A comparative analysis of the application of Delegatus Potest Non Delegare in India and USA
Comparative Analysis of Delegatus Potest Non Delegare
Application in India and USA with Case Law
1. Doctrine Explained
The Latin maxim Delegatus Potest Non Delegare means that a person or authority who has been delegated a power cannot further delegate that power to another unless expressly or impliedly authorized by law.
It protects the principle of accountability and legality, ensuring that powers are exercised by the proper authority.
It is a fundamental principle of administrative law governing delegation of powers.
2. Application in India
a) Legal Position
Indian law firmly applies the doctrine to prevent unauthorized sub-delegation.
Delegation must be authorized by statute or by necessary implication.
Courts will strike down actions taken pursuant to unauthorized delegation.
The doctrine is flexible; courts allow sub-delegation where expressly permitted or necessary for practical administration.
b) Key Indian Cases
1. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271
Facts: Challenge to sub-delegation of powers by government authorities under industrial law.
Held: The Supreme Court held that sub-delegation is valid only if expressly authorized by law or necessary to carry out the delegated function.
Significance: Reinforced that sub-delegation without authority violates the doctrine.
2. State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla (1955) SCR 318
Facts: Issue of sub-delegation of powers vested in Revenue Officers.
Held: The Court emphasized strict adherence to the doctrine; sub-delegation not allowed unless explicitly provided.
Significance: Early affirmation of the doctrine in Indian administrative law.
3. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489
Facts: Delegation of powers in contracts and tenders by airport authority.
Held: Sub-delegation permissible only if statute permits or necessary for efficiency.
Significance: Balanced strict application with practical needs of administration.
4. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489
Same as above, but specifically elaborated on limits of delegation and the duty of the authority to personally discharge non-delegable duties.
5. Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. (1968) 1 SCR 353
Held: The court invalidated orders made by an officer not empowered to exercise such delegated power.
Significance: Demonstrated the importance of adherence to authorized delegation.
3. Application in the USA
a) Legal Position
The doctrine is recognized but applied more flexibly in the USA.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and federal statutes, agencies can delegate powers to subordinates or officers within the agency.
Courts focus more on whether delegation has intelligible standards and statutory authorization rather than on rigid prohibition.
The USA emphasizes practicality and efficiency in administrative delegation.
The Supreme Court often applies the nondelegation doctrine more strictly against Congress (legislative delegation) than to administrative agencies.
b) Key US Cases
1. J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), 276 U.S. 394
Facts: Congress delegated tariff-setting powers to the President.
Held: Delegation is valid if Congress provides an "intelligible principle" guiding the delegate.
Significance: Established the "intelligible principle" test loosening rigid non-delegation.
2. Yakus v. United States (1944), 321 U.S. 414
Held: Allowed broad delegation to executive agencies, so long as procedural safeguards exist.
Significance: Emphasized the legitimacy of administrative delegation.
3. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns (2001), 531 U.S. 457
Held: Upheld EPA’s delegation to set air quality standards, reaffirmed "intelligible principle" test.
Significance: Confirmed Congress can delegate powers as long as it sets clear policy guidelines.
4. Mistretta v. United States (1989), 488 U.S. 361
Held: Upheld delegation to the Sentencing Commission for setting criminal sentences.
Significance: Affirmed delegation where clear statutory standards exist.
5. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), 295 U.S. 495
Held: Struck down overly broad delegation lacking intelligible principle.
Significance: Rare strict application of nondelegation to protect separation of powers.
4. Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | India | USA |
|---|---|---|
| General Approach | Strict but pragmatic; no sub-delegation without clear authority; courts enforce delegation limits. | More flexible; allows broad delegation within agencies with intelligible principle. |
| Source of Doctrine | Constitutional principles, statutory interpretation, administrative law | Constitution (Separation of Powers), Administrative Procedure Act (APA) |
| Judicial Tests | Express or implied statutory authorization for sub-delegation | Intelligible principle test guiding delegation by Congress |
| Scope of Delegation | Limited; personal discharge of certain duties required | Broader; delegation within agencies common for efficiency |
| Judicial Review | Courts invalidate unauthorized sub-delegation strictly | Courts uphold delegation unless no intelligible principle exists |
| Notable Focus | Accountability and adherence to statutory limits | Separation of powers and practical governance efficiency |
5. Conclusion
Both India and the USA recognize the fundamental principle that delegated powers cannot be further delegated unless authorized.
India applies the doctrine more strictly, emphasizing legal accountability and personal discharge of duties.
The USA applies it more flexibly, focusing on practical governance and the presence of intelligible standards rather than rigid prohibition.
Indian courts tend to scrutinize sub-delegation carefully to prevent administrative abuse, while US courts often prioritize efficient delegation within agencies under clear legislative guidelines.
The doctrine continues to balance the need for effective administration and constitutional limits in both jurisdictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments