What was the core issue in Shama Rao?

Whether the April 1966 notification applying the Madras General Sales Tax Act to Pondicherry involved excessive delegation to the executive.

What is meant by 'excessive delegation'?

When the legislature gives away its essential law-making job to the executive without clear limits, guidance, or checks.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The notification suffered from excessive delegation and was void ab initio; such a still-born law cannot operate.

Why is this case important for students?

It clarifies limits on delegated legislation and warns against adopting another law by open-ended reference or executive choice.

Did the dealer’s right depend on tax policy merits?

No. The outcome turned on constitutional limits on delegation, not on whether sales tax was good or bad policy.

Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry

Easy English classroom explainer of the 1967 Supreme Court ruling on excessive delegation in a sales tax notification for Pondicherry.

Supreme Court of India 1967 AIR 1967 SC 1480 Constitutional Law Bench of 5 6 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · Published: October 23, 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: excessive delegation, void ab initio, sales tax SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Pondicherry legislature, adoption by reference, AIR 1967 SC 1480

Quick Summary

Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry (AIR 1967 SC 1480) tests the limits of delegated legislation. The Government tried to apply the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to Pondicherry through a notification. The Supreme Court said this was excessive delegation. The notification was a void ab initio or “still-born” law.

Issues

Did the April 1966 notification applying the Madras GST Act to Pondicherry amount to excessive delegation?
Could the executive choose and apply another State’s law (original or amended) by notification rather than by a proper Pondicherry statute?

Rules

Essential legislative function (policy, principle, and standard) cannot be handed over to the executive.
If a law or notification confers excessive delegation, it is void ab initio (“still-born law”).
Adopting another statute by open-ended reference or leaving core choices to the executive is unconstitutional.

Facts (Timeline)

1962: Pondicherry administration shifts from French to Indian control.

1963: Parliament creates a legislature for Pondicherry.

1965: Pondicherry Legislature passes its General Sales Tax Act; Presidential assent in May; published in June.

April 1966: Central notification seeks to apply the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to Pondicherry.

Dealer’s Notice: Shama Rao, a liquor dealer, is asked to register under the 1966 regime; he challenges the notification for excessive delegation.

Arguments

Appellant: Shama Rao

Notification lets the executive pick and apply another State’s law — an abdication by the legislature.
Open-ended adoption (original or amended versions) is excessive delegation.
Tax liabilities must rest on a valid statute, not on executive choice.

Respondent: UT of Pondicherry

Adoption ensures uniform sales tax quickly after integration.
Legislature set the framework; the executive only filled in details.
No prejudice: dealers can comply like in Madras.

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court held that the April 1966 notification suffered from excessive delegation. It allowed the executive to apply another State’s law (and its changes) to Pondicherry without clear limits or fresh legislative action. Such delegation is unconstitutional. The notification was, therefore, void ab initio.

Judgment illustration for Shama Rao case

Ratio Decidendi

Legislature cannot outsource core law-making or keep it open-ended by reference to another statute’s variable content.
Delegation needs clear policy, guidance, and limits. Missing these, the measure is invalid.
A measure born from excessive delegation is a still-born law and cannot be enforced.

Why It Matters

This case is a textbook warning on delegated legislation. It protects democratic accountability by insisting that tax law be set by the legislature, not by flexible executive notifications.

Key Takeaways

Essential law-making cannot be delegated.
Adopting another Act by open reference invites invalidation.
Void ab initio: such a law never takes life.
Tax duties need a valid, clear statute.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “DELEGATE? DELI-GATE CLOSED.”

Step 1: Ask: did the legislature keep policy and limits?
Step 2: If the executive can choose or change the law source, it’s suspect.
Step 3: If core choices are delegated, the measure is void ab initio.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the 1966 notification applying Madras GST to Pondicherry an unconstitutional excessive delegation?

Rule

Core legislative functions cannot be delegated; measures with open-ended adoption are void.

Application

The notification let the executive import a changing external law without fresh legislative control. That crossed the line.

Conclusion

Excessive delegation; notification struck down as void ab initio.

Glossary

Delegated Legislation: Rules or orders made by the executive under authority of a statute.
Excessive Delegation: Delegation that transfers essential law-making power without guidance.
Void ab initio: Invalid from the very beginning; has no legal effect.
Adoption by Reference: Taking another law’s text into your law; open-ended adoption is risky.