Delegatus Non Potest Delegare
🌐 “Delegatus Non Potest Delegare” – Detailed Explanation
✅ Meaning of the Maxim:
“Delegatus Non Potest Delegare” is a Latin maxim which means:
"A delegate cannot further delegate."
✅ Legal Principle:
This principle states that a person or authority to whom certain powers have been delegated cannot sub-delegate those powers to another person unless explicitly authorized to do so.
The reasoning is simple: a delegate is chosen for their specific skill, judgment, or responsibility, and further delegation might dilute the accountability and legality of the action.
📘 Application in Administrative Law
In administrative law, this principle applies to:
Ministers or government officials who receive powers from the legislature or superior authorities.
Administrative agencies exercising statutory powers.
Delegated legislation—a delegate body cannot create further delegation unless the enabling statute permits it expressly or impliedly.
✅ Exceptions to the Rule:
Express Authorization: If the parent statute allows further delegation.
Ministerial or Mechanical Acts: Routine acts can be further delegated.
Sub-delegation with Control: Where the delegate remains responsible and retains oversight.
⚖️ Important Case Laws (More than Four)
1. A.K. Roy vs Union of India (1982) AIR 710 (SC)
Facts: The National Security Act delegated detention powers to the executive, and then certain officials tried to delegate it further.
Issue: Whether the secondary delegation was valid.
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that a delegate cannot sub-delegate powers unless explicitly authorized.
Significance: Reinforced the “Delegatus Non Potest Delegare” rule in preventive detention matters, where liberty is at stake.
2. Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1966) AIR 327 (SC)
Facts: The Company Law Board, delegated with powers by the Central Government, further tried to delegate its decision-making authority.
Issue: Was the sub-delegation lawful?
Held: The Court held that the delegate (Company Law Board) cannot transfer decision-making to another unless the statute allows.
Significance: Clarified limits on sub-delegation in commercial regulatory functions.
3. Director General, ESI v. T. Abdul Rasak (1996) AIR 2292 (SC)
Facts: Powers delegated to the Director General under the ESI Act were further delegated to subordinate officers.
Issue: Whether this sub-delegation was valid.
Held: The Supreme Court held it was unauthorized as the Act did not allow sub-delegation to that extent.
Significance: Emphasized the need for express statutory support for any further delegation.
4. State of Rajasthan vs Hari Shanker Rajendra Pal Singh (1959) AIR 1238 (SC)
Facts: The Rajasthan Government delegated land acquisition powers to an officer, who then sub-delegated to a lower officer.
Issue: Whether sub-delegation in such a sensitive matter was valid.
Held: The Court ruled that such sub-delegation was invalid as it had no statutory backing.
Significance: Addressed sub-delegation in matters involving public property and emphasized control and accountability.
5. Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) AIR 3060 (SC)
Facts: The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority delegated certain planning decisions to private bodies.
Issue: Can a statutory authority delegate its regulatory powers to private entities?
Held: The Court ruled that such delegation to non-statutory private bodies without express authority is invalid.
Significance: Highlighted that statutory powers cannot be privatized or transferred to entities lacking public accountability.
6. Dattatreya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay (1952) SCR 612
Facts: The Bombay government had passed an order under Defence of India Rules through an official who had received delegated powers, but he further assigned it to another officer.
Issue: Was this valid delegation?
Held: The Supreme Court held that such sub-delegation is unconstitutional unless authorized under law.
Significance: One of the earliest cases reaffirming “delegatus non potest delegare” post-independence.
🧠 Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| General Rule | Delegate cannot sub-delegate unless statute allows. |
| Purpose of Rule | To ensure accountability and fidelity to the authority given. |
| Exceptions | Express statutory provision, implied authority, or mechanical acts. |
| Consequences of Violation | Sub-delegated acts become ultra vires (beyond authority) and are void. |
| Judicial Stance | Indian courts consistently uphold the maxim unless justified by statutory law. |
📌 Conclusion
The maxim “Delegatus Non Potest Delegare” is a foundational principle in administrative law that safeguards against uncontrolled or unauthorized use of delegated powers. It ensures that legislative and administrative responsibilities are not improperly transferred, maintaining the rule of law, accountability, and democratic control.
RELATED Blog
0 comments