Sub deliations
Sub-Delegation: Detailed Explanation
Meaning
Sub-delegation refers to the act where a person or authority, who has received delegated power (a delegate), passes on or delegates that power to another person.
The principle of “Delegatus Non Potest Delegare” means “a delegate cannot delegate.”
Therefore, sub-delegation is generally prohibited unless expressly or impliedly authorized by the original delegator.
Why is Sub-Delegation Important?
Accountability: The original delegate is accountable for exercising the delegated power. Sub-delegation dilutes responsibility.
Trust: The original delegator entrusts a particular person or authority to perform a function, not a third party.
Legal validity: Unauthorized sub-delegation can make decisions or actions invalid.
General Rule
When power is delegated, the delegate must personally exercise that power.
Sub-delegation is allowed only if:
The law or the instrument of delegation explicitly or implicitly authorizes it.
The nature of the power is such that sub-delegation is reasonable or necessary (usually in administrative or ministerial functions).
Scope and Exceptions
Ministerial powers: These are routine, mechanical tasks, often allow sub-delegation.
Discretionary powers: Powers involving judgment and decision-making usually cannot be sub-delegated.
Express or implied permission: Sometimes statutes or parent delegations allow sub-delegation.
Case Law on Sub-Delegation
1. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628)
Facts: The question was whether the authority delegated the power to make tender rules could sub-delegate it further.
Held: The Supreme Court held sub-delegation was not permissible unless expressly authorized.
Significance: Reinforced the principle of Delegatus Non Potest Delegare and that discretion cannot be sub-delegated without clear authority.
2. Ramakrishna Pillai v. State of Madras (AIR 1956 SC 397)
Facts: A government official sub-delegated powers to a subordinate officer.
Held: The Supreme Court held the sub-delegation invalid because there was no authority to sub-delegate.
Significance: The delegate must exercise power personally unless otherwise permitted.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 150)
Facts: The UPSC was delegating powers improperly.
Held: The Court struck down the unauthorized sub-delegation, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Significance: Highlighted limits on sub-delegation in administrative decision-making.
4. Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar (AIR 1925 Mad 16)
Facts: The Collector delegated power to a subordinate officer without authority.
Held: Such sub-delegation was invalid.
Significance: Early case affirming the strict rule against sub-delegation without permission.
5. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1965 SC 1039)
Facts: Sub-delegation of disciplinary authority was challenged.
Held: The court reiterated that delegation does not allow further delegation unless expressly or impliedly authorized.
Significance: Confirmed the strictness of the non-subdelegation rule in disciplinary proceedings.
Summary Table
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| R.D. Shetty v. IAAI | No sub-delegation without clear authority |
| Ramakrishna Pillai v. Madras | Delegate must act personally unless authorized |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Limits on sub-delegation, procedural fairness required |
| Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. Ramaswami | Strict prohibition of unauthorized sub-delegation |
| Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India | Delegation does not imply sub-delegation |
Conclusion
Sub-delegation is a strictly controlled and limited concept in law. The general rule remains that a delegate cannot delegate further unless explicitly or implicitly authorized. Unauthorized sub-delegation renders the act or decision invalid, which ensures accountability and proper exercise of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments