TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms constitutionality of Madras Act Section 60, upholding delegation of legislative power.</h1> <h3>REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Versus K. KUNJABMU</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932, emphasizing that it does not amount to ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932.2. Validity of the High Court's decision on unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.3. Examination of the Henry VIII clause in the context of delegated legislation.Summary:1. Constitutionality of Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932:The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932, which allows the State Government to exempt any registered society from any provisions of the Act or to apply such provisions with modifications. The Court noted that the provision is a near Henry VIII clause but emphasized that the mere naming of the clause does not invalidate it. The Court found that the preamble and the scheme of the Act provide clear policy and guidelines, stating that the Act aims to facilitate the formation and working of cooperative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help, and mutual aid among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs to bring about better living, better business, and better methods of production.2. Validity of the High Court's Decision on Unconstitutional Delegation of Legislative Power:The High Court of Kerala had struck down Section 60 and a related notification on the grounds of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the power to legislate includes the power to delegate, provided that the delegation does not amount to abdication. The Court emphasized that the legislature must lay down policy and principle and may delegate the authority to fill in details and carry out the policy. The Court found that Section 60 is within permissible limits of delegation as it is guided by the policy and objectives stated in the preamble and other provisions of the Act.3. Examination of the Henry VIII Clause in the Context of Delegated Legislation:The Court discussed the theory of delegated legislation, noting that modern legislative bodies are not equipped to handle every technical and situational intricacy, which necessitates delegation to expert executive bodies. The Court referred to several precedents, including Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Ajmer, and others, to illustrate that delegation is permissible when the legislature provides clear policy and guidelines. The Court concluded that Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act is not void for excessive delegation as it is designed to advance the policy and objectives of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court declared that Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932, is not void on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power and dismissed the appeal. The Court upheld the validity of the provision, emphasizing that it is guided by clear policy and objectives aimed at facilitating the formation and working of cooperative societies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
