MAXIMS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Sub Delegation - When a statute confers some legislative powers on an executive

authority and the latter further delegates those powers to another subordinate author or
agency, it is called sub delegation.
The necessity of sub-delegation is sought to be supported, inter alia, on the following
grounds:
 Power of delegation necessarily carries with it power of further delegation;
and
 Sub-delegation is ancillary to delegated legislation; and any objection to the
said process is likely to subvert the authority which the legislature delegates to
the executive.
 Sub-delegation of legislative power can be permitted either when such power
is expressly conferred by the statute or may be inferred by necessary
implication.

EXPRESS POWER
Where a statute itself authorizes an administrative authority to sub-delegate its
powers, no difficulty arises as to its validity since such sub-delegation is within the
terms of the statute itself.
Ganpati Singhji v. State of Ajmer, the parent Act empowered the Chief
Commissioner to make rules for the establishment of proper system of conservancy
and sanitation at fairs. The rules made by the Chief Commissioner, however,
empowered the District Magistrate to devise his own system and see that it was
observed. The Supreme Court declared the rules ultra vires as the parent Act
conferred the power on the Chief Commissioner and not on the
District Magistrate and, therefore, the action of the Chief Commissioner sub-
delegating that power to the District Magistrate were invalid. Sometimes, a statute
permits sub-delegation to authorities or officers not below a particular rank or in a
particular manner only. 1955 AIR 188, 1955 SCR (1)1065

IMPLIED POWER
Griffith rightly states, “if the statute is so widely phrased that two or more tiers” of
sub-delegation are necessary to reduce it to specialized rules on which action can be
based, and then it may be that the courts will imply the power to make the necessary
sub-delegated legislation.”

SUB-DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE POWER

The maxim delegatus non potest delegare (a delegate cannot further delegate) applies
to legislation also and it is not possible for the delegate to sub-delegate the power
conferred on him unless the parent Act authorises him to do so either expressly or by
necessary implication.
If the parent Act permits sub-delegation to officers or authorities not below a
particular rank, then the power can be delegated only to those officers or authorities.
Sub delegate cannot act beyond the power conferred on him by the delegate.
If some conditions are imposed by the delegate who must be complied with by the
sub-delegate before the exercise of power, those conditions must be fulfilled;
otherwise exercise of power will be ultra vires.

SUB-DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER

It is well-established that a judicial or quasi-judicial power conferred on a particular

authority by a statute must be exercised by that authority and cannot be delegated to
anyone unless such delegation is authorised by the statute either expressly or by
necessary implication.
Mahajan, in the leading case of Delhi Laws Act, 1912 in re, lay down correct law on
the point, wherein his Lordship stated:
“No public functionary can himself perform all the duties he is privileged to perform,
unaided by agents and delegates, but from this circumstance it does not follow that he
can delegate the exercise of his judgment and discretion to others. The judges are not
allowed to surrender their judgment to others. It is they and they alone who are trusted
with the decision of a case.

SUB-DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE POWER

Exclusion of judicial review:
The rule of law has always recognised power of judiciary to review legislative and
quasi-legislative acts. The validity of a delegated legislation can be challenged in a
court of law. As early as 1877 in Empress v. Burah, the High Court of Calcutta High
Court was reversed by the Privy
Council, neither before the High Court nor before the Privy Council it was even
contended that the court had no power of judicial review and, therefore, cannot decide
the validity of the legislation.
There are serious difficulties about publication of sub-delegated legislation.
Such legislation, not being an Act of Legislature, there is no general statutory
requirement of publicity. Though casually made by a minor official, sub delegation
creates a rule and sets up a standard of a conduct for all to whom the rule applies. No
individual can ignore the rule with impunity. But at the same time the general public
must have access to the law and they should be given an opportunity to know the law.
In case of such delegated and sub delegated legislation, proper publication is lacking.

Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant

Laws are made to regulate the activities of daily life in a way so that no wrong takes
place. However, sometimes a special law is required for a specific set of problems
arising in a special area of law.

Law is a diverse field. There are different branches of law such as tax law, labour law,
employment law, technology law etc.

Why are these laws in place?

These laws are in place today because a need was realised to form laws, especially for
a field. But even these bring problems of their own. In some cases, a party may
benefit from a general law provision but suffer from a special law provision and vice-
versa. That is where this maxim comes in.

Generalis specialibus non derogant is a Latin maxim. It is a maxim used for statutory
interpretation.
  Generalis stands from general;
 Specialibus stands for special.

When interpreted, it means that general laws do not prevail over special laws or, the
general does not detract from specifics.

Justice Griffith said in R v Greenwood,

“The maxim generalis specialibus non derogant means that, for the purposes of
interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a general statute
must yield to those of a special one.”

When a law is questioned before the courts, the courts assume that the legislature
enacted the law (under discussion) keeping in mind the welfare of society at heart.
Thus, repealing a law is not favoured and is done only under exceptional
circumstances. In case of conflict of interpretation of statutes, this maxim is applied.

This can be seen in Rogers v United State

“As a corollary from the doctrine that implied repeals are not favoured, it has come
to be an established rule in the construction of statutes that a subsequent act, treating
a subject in general terms and not expressly contradicting the provisions of a prior
special statute,  is not to be considered as intended to affect the more particular and
specific provisions of the earlier act, unless it is absolutely necessary so to construe
it in order to give its words any meaning at all….”

The provisions of the special rule are preferred over general rule as they are meant to
address that subject in greater detail. This may manifest as exceptions to the general
rule as seen in:

Lalonde v Sun Life,  Justice Gonthier had used these words in his opinion:

“The principle is, therefore, that where there are provisions in a special Act and in a
general Act on the same subject which are inconsistent, if the special Act gives a
complete rule on the subject, the expression of the rule acts as an exception to the
subject-matter of the rule from the general Act.”
How is this Maxim important?

This maxim has been widely used in cases, where there is a conflict between general
and special provisions of an act or different acts. It has helped our judiciary in the
interpretation of statutes.

During interpretation of statutes when we are looking for context and purpose we use:

 Noscitur a sociis;
 Ejusdem Generis;
 Generalis Specialibus non derogant.

Using this maxim along with other interpretation tools provides a better understanding
of various statutes thus aiding in implementing the law in a better fashion and
preventing repeal.

Situations when Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant is used

This maxim is used in the interpretation of statutes. To decide which statute is valid in
which case, there should be a conflict between an earlier and a later statute. Examples
of this can be seen further in this assignment under the topic: Case Law.

There could be a question on the scope of the law in question. What is the scope of a
special law and what is the scope of general law with respect to the problem?

Example: Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I

There are 2 acts that provide for impounding of passports:

 Criminal Procedure Code;

 Passports Act.

In this case, the petitioner lost access to his license as the result of the procedures of a
case in which he was the accused. His passport was seized by C.B.I., thus, he couldn’t
travel.
In this case, there was a conflict between section 104 of CrPC and section 10(3) of the
Passport Act.

The court decided that:

Since impounding of passports are governed by special legislation namely the

passports act, normal CrPC provisions concerning impounding shall not be attracted,
the courts or the police can at best seize a passport, but for impounding (which is far
more enduring and continuous possession) passport authority would have to be
approached– and the authority can take a decision on whether it would be impounded
or not.

In this case, the scope of the law under CrPC was defined by saying that the courts or
the police cannot impound but can only seize a passport. As impounding a passport
has far-reaching and permanent consequences, special law provisions will prevail to
provide a better remedy to the petitioner.

Following are the case laws where this maxim was applied:

1. Azad Transport Co. v. State of Bihar (2016)

Tax is a specialized field. VAT is a special provision and rules in CrPC are considered
to be of a general nature. The government made law with respect to a particular field
thus, the specific law gains superiority over general laws.

2. State of Gujarat v. Patel Ranji bhai

Conflict arose with respect to section 33(6) and section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax
Act, 1959. It was decided that with respect to unregistered dealers 33(6) will prevail
over 35 as it was considered a special provision and dealt with their interests in a
better manner.