Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 28 of Gold Control Act, 1968 — Excessive Delegation Argument Rejected. The court found that the provisions of the Act provide sufficient guidance for the exercise of discretion by the Administrator.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a challenge to the validity of section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, which prohibits licensed dealers from carrying on money-lending or banking business in licensed premises without the Administrator's authorization. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had struck down this provision, citing excessive delegation of legislative power due to the lack of guidelines for the Administrator's discretion. The Union of India appealed this decision. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Gold Control Act, emphasizing that while no explicit rules were provided for the Administrator's decision-making, the Act's objectives and policies offered sufficient guidance. The court noted that the restrictions in section 28 were not absolute and allowed for the possibility of authorization by the Administrator. The court distinguished this case from previous judgments where vague terms had led to excessive delegation, asserting that section 28 did not contain such indefiniteness. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, upholding the validity of section 28 and allowing the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Excessive Delegation - Validity of Section 28 - Gold Control Act, 1968, Section 28 - The court upheld the validity of section 28, rejecting the argument of excessive delegation of legislative power, stating that the overall scheme of the Act provides sufficient guidance for the Administrator's discretion. The court emphasized that the restrictions imposed are not absolute and are aimed at preventing circumvention of the Act's provisions (Paras 1.1-1.5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, upheld the validity of section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and allowed the appeal without costs.

Law Points

  • excessive delegation
  • legislative power
  • administrative discretion
  • Gold Control Act
  • 1968
  • section 28
  • arbitrary power
  • judicial review
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1985 LawText (SC) (02) 19

Civil Appeals Nos. 1264-67/71

1985-02-21

Tulzapurkar, V.D., Misra Rangnath, Khalid, V.

1985 AIR 1013, 1985 SCR (2) 951, 1985 SCC (2) 443

D.K. Sen, Gopal Subramonium, R.N. Poddar

Union of India

Annam Ramalingam etc.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the constitutional validity of section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Remedy Sought

Union of India sought to uphold the validity of section 28.

Filing Reason

The High Court had struck down section 28, claiming excessive delegation of power.

Previous Decisions

The High Court's decision was based on the lack of guidelines for the Administrator's discretion.

Issues

Whether section 28 suffers from excessive delegation of legislative power.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the overall scheme of the Gold Control Act provides sufficient guidance for the Administrator's discretion. The respondent contended that section 28 conferred arbitrary power without guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968, particularly section 28, provided sufficient guidance for the exercise of discretion by the Administrator, thus rejecting the claim of excessive delegation.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 cannot be struck down on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power and its validity must be upheld. The several restrictions that have been put on the activities of the traders doing business in gold will have to be viewed, in the light of the purpose for which the Gold Control Act was passed.

Procedural History

The Union of India appealed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had struck down section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Acts & Sections

  • Gold Control Act, 1968: Section 28
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Limitation Bar and Lack of Debt Evidence. Complaint Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Dismissed as Notice Served on 10.12.2013 and Complaint Filed on 20.01.2014, Beyond...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Customs Duty Exemption Case — Clarifies Definition of Parts Under Customs Tariff Act.