Appeal by the State challenging a Kerala High Court decision striking down section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932 as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court held the exemption power was adequately guided by the preamble and objects of the welfare legislation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
260
,
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM AND ANR.
v.
K. K~BU & ORS.
November 2 7, 1979
B
[R. S. S.ARKARIA AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Administrative law-Delegation of legislative power-A ct confers power on Govern1nent to exempt co-operative society from operation of Act-Delegation if excessive-Madras Cooperatire Societies Act 1932, S. 60-Whether void.
•
Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932, empowers the State Government to exempt a registered society from any of the provisions of the Act or to direct· that such provision shall apply toi such society with specified modifications. . d
In the appeal to this Court on the question whether Se~tion 60 of the Act is void on the ground of unconstitutio_nal delegation of legislative power.
HELD : 1. Section 60 is not void on the ground of' excessive delegation of legislative power. [267 CJ
[267 Bl
{
E 3. The Act, a welfare legislation, to facilitate the formation and working of cooperative societies consists of numerous provisions, dealing with registration of societies, rights and liabilities of 1nembers, duties of registered societies, privileges of registered societies, property and funds of registered societies. inquiry and inspection, supersession of committees of societies, dissolution of societies, surcharge and attachment, arbitration etc. The too rigorous application of some of the provisions of the Act may itself occasionally result in frustrating. the very F objects of the Act instead of advancing them. To provide for such situations, the Government was invested by section 60 with a power to relax the occasional rigour of the provisions of the Act and to advance the objects of the Act.
[266 D, G; H 277 Al 4. (i) Parliament and the State Legislatures are endowed \Vith plenary power to legislate upon any of the subjects entrusted to them by the Constitution, subjectl to the limitations Unposed by the Constitution itself. The· power to legislate G carries with it the power to delegate. While excessive delegation may amount to abdication, delegaotion unlimited may invitei despotism uninhibited. The theory has therefore been evolved that the legislature cannot delegate its essential function. [262 H-263 Al
•
(ii) The Parliament and the State Legislatures are not bodies of experts or specialists. They are 8killed in the art of discovering the aspirations, the exB pectations and the needs, the limits to the patience and the aquiescence and the articulation of the views of the people whom they represent. They function best when they concern themselves witli general principles, broad objectives and
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES v. K. KUNHAMBU (Chinnappa Reddy, l.) 261
fundamental issues in.stead &f technical and situational intricacies which are better, left to better equipped full time expert executive bodies and specialist public 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 modem life and the ingenuity of modern' man. That is the raison d'etre for delegated legislation. (262 E-G]
(iii) The Legislatw·e 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 generous degree of latitude must be held permissible in the case of welfare legislation, particularly these statutes which are designed to further the Directive Principles of ~tata Policy. (263 BJ
Delhi I.Aws Act 1912, [1951J SCR 747 : M. K. Papiah & Sons v. Excise Commwioner [1975) 3 SCR 607 : Harishankar Bagla and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1955] 1 S.C.R., p. 380 @ 388 : The Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. The State of A/mer [19551 1 S.C.R. 735 : Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Cl.959] S.C.R. 427: Sardar Inder Singh v. The Stale of Rajasthan, (1959) S.C.R. 605: Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 341 : Jyoti Parslzad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Del/Ji [1962] 2 S.C.R. 125 : Mohammad Hussain Gul'lm Mohammad v. The State of Bombay, [1962) 2 S.C.R. 659, referred to.
&.
8:
c:
I>
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil·Appeal No. 1258 of 1969. From the Judgment and Decree dated 17-2-1969 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 1968.
E·
V. A. Seyid Mohammed and K. M. K. Nair for the Appellant. Ex-Parte for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The perennial, nagging problem of delegated legislation and the so-called Henry VIII clause have again come up for decision in this appeal by the State of Kerala. Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act 1932 and a notification issued under that provision were stru.ck down by the High Court of Kerala on the ground of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Certain. consequential directions were issued by the High Court. Those directions have long since worked themselves out and so the party who invoked the jurisdictin of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has no longer any surviving interest. The State of Kerala is, however, interested in susg the validity of Section 60 and bas fikd. this appeal. ·
c.
Lawyers and judges have never ceased to be interested in the qu~s tion of delegated Iegislatioa and since the Delhi Laws Act case, we
[1980) 2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
262
l\ have been blessed(?) by an abundance of authority, the blessing no~ necessarily unmixe~. We do not wish, in this case, to search fllr the precise principles decided .in the Delhi Laws Act case, nor to consider whether N. K. Papiah & Sons v. Excise· Commissioner(1 ) beats t!:t.e final retreat from the earlier position. For the purposes of this case we are content to accept the "policy" and "guidelines". theory and seek 1l such assistance as we may derive from cases where near identical provisions have been, considered.
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 ex.action of taxes and the defence of its frontiers. It is now the function of the -C State to secure to its citizens 'Social, economic and political justice', to preserve 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship,' arid to ensure 'equity 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 ·D Principles of State Policy. The desire! to attain these objectives has necessarily resulted in intense legislative activity touching every ~pect 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 special' rE ists. They are skilled in the art of discovering the aspirations, the expectations and the needs, the limits to the patience and the acquiescence and tlie 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 bclter ··P equipped full time expert executive bodies and specialist public 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 com-G plexity of modem life and the ingenuity of modem m?n. That is the raison d'etre for delegated legislation. That is what makes delegated legislation inevitable and indispensable. The Indian Parliament and the Stafu 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 ,R legislate cirries with it the power to delegate. But excessive delegation may amount to abdication. Delegation unlimited may invite (1) [1975} 3 S.C.R. 607.
. ?Jo~-13· Tl'i
<:OOPERATJVf SOCIETIES~- K. KUN°!iAMBU (Chinnappa Reddy,!.) 263
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 guid~ the delegate by speaking through the express provision empowering delegation or the other provisions of the statute, the preamble, the scheme or ~ven 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 ~~ of welfare legislation, particularly those statutes which are designed to further the Directive Principles of State Policy.
In Harishankar Bagla and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1) the question arose whether Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, which empowered the Central Government to make orders providing for the regulation or prohibition of the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein was void for excessive delegation. The Court said it was not and observed:
" .... the legislature cannot delegate its function of laying down legislative policy in respect of a measure and its formuhi.tion as ·a rule of conduct. The Legislature must declare the policy of the law and the legal principles which oce '° control any given cases and must provide a standard ~ guide the officials or the body in power to execute the law. The essential legislative function consists in the determination or choice of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct. In the pre- . sent case the legislature has laid down such a principle and that principle is the maintenance or increase in supply of essential commodities and of securing equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The principle is clear and offers sufficient guidance to the Central Government in exercising its powers under section 3".
Iri The Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. The State of Ajmer('), •this Court considered the question whether s. 27 of the Minimum ' ·Wages Act under which power was given to ·the Government to add to either part of the schedule any employment in respect of whicl1 it was in its opinion that minimum wages should be fixed exceeded th~
A
B
c
D
E
G
e
· (J) [1955] 1 S.C.R. p. 380 at 388. (2) [1959] 1 S.C.R. 735.
[1980] 2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
264
~
•
,
A limits of permissible delegiition and was, therefore, unconstitutional• The Court held that the legislative policy was apparent on the face of ·the enactment which aimed at the statutory fixation of minimum wages. with a view to obviate the chance of exploitation of labour. The intention of the Legislature was not to apply the Act to all industriesbut only to those industries where by reason of unorganised labour or B want of proper arrangements for effective regulation of wages or for other causes the wages of labourers in a particular industry were ve.."'j · low. In enacting s. 27 there was, therefore, no delegation of essential legislative power. .
•
In Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. The State of Madhya Prades/z(')~ c this Court held that it was not unconstitutional for the Legislature to leave it to the Executive tc> determine details relating to the working of taxation laws such as the selection of persons on whom the tax is to be laid, the rates at which it is to be chruged in respect of different classes of goods and the selection of goods in respect of which exempD tion from taxation might be granted etc. etc.
In Sardar lnder Singh v. The State of Rajasthan(2 ), the validity of s.15 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance which authorised the Government to exempt any person or class of persons. from the operation of the Act was upheld and the argument t.'iat there E was impermissible delegation of legislative power was repelled on the ground. that the Preamble to t!he Ordinance set out with sufficient clarity the policy of the Legislature.
In Vasantal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay(•);-~ F s. 6 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act was challenged as. permitting excessive delegiition of legislative power as it enabled the Government to fix a lower rate of the maximum rent pay .. able by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or to lb: such rate on any snitable cases as it thought fit. This Court noticed that ' the Act was undonbtedly a beneficent measure, as shown by the Pre• G amble which stated that the object of the Act was to improve the economic and social conditions of peasants and ensure the full and efficient nse of land for agricultural. Bearing in mind the Preamble and.. , the material provisions of the Act, it was held that the power delegated --was within permissible limits.
(1) [1959! S.C.R. 427 (2) [1957] S.C.R. 605. (3) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 341.
COOl'UATIVE SOCIETIES V· K. KUNHAMBU (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 265
,)
In Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union Te"itories of Delhi,(') Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. made some useful observations which may be extracted here : "In regard to this matter we desire to make two obser' • vations. In the context of modem tonditions and the variety and complexity of the situations which present themselves for ,, wlution, it is not possible for the Legislature to envisage in • detail every possibility and make provisions for them. The Legislature therefore is forced to leave the authorities created by it an ample discretion limited, however, by the guidance afforded by the Act. This is the ratio of delegated legislation, and is a process which has come to stay, and which one may be permitted to observe is not without its advantages. So Jong therefore as the Legislature in~icates, in the operative provisions of the st>atute with certainty, the policy and purpose of the enactment, the mere fact that the legislation is skeletal, or the fact that a discretion is left to those entrusted with administering the law, a.IIords no basis either for the contention that there has been an excessive delegation of legislative power 11s to amount to an abdication of its functions, or that the discretion vested is uncanalised and unguided as to amonnt to a carte blanche to discriminate. The second is tl:rat if the power or discretion has been conferred in a manner which is legal and constitutional, tho fact that Parliament could possibly have made more detailed provisions, could obviously not be a ground for invalidating the law."
,,
In Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad v. The State of Bamby,(') the question was about the vires of s. 29 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. It gave power to the State Government to add to, or amend, or cancel any of the items of agricultural pfocluce specified in the schedule in accordance with prevailing local condi' tions, The attack was on the gronnd that legislative power had been delegated to an extent not permissible. The Court while noticing that s. 29 itself did not provide for any criterion for determining which • 11 item of agricultural produce should be put into the schedule, never- • ,Meless upheld its vires on the ground that guidance was writ large in the various provisions and the scheme of the Act. It was observed that in each case the State Government had to consider whether the
'
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
(
(I) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 125. (2l [I 0~21 2 S.C.R. 659 18--'-868SCI/79
•~ !!!At.I.• .. ''
[1980] 2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
| A B |
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2s.c.R. volumeoftrade in the producewasof such a natureastogiverise to wholesale trade soastomerit inclusion in the schedule. Letusnow turn tos.60ofthe Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932 whose viresisin question and whichisasfollows:- "S.60: The State Government may,by1general or special order, exenipt any registered society from anyofthe pro- visions of this Actormay direct that such provisions shall apply to such society with such'modifiC'ationsasmay be speci- fiedin ·the order." |
'• • |
|---|---|---|
| c | The provisionisa near Henry VIII clause. But togiveit a namei not to hang it.Wemust examine the preamble, the scheme and other available material toseeifthere are any discernible guidelines. Sure the Cooperative Societies Actisa welfare legislation. Its preamble proclaims: |
s~ ' |
| D E F G H |
"Whereas itisexpedient furthertofacilitate the forma- tion and working of co-operative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help and mutualaidamong •agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs soastobring about better living, better business and better methodsofpro- duction and for that purpose to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies in the State of Madras.'" The policy of the Actisthere and so are the guidelines. Why the legislation ? "To facilitate the formation and working of Cooperative Societies". Cooperative Societies, for what purpose? "For the pro- motion of thrift, self-help and mutual aid". Amongst whom? "Among . agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs". To what end?"To bring about better living, better business and better methodsofproduction". The objectives are clear;theguidelines are there. There are numerous provisions oftheAct dealing with regis- tration of societies, rights and liabilities of members, duties of regis- tered societies, privileges of registered societies, property and funds of registered societies, inquiry and inspection, supersession of committees of societies, dissolution of societies, surcharge and attachment, arbitra- tion etc.Werefrain from referring to the details of the provisions ex- f cept to say that they are generally designed to further the objectivess• out in the oreamble. But, numerousasthe provisions are, they areno~- capable of meeting the extensive demands of the complex situations which may arise in the courseofthe working of the Act and the forma- tion and the functioning of the societies. In fact, the too rigorous appli- cation of some of the provisions of the Act may itself occasionaly result |
'..t"i -~ • -. ' • · · • |
L •
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES v. K. KUNHAMBU (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 267
in frustrating the very objects of the Act instead of advancing them. It is to provide for such situations that the Government is invested by s. 60 with a power to relaoc the oreasional rigour of the provisions of the Act and to advance the objects of the Act. Section 60 empowers the State Government to exempt a registered society from any of the provisions of the Act or to direct that such provision shall apply to such society with specified modifications. The power given to the • Government under s. 60 of the Act is to be exercised so as to advance . the policy and objects of the Act, according to the guidelines as may be gleoaned from the preamble and other provisions which we have --. ~'already pointed out, are clear. , : .
·J We are therefore of the view that s. 60 is not void on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power. We so declare and otherwise dismiss the appeal,
N.V,K.
Appeal dismissed .
B
c
• •
1 issue framed by the court
Whether section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932, empowering the Government to exempt societies from the Act, is void for excessive delegation of legislative power.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Delhi Laws Act, 1912Referred
[1951] SCR 747 · Who else cites this
M. K. Papiah & Sons v. Excise CommissionerReferred
[1975) 3 SCR 607 · Who else cites this
Harishankar Bagla and Anr. v. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on
[1955] 1 S.C.R., p. 380 @ 388 · Who else cites this
The Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. The State of AjmerRelied on
[1955] 1 S.C.R. 735 · Who else cites this
Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on
[1959] S.C.R. 427 · Who else cites this
Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of RajasthanRelied on
(1959) S.C.R. 605 · Who else cites this
Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of BombayRelied on
[1961] 1 S.C.R. 341 · Who else cites this
Jyoti Parshad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of DelhiRelied on
[1962] 2 S.C.R. 125 · Who else cites this
Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad v. The State of BombayRelied on
[1962] 2 S.C.R. 659 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivandrum and Anr.
K. Kunhambu & Ors.
R.S. Sarkaria
Chinnappa Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
