[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
344 views1 page

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India: Contravention of The Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The document discusses how the legislature failed to establish standards for the executive to follow when prescribing rules regarding terms of office and remuneration for Information Commissioners. It cites previous cases where legislation was struck down for not providing standards to guide rulemaking. It argues the legislature abdicated its role by not providing policy guidance, contravening the separation of powers doctrine. The doctrine recognizes the differentiation of governmental functions and prohibits one branch from assuming another's roles.

Uploaded by

chetna raghuwanshi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
344 views1 page

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India: Contravention of The Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The document discusses how the legislature failed to establish standards for the executive to follow when prescribing rules regarding terms of office and remuneration for Information Commissioners. It cites previous cases where legislation was struck down for not providing standards to guide rulemaking. It argues the legislature abdicated its role by not providing policy guidance, contravening the separation of powers doctrine. The doctrine recognizes the differentiation of governmental functions and prohibits one branch from assuming another's roles.

Uploaded by

chetna raghuwanshi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

It is submitted that the Amendment does not stand scrutiny as the legislature has not declared

the standard to be followed by the Government when prescribing rules for the term of office and
remuneration of the Information Commissioners. Recall the pronouncement of the Court in the
Delhi Laws case: the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix a policy standard to guide
the subordinate authority empowered to execute the law. It is therefore necessary for the
legislature to declare a standard, which the executive must then keep in mind while formulating
rules. In the present case, no such standard has been laid down by the legislature, as the Statement
of Objects and Reasons simply – and erroneously – distinguishes the Information Commission and
Election Commission.

In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, the Court struck down Section 3(d) of the Drugs and
Magical Remedies Act – which used the term “or any other disease or condition which may be
specified in rules made under this Act” – on the ground that there was no legislative policy on the
basis of which the diseases were to be identified. Similarly, the legislature in the present case has
conferred powers upon the government without providing a policy on the basis of which the
requisite rules are to be framed. There is clear abdication on the part of the legislature, which
contravenes the established position of the Court on the question of delegated legislation.

Contravention of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The Indian Constitution does not prescribe a strict separation of powers; however, it has been
implicitly recognised and protected as part of the basic structure by the Supreme Court. The
understanding of the doctrine that currently holds the field was laid down in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya
Kapur v. State of Punjab where the Court held that despite the Constitution not recognising the
doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity, “the functions of the different parts or
branches of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated.” Consequently, it was stated that
the Constitution did not contemplate the assumption of one organ’s functions by another.

Going further, the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. The State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Madras held that separation of powers also operated in the domain of quasi-judicial
authorities. Here, the Court held that objective administration of the law required decisions of the
Judge or Tribunal to be free of extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the
State. Fetters on the exercise of quasi-judicial authority would make the exercise of such authority
completely inconsistent with the well accepted notion of judicial process

You might also like