ABSTRACT
The doctrine of excessive delegation is a judicially evolved principle that limits the legislature's power to delegate essential legislative functions. While delegated legislation is essential for effective governance, excessive delegation undermines the basic principle of separation of power among government organs. The doctrine of excessive delegation is the demarcated line that separates constitutionality and unconstitutionality of the abdication of legislative powers. The Supreme Court, through interpretations and rulings evolved this doctrine, thereby protecting the essence of the separation of powers. Whether legislative power can be delegated cannot arise in the U.K. since its parliament is supreme if there are no legal limitations on its powers. Delegated legislation is the creation of the executive, thus, accountability is questionable. The possibility of abuse of power and lack of transparency arises. The judiciary has put a cap on delegating essential legislative functions by the law-making organ. Delegated legislation is unconstitutional when it violates constitutional provisions and fundamental rights. The maxim Delegatus non potest delegare prevents onward delegation of delegated powers. There have been instances of excessive delegation that compelled the judiciary to step in to safeguard the constitutional provisions and protect citizens‘ rights. The three control mechanisms, parliamentary, judicial and executive, need to be in alert mode to ensure fairness in delegation. This paper analyses this doctrine, focusing on the judicial approaches in India and the United Kingdom.
