Harishankar Bangla v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Core point: The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 set clear policy to control vital goods. Because policy and limits were stated, delegation to make control orders was valid. The Court upheld Sections 3, 4, and 6.

Result: No breach of Article 19(1)(g) was shown on the facts. Section 6 does not repeal older laws; it only makes the control order prevail on inconsistency. Prosecution could continue.

1. Did Sections 3 and 4 and the Cotton Cloth Control Order violate Article 19(1)(g)?
2. Were Sections 3 and 4 invalid for excessive delegation?
3. Since Section 6 was attacked, was Section 3 inextricably linked and also invalid?
4. Did the Control Order clash with the Railways Act and therefore fail?

• Essential legislative function: Choose policy and make binding rules; details may be delegated with guidance and checks.
• Separation of powers (practical): Strict separation is not possible; controlled delegation helps administration act swiftly and fairly.
• Section 6 effect: Does not repeal earlier laws; it prefers control orders only where there is repugnancy.

• Sections 3, 4, 6 upheld: The Act declared legislative policy and standards; no excessive delegation.
• Section 6 clarified: It does not abrogate earlier laws; it lets control orders prevail where inconsistent—HC’s reading was incorrect.
• Control Order valid: No fatal conflict with the Railways Act; prosecution could proceed.

Policy + limits = valid delegation. Once the legislature declares aims and sets boundaries, detailed controls by executive orders are permissible. Section 6 works as a priority rule, not a repeal tool.

• Explains how much the legislature can delegate in economic emergencies.
• Shows courts respect clear policy frameworks in control statutes.
• Clarifies how priority clauses operate with older laws.

• Delegation is valid when policy & guidance exist.
• Section 6 is a consistency switch, not repeal machinery.
• Control Orders can restrict trade if reasonable & guided.

Mnemonic: “POLICY FIRST, DETAILS LATER”

1. State the Policy: Legislature sets aims & limits.
2. Delegate Details: Executive frames control orders.
3. Resolve Clashes: Section 6 gives priority on inconsistency.

Issue: Do Sections 3, 4, and related Control Orders unlawfully restrict trade and delegate too much?

Rule: Essential function = policy choice + binding rule; details may be delegated with guidance. Section 6 is a priority clause.

Application: The Act spelled out policy and limits; Control Order aligned with that policy; Section 6 only handled inconsistencies.

Conclusion: Provisions upheld; prosecution to proceed.

Essential Supplies Act

A wartime/transition statute to ensure steady supply and fair distribution of key goods.

Excessive Delegation

When the legislature gives away its core policy-making role without limits or guidance.

Priority / Repugnancy

When two rules clash, one is preferred; Section 6 makes control orders prevail where inconsistent.