<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1951 (5) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168897</link>
    <description>The document examines whether the executive could be empowered to extend laws to Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and Part C States with restrictions and modifications, and whether such provisions amounted to valid legislative delegation or an impermissible transfer of essential law-making power. It distinguishes permissible conditional or subordinate legislation from a delegation that would let the legislature abdicate its core function, and it considers powers to apply, restrict, modify, repeal or amend laws in that context. The judges reached differing opinions, and no single majority view settled the full scope of permissible delegation, leaving the constitutional position on the impugned provisions unresolved by one unified holding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (5) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168897</link>
      <description>The document examines whether the executive could be empowered to extend laws to Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and Part C States with restrictions and modifications, and whether such provisions amounted to valid legislative delegation or an impermissible transfer of essential law-making power. It distinguishes permissible conditional or subordinate legislation from a delegation that would let the legislature abdicate its core function, and it considers powers to apply, restrict, modify, repeal or amend laws in that context. The judges reached differing opinions, and no single majority view settled the full scope of permissible delegation, leaving the constitutional position on the impugned provisions unresolved by one unified holding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>