In the case of Lachmi Narain vs Union of India, wherein the validity of the notification of the Central Government was in question as it has extended then existed Part C state laws Act, 1950 to The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 to Delhi with certain modifications as Section 2 of “Part C State Laws Act, 1950” empowered the central government to extend by notification in official gazette to any part C state or with any part of such state with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which was in force in part A state at the time of the notification. Further, by another notification it modified Section 6 of the Act. In section 6(2) for the words “not less than 3 months” the words “such previous notice as it considers reasonable” was substituted. So, this was challenged before the court on the grounds of its validity.
The Supreme court in this case held that through delegated legislation the power to make modification in legislation does not include the power to make nay modification in the Essential feature of the statutes. This power cannot be used to change the basic scheme and structure of the enactment of the legislative policy ingrained in it. Thus, the notification of the Central government stands invalid and void.
Another case that can be supplied for supporting the argument is Raj Narain Singh vs Patna Administration, as in this case the local administration was empowered to extend the provisions to the State of Bihar subject to such modifications as it thinks fits and the section which provided for opportunity to object was excluded from these notifications. It was therefore held that this would amount to tampering with the policy of the Act.
Therefore, from the above discussions we can clearly state that the challenging of the validity of the notification by petitioner A stands valid as the second notification made by the government of Haryana stands invalid and void as the power of delegated legislation does not give the power to make any modifications/changes in the legislative policy and this was done in the present case as doing so violates the object and scheme of the Act. The power cannot be used for any other purpose other than that of extension and this was something beyond that. The words used are wide in nature and their limit and scope has to properly defined so that nothing goes beyond the object and scheme of the Act. The essential legislative function would include the determination of legislative policy as was held in the case of Harishankar Bagla vs State of MP, wherein wide power was given to the Central government to make orders under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1946 and clear principles regarding such orders and sufficient guidelines was also laid down beforehand, so this can be the essential legislative function.
 1976 AIR 714.
 AIR 1954 SC 569.
 1970 (2) TMI 131.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge