Exercise of Power by a Regulatory Body

India– The court did not find merit in the argument that the express power of the Vice-Chancellor to regulate the work and conduct of officers of the University implies as well the power to take disciplinary action against officers. The court found that the relevant Act conferred power to appoint officers on the Executive Council and observed that it generally included the power to remove as well. Therefore, the court reiterated the settled principle that when the Act prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated. Also, the law must provide for such delegation.
Furthermore, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.
Please see the following judgments on this topic: Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan (Supreme Court of India, 1989); A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab (Supreme Court of India, 1986).

Author: Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva
Photo by John/ CC BY-NC 2.0