Difference between delegated legislation and conditional legislation

Where the Legislature lays down the principle of a particular statute and then leaves the following to the Executive or to the delegate, it will be called `Conditional Legislation'. It includes the following -

(1) The time when provision should be enforced,
(2) The period during which it is to be implemented or suspended, and
(3) The place where it should be applied.

In delegated legislation, the delegate completes the legislation by supplying the details within the limits prescribed by the statute. In case of conditional legislation, the power of the legislation is exercised by the Legislature conditionally leaving it to the discretion of the external authority, the time and manner of carrying the legislation into effect, as also the determination of the area to which it is to extend.

In "State of T.N. v. K. Sabanayagam" AIR 1998 SC 344 it was observed that in the case of conditional legislation, the legislation is complete in itself but its operation is made to depend on fulfilment of certain conditions and what is delegated to an outside authority, is the power to determine according to its own judgment whether or not those conditions are fulfilled. In case of delegated legislation proper, some portion of the legislative power of the Legislature is delegated to the outside authority in that, the Legislature, though competent to perform both the essential and ancillary legislative functions, performs only the former and parts with the latter, i.e., the ancillary function of laying down details in favor of another for executing the policy of the statute enacted. The distinction between the two exists in this that whereas conditional legislation contains no element of delegation of legislative power and is, therefore, not open to attack on the ground of excessive delegation, delegated legislation does confer some legislative power on some outside authority and is therefore open to attack on the ground of excessive delegation.

In "Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India" AIR 1960 SC 554 it was observed that the distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is this, that in the former the delegate's power of that of determining when a legislative declared rule of conduct shall become effective, and the latter involves delegation of rule making power which constitutionally may be exercised by the administrative agent. This means that the legislature having laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation can then leave the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. In other words by delegated legislation the delegate completes the legislation by supplying details within the limits prescribed by the statute and in the case of conditional legislation the power of legislation is exercised by the legislature conditionally leaving to the discretion of an external authority the time and manner of carrying its legislation into effect as also the determination of the area to which it is to extend.

Thus when the delegate is given the power of making rules and regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and sub serve the purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the statute are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed, it is an exercise of delegated legislation. But when the legislation is complete in itself and the legislature has itself made the law and the only function left to the delegate is to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect, it is conditional legislation.