to them by the Constitution, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution itself. The power to legislate carries with it the power to delegate. But excessive delegation may amount to abdication. Delegation unlimited may invite despotism uninhibited. So the theory has been evolved that the legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function. Legislate it must by laying down policy and principle and delegate it may to fill in detail and carry out policy.
The legislature may guide the delegate by speaking through the express provision empowering delegation or the other provisions of the statute, the preamble, the scheme or even the very subject matter of the statute. If guidance there is, wherever it may be found, the delegation is valid. A good deal of latitude has been held to be permissible in the case of taxing statutes and on the same principle a generous degree of latitude must be permissible in the case of welfare legislation, particularly those statutes which are designed to further the Directive Principles of State Policy." The same view was taken by Khanna J. in Gwalior Rayon, [1974] 2 'SCR 879 when,, after reviewing the entire literature on the subject, he observed:
"It would appear from the above that the view taken by this Court in a long chain of authorities is that the legislature in conferring power upon another authority to make subordinate or ancillary legislation must lay down policy, principle, or standard for the guidance of the authority concerned. The said view has been affirmed by Benches of this Court consisting of seven Judges. Nothing cogent, in our opinion, has been brought to our notice as may justify departure from the said view. The binding effect of that 651 view cannot be watered down by the opinion of a writer, however eminent he maybe, nor by observations in foreign judgments made in the context of the statutes with which they were dealing." If this be the consistent view of this court on this thorny issue, Sri Manoj Swarup says, section 87 clearly offends the principle so enunciated, particularly, when one considers the extremely broad sweep of its language. In empowering the executive to extend laws to Chandigarh to the contents of which Parliament has not applied its mind and further in allowing the executive to exercise a choice among several such existing and future laws, Parliament has in fact abdicated its essential legislative functions in relation to the Union Territory in favour of the Central Government and given the go-by to the elaborate procedures and safeguards enacted in the Constitution in regard to the process of legislation by Parliament or a State Legislature.
There would have been considerable force in this contention had it not been for the decision in the Delhi Laws Act case 195 1 SCR 747. As has been pointed out earlier, that decision clearly upheld the validity of s. 7 of Act I, section 2 of Act II and the first part of s. 2 of Act III which did, in relation to Delhi, Ajmer-Marwara and Part C States, exactly that which has been done by s. 87 in relation to Chandigarh despite the fact that some of the judges struck a different line from R.v. Burah, [1878] 51.A 178, refused to accept the theory of absolute freedom for Parliament to delegate its powers and enunciated the "policy-guideline" theory which has been taken up in subsequent decisions of this Court. It is said that there are some difficulties in straightaway treating Delhi Laws Act, [1951] SCR 747 as conclusive of the issue before us. In the first place, that was a decision which reflected the advisory opinion of this Court in a reference made by the President under Art. 143(1) of the Constitution which, technically speaking, is not a binding precedent. Secondly, although five of the seven learned Judges upheld the validity of the provisions referred to above, it is difficult to clearly formulate the principle which emerges therefrom, for, as Patanjali Sastri C.J. observed in Kewal Raning Rawat v. State, [1952] SCR 435:' "While undoubtedly certain definite conclusions were reached by the majority of the judges who took part in the decision in regard to the constitutionality of certain specified enactments, the reasoning in each case was different and it is difficult to say that any particular principle has been laid down by the majority which can be of assistance in the determination of other cases".
652 Thirdly, Shama Rao, [1967] 2 SC 650 is said to be a binding decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court to the contrary and that has to be followed by us.
Since the Delhi Laws Act case, [1951] SCR 747 was concerned with provisions identical in language to the one before us, it is only proper and appropriate for us to refer to the reasoning of the judges in the Delhi Laws Act case in regard to the provisions the validity of which was upheld:
A. Kania CJ. held that all the provisions under consideration were ultra vires to the extent they permitted the extension of Acts other than those of the Central Legislature to the areas in question. His view was that the essentials of a legislative function are the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct and these essentials are the characteristics of a legislature itself. These essentials are preserved when the legislature specifies the basic conclusions of fact upon the ascertainment of which from relevant data by a designated administrative agency it ordains that its statutory command is to be effective. The legislature having thus made its laws, every detail for working it out and for carrying the enactment into operation and effect may be done by the legislature or may be left to another subordinate agency or to some executive officer. His Lordship was further of the opinion that, if full powers to do everything that the legislature can do are conferred on a subordinate authority, although the legislature retains the power to control the action of the subordinate authority by recalling such power or repealing the Acts passed by the subordinate authority, there is an abdication or effacement of the legislature conferring such power. Even such partial "abdication or effacement" is not permissible. The provisions impugned were, therefore, invalid.
B. The salient point in the opinion of Fazal Ali J. are these:
1. Even American Courts, which are fiercely opposed to uncanalised delegation of legislative power to the executive, have been compelled, by practical considerations, to engraft numerous exceptions to the rule and, in laying down such exceptions, have offered various explanations, one of which is this:
"The true distinction ..... is this. The legislature cannot delegate the power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things 653 upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of Government." (P. 814)
2. The true import of the rule against delegation is this:
"This rule in a broad sense involves the principle underlying the maxim, delegatus non potest delegate, but it is apt to be misunderstood and has been misunderstood. In my judgment, all that it means is that the legislature cannot abdicate its legislative functions and it cannot efface itself and set up a parallel legislature to discharge the primary duty with which it has been entrusted. This rule has been recognised both in America and in England ...... " XXX XXX XXX XXX "What constitutes abdication and what class of cases will be covered by that expression will always be a question of fact, and it is by no means easy to lay down any comprehensive formula to define it, but it should be recognised that the rule against abdication does not prohibit the Legislature from employing any subordinate agency of its own choice for doing such subsidiary acts as may be necessary to make its legislation effective, useful and complete".
(P . 819) 3. The conclusions are set but thus:
"(1) The legislature must normally discharge its primary legislative function itself and not through others.
(2) Once it is established that it has sovereign powers within a certain sphere, it must follow as a corollary that it is free to legislate within that sphere in any way which appears to it to be the best way to give effect to its intention and policy in making a particular law, and that it may utilize any outside agency to any extent it finds necessary for doing things which it is unable to do itself or finds it inconvenient to do. In other words, it can do everything which is ancillary to and necessary for the full and effective exercise of its power of legislation.
654 (3) It cannot abdicate its legislative functions, and therefore while entrusting power to an outside agency, it must see that such agency acts as a subordinate authority and does not become a parallel legislature.
(4) The doctrine of separation of powers and the judicial interpretation it has received in America ever since the American Constitution was framed, enables the American courts to check undue and excessive delegation but the courts of this country are not committed to that doctrine and cannot apply it in the same way as it has been applied in America. Therefore, there are only two main checks in this country on the power of the legislature to delegate, these being its good sense and the principle that it should not cross the line beyond which delegation amounts to "abdication and self-effacement". (P. 830-1)
4. The learned Judge recognised that the impugned provisions, at first sight, did appear to be very wide--they were of the same sweeping nature as s. 87 here--and observed.
"Let us overlook for the time being the power to introduce modifications with which I shall deal later, and carefully consider the main provision in the three Acts. The situation with which the respective legislatures were faced when these Acts were passed, was that there were certain State or
