FALGUNI SHARMA

+91 89497 27109 falguninluj2024@gmail.com

Room No. 304, Mother Teresa Halls of Residence, National Law University, Jodhpur-342304
ACADEMICS

 B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

o First year (Second semester) student at National Law University, Jodhpur.
o Batch rank 1 of 126, CGPA 8.25.
 Secondary and Senior Secondary
Level Board School Score

Indian School
XII Springfield School 87.75%
Certificate (ISC)

Indian Certificate of
X Secondary Springfield School 95.2%
Education (ICSE)

EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

 Social Service, worked for HelpAge India. (2007)

o Helped in fund raising and contributed it for caring of the old.
 Social Service, worked for Right to Education. (2020)
o Spread awareness amongst the under- privileged about their right to education and
facilitated the admission of the under-privileged under RTE Act, 2005.

AWARDS

 First prize in Inter-House Debate Competition organised in Jaipur. (2015)

 First prize in Inter-House Badminton, Springfield School, Jaipur. (2013)
 Gold medal in Rajasthan State Karate Do Championship organised by All India Karate
Do Federation, Rajasthan Olympic Association in Jaipur. (2013)
 Gold medal in Jaipur Karate Do Championship organised in Jaipur. (2013)
 Second prize in Inter House Extempore Competition. (2017)

RESPONSIBILITIES HELD

 School Captain, Springfield School, Jaipur for the Session 2016-2017.

o Headed 800 students for the session.
 School Captain, Springfield School, Jaipur for the Session 2017-2018.
o Headed 1000 students for the session.
 POST APPLIED FOR

Copy Editor

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Centre for Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law, through its CALQ has
achieved great heights within just 7 years of its formation. It enjoys a respectable name in the
area of Journals of the same domain as it purposes to bring out healthy discussions and
debates regarding Constitutional and Administrative Law, with both a comparative and
contemporary perspective. Being on the editorial board of CALQ will give me a great
opportunity to enhance my knowledge of the subject and will augment my analytical skills
remarkably. It will be of immense help to me as I plan to pursue my Masters and PhD in
constitutional law. Being a 2nd Semester student, I have just embarked on my journey of law.
I have always been a diligent and industrious student. I have wrought hard to achieve batch
rank 1 and a GPA of 8.25 during the first semester. I am a keen learner and a meticulous
worker with strong sense of commitment and integrity towards my work front and being a
member of CALQ will give me an opportunity to improve my drafting skills as well. I would
be able to witness the entire journey of publication from beginning to the end and further
evolve with it. In addition, this chance will also help me improve my research skills and will
transform me into a critical analyst of the subject. It will be a privilege to be a part of the
centre and contribute my bit towards the success that this journal is yet to achieve.
 WRITING SAMPLE
IN RE DELHI LAWS ACT CASE, 1951
CASE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
In the present era, it is abundantly clear that the shift to a welfare state has led to an increase
in the administrative functions of the country. After independence, there has been a lot of
confusion regarding the concept of delegation of legislative power i.e. whether it is possible
and if so, to what extent. To clarify this, the President of India referred this question to the
Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. The court laid down some principles
regarding these questions. The in re Delhi Laws Act1 is a landmark judgment of the 7 Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court wherein judges have dealt with this concept of delegation in
detail.

BACKDROP
The first case which dealt with delegation of legislative power was Queen v. Burrah2. In this
case, the Act in question (Act XXII of 1869) dealt with the Governor General’s power to
bring the Act in effect, determine what laws were to be applicable and the power to extend
application of provisions of the Act. An Act was passed by the Indian legislature to remove
Garo Hills from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Bengal and vested the powers of civil
and criminal administration in an officer appointed by the Lt. Governor of Bengal. The Lt.
Governor was further authorized by S.8 of the Act to extend any provision of this Act with
incidental changes to Khasi and Jaintia Hills. One Burrah was tried for murder by the
Commissioner of Khasi and Jaintia Hills and was sentenced to death.
The question was whether these functions would be categorized as delegated legislation or
not. The court held that the above-mentioned powers were conferred only on the fulfilment of
certain conditions and hence this was conditional legislation, a concept altogether different
from delegated legislation. The court also stated that “It is a general principle of law in India
that any substantial delegation of legislative authority by the legislature of the country is
void.”3 The case thus laid down the principle of conditional legislation. Another case which
dealt with the same concept was Jatinder Nath v. Province of Bihar4. Here it was decided that
there could be no delegation in India beyond conditional legislation.
There was a lot of confusion regarding delegated legislation after these cases.5 The greater
confusion was that whether India should follow US model where unlimited power cannot be
delegated because of the concept of separation of powers or the UK model where as much
power as necessary can be delegated. The courts were left to follow either of the models.
Since the Indian Constitution is silent about legislative delegation, these issues continued to
accrue in India.
1
AIR 1951, SC 332.
2
1878, 3 AC 889.
3
J. Per Markby, Calcutta High Court.
4
1949, 2 FCR 595.
5
S.P. Sathe, Administrative Law, p39, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
FACTS IN BRIEF
In re Delhi Laws Act of 1951 dealt with three acts and their respective sections.
Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 runs as follows:
“The Provincial Government may, by 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 the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, runs as follows:
”Extension of Enactments to Ajmer-Merwara.–The Central Government may, by notification
in the official gazette, extend to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara 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.”
Section 2 of Part C (State Laws) Act 1950 says that:
“Power to extend enactments to certain Part C States.–The Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any Part C State (other than Coorg and the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands) or to 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.”
Taking into account all these sections of the acts the President, under Article 143 of the
Constitution asked the Supreme Court to assert whether there can be delegation of legislative
power or not. And if yes, then to draw the limits of such delegation.

ISSUES
 Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions thereof and in
what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which
passed the said Act?
 Was the Ajmer Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the provisions
thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the
Legislature which passed the said Act?
 Is section 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, or any of the provisions thereof and
in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Parliament?

ARGUMENTS IN BRIEF
There were two extremist views put forth by the counsels. M.C. Setalvad took the view that
the power of delegation come along with the power of legislation and the same does not
result in abdication of the powers. The other counsel took the view that there exists separation
of powers in the country and India follows the maxim delegates non potest delegare i.e. a
delegated function cannot be further delegated. Therefore, there is implied prohibition on
delegation of power. Since both the views were highly extremist, the court took the middle
view in this case.

SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT
There was unity of outlook on two points. First, Parliament and State legislatures have to
delegate the power to deal with the multiple problems and there is no concept of absolute
separation of powers. Second, since legislature derives its authority from Constitution,
excessive freedom cannot be granted and limitations are required. The seven-judge bench
gave the following judgement:
 “Separation of powers” is not a part of Indian Constitution.
 Indian parliament was never considered as an agent of anybody. Therefore, doctrine
of delegates non potest delegare is not applicable.
 Parliament cannot completely abdicate itself by creating a parallel authority.
 Only ancillary functions can be delegated.
 There is a limitation on delegation of power. Legislature cannot delegate its essential
functions. Essential functions involve laying down the policy of the law and enacting
that policy into binding rules of conduct.
Therefore, all the sections in question were entirely valid and essential functions
cannot be delegated so that the delegated body does not usurp the primary legislative
body under any condition.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The case has been successful in achieving two ends:-
 It legitimized delegation of legislative power by the legislature to administrative
organs.
 It imposed an outer limit on delegation by the legislature.

Therefore, the legitimacy of delegation is no longer a question of dispute. The only issue that
arose was with respect to the limits imposed upon the delegation. Several years after the case
at hand it is safe to say that this is an ongoing process. As time changes and as the needs of
the society change, different limits will have to be drawn for delegation.
Finally, the present case has formed the foundation on which issues regarding the possibility
and extent of delegation of legislation have started to become unambiguous. It has laid down
the groundwork and has left it to the judicial system to carry forward this fundamental
principle.
 The case specifically lays down that the British or the American model cannot be
implemented as such in India. The Indian system, though it has borrowed extensively from
other systems round the world, deserves better. It is humbly suggested that, the position in
this case be regarded as the “Indian model on Delegated Legislation” set forth for other
countries to consider.